The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

02 THE WORK OF HMIC IN 2006-2007

This has been another busy year for us, with inspections taking place in five of the eight Scottish forces, as well as in the Scottish Police College, the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. We have also published two thematic reviews: the first, A Case Study, considered case management arrangements between police and procurators fiscal, while the second, Common Knowledge, looked at information- and intelligence-sharing. Over the year we also collaborated with other Scottish Inspectorates in joint inspection work, and continued to discharge our responsibility for examining, when requested by dissatisfied complainers, how forces dealt with specific complaints against the police.

PRIMARY INSPECTIONS 2006-2007

Until March 2007, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland conducted a programme of regular inspection, consisting of five-yearly primary inspections interspersed with two 18-month reviews.

In the preparatory stages of our primary inspections we would send out a questionnaire for the force or service to complete. The questionnaire covered all aspects of policing and organisational activity, and required a comprehensive and detailed response. Having received and analysed this response, we then carried out an options appraisal process to identify areas requiring additional scrutiny. This scrutiny would focus on issues of strategic significance, examples of good practice, approaches or performance results that may give cause for concern, and areas where we needed further evidence in order to make an accurate assessment of performance.

As part of our primary inspections we also examined, in conjunction with Audit Scotland, the financial and Best Value arrangements of forces and services. This joint scrutiny allowed both organisations to discharge our respective statutory responsibilities while minimising the overall inspection burden on the force or service. Where appropriate we have also benefited from the specialist assistance of other Scottish Inspectorates, while compliance auditors from HMIC England and Wales have routinely helped us to examine Scottish forces' use of the Police National Computer ( PNC).

Wider consultation has also been an integral feature of our work. Both prior to and during inspections we spoke with a number of statutory and voluntary bodies involved in joint work with forces. Always keen to hear the opinions of communities and to learn about their experiences of the force, we also reviewed information from public surveys where this was available, and consulted with community representatives and organisations across the force area. Our inspection teams also met with members of the Police Board or the management board, depending on the body being inspected, and consulted force representatives of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, the Scottish Police Federation and police staff unions. During the course of our inspections we additionally spoke with police support staff and officers of varying ranks and roles, both individually and in focus groups.

As well as providing an informed assessment of organisational activity, our primary inspection reports have also endeavoured to encourage continuous improvement throughout the service. Thus, in addition to highlighting examples of good practice, we have invariably made recommendations and suggestions and identified areas for review. We would then follow up what action had been taken in response to these at subsequent review inspections.

The findings of the four primary inspections carried out in 2006-07 are summarised in the following pages, while details of our new inspection process can be found in Chapter 4. Copies of all primary inspections since 1998, are available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/Police/15403/3425.

FIFE CONSTABULARY PRIMARY INSPECTION - 2006

In our primary inspection report of Fife Constabulary we remarked on the high level of service provided by the force to the people of Fife. This, we noted, has been achieved on the back of well established partnerships whose goal is to make Fife a safe and excellent place in which to live and work and to visit. We also observed the chief constable to be a strong, visible and strategic leader, who believed in service delivery through partnership and community policing and who was well supported by his senior managers.

The report also acknowledged that the previous year had been one of the most demanding in
Fife Constabulary's history, with our primary inspection following the consecutively running G8 Conference, Prince William's graduation and the Open Golf Championship. In our opinion the force rose well to these challenges while continuing to deliver an effective policing service to local people, not least because of the professionalism, commitment and enthusiasm that was apparent throughout the force.

Overall, we made 12 recommendations to the force. The following shown here may be of particular interest to the public in Fife, given that they relate directly to the day-to-day service provided by their force:

• That the force review the role of its community officers.
• That the force introduce a mobile armed response unit.
• That the force encourage the transfer of officers and staff between divisions, in order to foster a better learning environment and to allow good local practice to be exchanged and development opportunities to be enhanced.

We also indicated that we would revisit 16 other areas in the future. These include the performance of the Force Contact Centre and the impact of its programme of improvements, the impact of the new shift pattern and the development of the National Intelligence Model. In addition, we commended the force on 11 areas of good practice, three of which are listed below:

• The use of peer group review in addition to recognised review procedures for major crime enquiries.
• The secondment of an officer to work with Fife Health Board, in order to foster partnership working.
• The use of CCTV in the rear of custody vans for protecting officers and individuals in custody and assisting the collection of evidence.

GRAMPIAN POLICE PRIMARY INSPECTION - 2006

A similarly high standard of service to the people of Grampian was apparent in our primary inspection of Grampian Police. Here too, the inspection team found commitment, loyalty and a genuine sense of pride at all levels within the force. And, on speaking to representatives of partner agencies, community groups, voluntary bodies and other stakeholders, it was clear that the chief constable and his force enjoyed good external support. We further noted the strong leadership provided by the chief constable at a time of change and development in the force and acknowledged that his vision, based on service delivery through partnership and community policing, had strong support from his senior management team. We also learned of the chief constable's intention to use the primary inspection process as a means of assessing his progress since being appointed in April 2004. This positive approach to both continuous improvement and the inspection process is, in our opinion, to be welcomed and commended.

In total we made 16 recommendations to the force, of which the following four were concerned with frontline policing activity:

• That the force consider ways in which it can communicate local policing priorities more widely to communities, to promote greater understanding of local policing intentions.
• That where staff availability is directly linked to quality of service to the public, procedures are put in place to keep vacancies to a minimum.
• That arrangements are implemented for monitoring non-registered sex offenders whose behaviour gives cause for concern.
• That the force consider extending its patrol planning methodology to setting staffing levels for road policing.

We also identified 24 areas for review at the next inspection and 12 points of good practice, including the following:

• Training community wardens in line-searches of open areas, to provide assistance if required in missing person searches.
• The widespread use of video conferencing at daily tasking and co-ordinating meetings.
• The force's work in co-ordinating reviews of civil emergency and counter-terrorism plans.

DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY CONSTABULARY PRIMARY INSPECTION - 2006

The primary inspection of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary revealed a strong focus on community policing. Again we felt that the force provided a good service to the people of Dumfries and Galloway, and recognised a strong commitment to the public that was driven from the highest levels, i.e. the chief constable and his senior management team. On speaking with representatives of the council, partnership agencies, community groups, voluntary bodies and other stakeholders, the inspection team found consistent, positive support not only for the chief constable and his senior management team, but indeed for the whole force.

Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's performance against national indicators is generally very positive when compared with the Scottish average and the force's own past performance. In key areas, such as housebreaking and violent crime, the level of recorded crime had been falling. In other areas, such as drug dealing offences, the observed rise in detections was seen to reflect the positive attempts of the force to address this crime type.

We were additionally pleased to note the force's obvious commitment to continuous improvement. This was clear from the number of areas already identified for review by the force prior to our arrival, as well as those subsequently highlighted by us during the inspection. We made a total of 16 recommendations to the force, of which the following three were specifically concerned with operational policing issues:

• That the force review its procedures for allocating incidents to resources, and the process whereby attendance is monitored.
• That the force introduce a comprehensive officer safety policy.
• That the force produce an enhanced process to allow road traffic collision information to be analysed regularly, and use the results to inform how the Mobile Support group and Safety Camera Partnership resources are deployed.

We also identified 19 areas for future review, including the force's response to incidents of domestic abuse and supervisory oversight of custody matters. In addition, we found 13 areas of good practice, including the following:

• Selecting staff on the basis of skill rather than rank, where appropriate.
• Co-locating police report management staff at the office of the Procurator Fiscal.
• Identifying and supporting staff who are at psychological risk.

SCOTTISH POLICE COLLEGE PRIMARY INSPECTION - 2006

The Scottish Police College ( SPC, or the College) has been influential in developing the modern Scottish police service since it began training police staff in 1954. We acknowledge the high regard in which the College is held, not just among members of the police service in Scotland but also by partner organisations and the wider policing and justice community in the UK and beyond. This latest inspection found clear evidence, among staff and students alike, of pride, dedication and enthusiasm.

The time of our inspection was one of imminent change for the College, as it prepared for the introduction of the Scottish Police Services Authority ( SPSA) in April 2007 (see Chapter 3 for more details on this). In light of the new oversight arrangements, our 13 recommendations were predominantly directed not at the SPC, but at the SPSA, ACPOS and the Scottish Government. We are keen to see how these arrangements develop, and to this end we will be particularly interested to see what progress is made in the following recommendations:

• That ACPOS and the Scottish Executive [now Government] enter into a debate about the long-term future options for the sequence of recruiting and training.
• That the SPSA and ACPOS clarify the relationship between the police service in Scotland and nationally provided police training, to establish the role of a single 'intelligent customer'.
• That the SPSA formulate a training strategy for co-ordinating all police training in Scotland, including local training provided by forces.

Since the inspection we have continued to retain an interest in learning how ACPOS and the SPSA have tackled the 26 suggestions that we made. And, of the six areas to be reviewed, we will pay particular attention to how the SPC has dealt with shortcomings in its compliance with equality policies and their impact-assessment, given the importance of this issue for the police service in Scotland.

Of the eight points of good practice that we highlighted, we commend the College on its
past and continuing efforts to civilianise more of its posts. We also believe that the academic accreditation of police staff training shows, quite clearly, the level of professionalism in the police training environment in Scotland.

REVIEW INSPECTIONS 2006-2007

Under our previous inspection regime, as we explained at the beginning of this chapter, primary inspections were followed by two review inspections conducted at approximately 18-month intervals. The focus of these reviews was drawn from the following list of areas:

• Progress against recommendations made in the preceding primary inspection.
• Progress on suggestions identified in the preceding primary inspection.
• Progress against recommendations of recent thematic inspections.
• Areas nominated by the force or service regarding its current position and/or seen as representing significant challenges in the future.
• National developments in policing.
• Events or developments relevant to the force or service, identified through environmental scanning.
• Outcomes of the force's or service's self-assessment and internal inspection work.
• Outcomes of other external scrutiny, for example PNC Audit, HSE Inspections, Audit Scotland studies and audits and CRE reports.
• A review of performance information - leading to a risk assessment-led focus on any area seen as under-performing.

Our methodology for review inspections involved preparing an appropriate set of questions to address issues selected from the list shown above. Written responses and supplementary supporting evidence subsequently allowed for a structured, relevant and evidence-based method of examining organisational activity. In assessing a force's response to previous recommendations and suggestions, we were aware that these could often have resource implications and might require a considered and phased approach. If, as it could, a force chose not to follow or adopt an HMIC recommendation, it would set out a case for not doing so. We might in turn comment on this and that debate would be something on which the relevant police authority or board, Ministers and public could take a view.

To promote transparency and accountability, the findings of our review inspections were reported through the relevant police board or authority and made available on our website. All review inspections dating back to 1998 are available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/Police/15403/3427

STRATHCLYDE POLICE REVIEW INSPECTION - 2006

Of the 11 recommendations contained within the 2004 primary inspection report for Strathclyde Police, a total of four were fully discharged following this first review inspection. Of the 28 areas for future review, 19 require further work before we can conclude our interest.

We acknowledged the efforts of Strathclyde Police to address these matters. Following the primary inspection the force developed an action plan, allocating responsibilities to named individuals and keeping us informed through regular updates, all at a time of significant organisational change. Worthy of specific mention is the force's formation of a complaints sub-committee of the Joint Police Board, its review of the senior management team and a marked fall in retirements through ill-health.

As part of the review, we also asked the force for information about its activities in a further 11 areas of local or national interest. Its response clearly showed a strong commitment to the community planning process and to tackling anti-social behaviour, areas that will be worthy of further inspection in future. The force also provided good evidence of how it monitors community tension within the force area, as well as the steps it has taken to deal appropriately and sensitively with people with mental illness or learning difficulties.

We concluded that Strathclyde Police had responded positively to our primary inspection report of 2004. While some areas required further work, particularly its promotion policy and its shift system, we were satisfied that the force was working to address these outstanding issues.

SCOTTISH DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SECOND REVIEW - 2006

As explained in more detail in Chapter 3, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency ( SDEA, or the Agency), as with the Scottish Police College and Criminal Record Office functions, has come under the remit of the new Scottish Police Services Authority. The legislation establishing the SPSA, has also expanded the name of the SDEA to the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency ( SCDEA), to highlight its wider role in addressing all serious organised crime. Thus here too, our inspection took place at a time of imminent change for the service.

In our 2003 primary inspection of SDEA, we had made 21 recommendations. Of these, eight were directed at the SDEA itself, six at the Standing Committee of Chief Constables ( SCCC - the body which oversaw the Agency until 31 March 2007) and the remaining seven at ACPOS. The Agency subsequently set up a programme board of key stakeholders to oversee the change programme arising from these recommendations. The programme itself was managed by a strategic development unit brought together specifically for this purpose. As a result of its work, seven of the original 21 recommendations were discharged at the time of the first review. A further eight were discharged during our second review.

One of the outstanding recommendations was that the Agency seek agreement to finalise its management statement, financial memorandum and operational protocol with forces. This has in fact been partially discharged: an operational protocol has been in place since 2003. The remaining five recommendations in which we retain an interest, are as follows:

• That the Agency undertake promotional activity to explain its requirements and outline duties of staff, all towards the goal of a more representative gender balance within the organisation.
• That the Agency, using the opportunity provided by the appointment of a personnel and training adviser, put in place processes and policies that will support best use of staff, and clarify adherence to good practice in terms of equal opportunity.
• That firearms support for surveillance activity be rigorously pursued.
• That the Agency prepare an IT strategy in support of its strategic aims.
• That the Agency fully review its management of overtime and subsistence, with a view to lowering its overtime needs in the pursuit of a better work-life balance for its officers.

In our view, the SDEA and ACPOS had made positive progress in addressing the recommendations of our 2003 primary inspection. That said, the need for firearms support for surveillance activity remains a pressing one, not just for the Agency but for forces too. As such, the service as a whole should be working together to resolve the current shortfall. Further reference is made to this in Chapter 3, in the section on the Capacity and Capability Review.

There is no doubt that the Agency will continue to develop over the next few years: amongst other things, the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006, allows the SCDEA to employ police officers directly rather than relying solely on secondments from police forces. More significantly, as part of what needs to be a co-ordinated effort against organised crime in Scotland, by 2010 the SCDEA, along with offices of other law enforcement agencies such as the UK's Serious and Organised Crime Agency ( SOCA) and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs ( HMRC), will be located at a single site in Scotland in one shared purpose-built development at Gartcosh in Lanarkshire. This 'Scottish Crime Campus' will be unique in Europe and is an innovation that we will follow with great interest.

Although the majority of policing activity in Scotland needs to be locally based, locally commanded and locally accountable, we are conscious that in the 21st century there are several very important, albeit relatively small, policing responsibilities that most forces are unable to take on alone. A strong and competent national level of capability is required so that people in every part of Scotland receive the same level of professional service. Up to now, the SCDEA has shown that such an achievement is possible when it comes to tackling serious and organised crime proactively. One of the future challenges will be to build an appropriately accountable national framework that can do the same for other specialist forms of policing.

SCOTTISH CRIMINAL RECORD OFFICE REVIEW INSPECTION - 2006

As explained elsewhere in this report, since April 2007 the functions of the Scottish Criminal Record Office ( SCRO), as with the SCDEA and the Scottish Police College, have come under the remit of the new Scottish Police Services Authority. We believe that ultimately these new arrangements will bring about a change in the organisational structures supporting SCRO activities. Thus, at the time of our inspection, SCRO too was getting ready for the introduction of the SPSA. An additional complication at this time was the ongoing parliamentary examination of the working of the fingerprint service. Given the level of scrutiny involved in that work, it made little sense for us to duplicate this other than to re-visit any outstanding recommendations from our primary inspection in 2004.

In that primary inspection, we had made a total of 13 recommendations. Of these, eight were directed at SCRO, the other five at ACPOS. Following this first review inspection we were able to discharge six and two recommendations respectively. The five outstanding recommendations will be reviewed as we consider our future inspection methodology. These include our recommendations to revise the Disclosure Scotland application form, to create a national stolen property index and to draw up arrangements for hosting national computer applications. Also still to be resolved are questions concerning the ownership of data entered onto the criminal history system. A number of concerns were brought to our attention during this review inspection, as a result of which we drew up several additional recommendations for ACPOS.

Many of the 17 areas of work in progress identified by the primary inspection had, by the time of our review, become standard practice in SCRO. This included human resources and business administration support, SCRO's communications strategy and the provision of interpreter services for callers to Crimestoppers. However, six areas of work were still in the process of being implemented and we will consider these again during 2007.

Overall, we found that SCRO had responded well to our primary inspection. Good progress had also been made in dealing with the recommendations of previous thematic inspections and other local and national developments relevant to its business. Though some outstanding issues remain, we are confident that the management teams within SCRO and its parent body SPSA will be able to resolve these.

Finally, it would be wrong to report on our inspection of SCRO without making direct mention of the McKie case and the subsequent parliamentary report. Understandably much publicity has surrounded this issue over the years, and the recommendations of previous HMIC inspections have sought to bring about improvements in the fingerprint service. We are acutely aware of our duty to the public in this matter. As a result we reacted promptly to Justice 1 Committee's recommendation that we conduct an internal review of our SCRO inspections as far back as 2000, to identify any lessons for future inspection practice. The review, conducted by a former HMIC staff officer, was completed in June 2007 and is available from our website. Its recommendations will be reflected in our revised inspection methodology.

THEMATIC INSPECTIONS 2006-2007

In addition to our inspections of organisations, we also carry out thematic inspections on matters of significance to policing in Scotland. Our objective in doing so is to make recommendations that will improve policing practice in these areas. We do this by consulting widely with internal and external stakeholders to establish the state of current practice and, where appropriate, by looking further afield to organisations that are recognised for their good practice in the area. Our practice has been to revisit recommendations arising from thematic inspections during subsequent force primary and review inspections and we have, on occasion, conducted a further thematic specifically to measure progress made across the service. Previously we identified topics for thematic inspection through consultation with the police service in Scotland and the Scottish Government. More recently this consultation process has been formally structured and extended to police authority conveners, while selection decisions are based on a wider range of influences, such as known public concerns or identified risks.

Our methodology for both force/service and thematic inspections has, until now, used questionnaires (referred to as protocols) aligned with the Business Excellence Model created by the European Foundation for Quality Management ( EFQM). Evidence gathered in this way allowed us to examine key organisational functions in a structured and comprehensive way (see www.qualityscotland.co.uk/efqm.asp for further information on this model). At the start of the thematic process, protocols were distributed to forces and other relevant organisations. The responses were then reviewed and, where necessary, followed up with fieldwork visits to relevant forces, organisations or other appropriate bodies.

Thematic inspections tended to be led by the Assistant Inspector of Constabulary, assisted by Her Majesty's Lay Inspector and, where appropriate, by other specialist advisers. Additional support was provided by police officers seconded from forces. Where relevant we have also worked alongside other Inspectorates on topics of mutual interest. All thematic reports published since 1998 are available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/Police/15403/3429

A CASE STUDY: A JOINT THEMATIC INSPECTION OF CASE MANAGEMENT - 2006

The aim of this thematic inspection was to examine case management across the Scottish criminal justice system following the publication of the Bonomy, Normand and McInnes reports. We also took this opportunity to review what progress ACPOS and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS) had made in responding to the recommendations of their joint protocol drawn up in 2004. The inspection was carried out by staff from HMIC and the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland ( IPS), under the direction of the then Assistant Inspector of Constabulary, Mr Kenny McInnes. Given the potential scope of the project the team focused on a fairly narrow area of activity, namely developments affecting case management within the criminal justice system for adults.

While the inspection confirmed the strength of bilateral relationships between the police and procurators fiscal, it also found evidence of increased sharing of key management information and a substantial number of joint initiatives throughout the country. The latter included the co-location of police staff within procurator fiscal offices, to the benefit of both organisations. In some areas, joint working, e.g. involving redesign of systems and processes, has been taken forward under the broader umbrella of the relevant sheriffdom's criminal justice board.

The thematic inspection report contained 13 recommendations, one each targeted individually at ACPOS and area procurators fiscal, three aimed at Scottish forces, and the remaining eight directed at both ACPOS and COPFS. Among these recommendations we highlighted the need to review existing joint protocols and to adopt a more structured approach to performance monitoring. We proposed that the latter be made more meaningful by introducing end-to-end process targets, monitored under the auspices of criminal justice boards.

In focusing on continuous improvement it was also vital to look at training and quality assurance for preparing standard prosecution reports and statements, given recent stated cases in relation to disclosure ( i.e. the release to defence agents of evidence gathered by the prosecution). It was felt that this development placed significant and greater demands on the ability of both services to meet performance targets.

Both HMIC and the IPS are supportive of the joint work being carried out to tackle areas of concern. However, in light of more recent discussions about disclosure we take this opportunity to sound a note of caution. It is of course important that police officers try to capture the oral evidence of witnesses when first interviewed. This is particularly important for serious crimes that may be prosecuted under solemn procedure. But around one million crimes and offences are recorded by the police in Scotland every year, only a small percentage of which end up being contested in court. It therefore follows that it would be highly inefficient of the police service to obtain 'court ready' evidence from witnesses for all these crimes and offences. What is needed is greater mutual understanding, amongst all the constituent bodies of the criminal justice system, that the majority of such statements will not be 'court ready' and might best be viewed as honest efforts to capture the relevant aspects of evidence from a witness at the time the statement was obtained. The 'best evidence' must always be testimony given in the witness box: the fact that this may differ from that recorded some time previously by a police officer as a statement should not routinely be taken to imply that the witness is unreliable.

The inspection also identified a range of initiatives relating to non-reporting and abbreviated reporting by police, in addition to non-court disposals by the procurator fiscal. It was acknowledged that these options would have to be managed carefully if communities were to be assured that persistent offenders are being dealt with effectively.

In our opinion this piece of work clearly showed the benefits of a joint approach to inspection in this field. And there is undoubtedly scope for further such activity in related areas in the future.

The full report is available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/08/08132435/0

COMMON KNOWLEDGE: A THEMATIC INSPECTION OF INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE SHARING - 2007

Given the amount of intelligence and information shared by the police service in Scotland on a daily basis, this thematic review had the potential to touch on just about every aspect of policing. With this in mind, the inspection was limited to an overview of the strategic issues involved in sharing intelligence and information, and on providing direction to the service for the way ahead. Unsurprisingly given the subject of this work, the report also identified areas that might be of interest and perhaps assistance to partner agencies.

We firmly believe that intelligence- and information-sharing is one of the key ways in which individual agencies, including the police, must work together to develop and maintain effective, user-focused and inclusive partnership frameworks for providing services. Inefficient processes and procedures in intelligence- and information-sharing can have serious consequences, as highlighted by a number of reviews and inquiries over at least the last two decades.

This inspection examined the current position on intelligence- and information-sharing, both within the police service in Scotland and between the service and its principal partner agencies. And while its 14 recommendations were directed at the police service and the Scottish Executive, five of the seven suggestions are also directly relevant to principal partners. If taken on board, we believe that these could significantly enhance inter-agency arrangements for sharing intelligence and information.

The majority of our recommendations need to be addressed at a national level and seek to build on work that was in progress at the time the report was published. We are particularly keen that the Data Protection Act be seen not as inhibiting but enabling the business of sharing information. In the complex areas of child and vulnerable adult protection, we recommended that the Scottish Executive either nominate or establish a single agency with responsibility for creating a confidential registry for each area. This would enable all agencies to 'deposit' information about a child or vulnerable adult, in the knowledge that it would not be shared with another service unless its combination with information from elsewhere suggested that a child or vulnerable adult was at risk. As noted in the report we believe that there are great gains to be made by overcoming well-intentioned reluctance to share lower-level information at as early a stage as possible, while still maintaining client/patient/
victim confidentiality for the most sensitive information. Just prior to the report's publication, the Protection of Vulnerable Groups Bill was being considered by the Scottish Parliament, a key aspect of which - the 'duty to share' information about child protection - fell at Committee stage. We believe that our proposals in Common Knowledge offer an alternative solution to a problem that everyone appears to agree requires urgent resolution. We therefore take this opportunity to commend these proposal to the new Scottish Government.

Other recommendations included the need for the following: a consultation exercise on the matter of giving criminal justice partners greater access to the criminal history system while maintaining security and data quality; individual force strategies for sharing intelligence and information, containing the core elements suggested in the report; single points of contact to share sensitive information between the police and partner agencies; and, ACPOS to consult with the Scottish Executive and partner agencies to draw up a comprehensive guidance framework for public service information-sharing.

We are also keen to highlight one of our suggestions aimed at the various strategic partners, namely the establishment of common data standards through the work of the National Data Sharing Forum and local data sharing partnerships. This offers the prospect of a standardised method of gathering, storing and sharing intelligence and information for all public service providers. In a similar vein the inspection team commented on the use of the National Intelligence Model ( NIM) as a key tool for police forces in understanding and tackling crime and offending in their areas. The inspection observed that, where partner agencies such as the Scottish Prison Service ( SPS) had adopted the NIM, tangible benefits to both the police and SPS, as well as to the wider public, could be seen. Greater information- and intelligence-sharing between all public services requires a common framework and language. Since the NIM has already proved its adaptability and usefulness beyond policing in this respect, we have proposed that this model, or something similar, be extended to all relevant public services.

This thematic inspection was a difficult and complex piece of work, and we acknowledge that many of its recommendations were, by their nature, aspirational. Nevertheless, current developments in this field should create opportunities that the service, and indeed its partner agencies, must endeavour to exploit. The full report is available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/08/08132435/0

JOINT INSPECTION WORKING 2006 - 2007

As has been intimated elsewhere, we regularly work with other inspection agencies on projects of mutual interest, as and when circumstances allow. In the previous year we worked with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education ( HMIE) on our primary inspection of the Scottish Police College, and with the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland on our inspection of case management in Scotland. We also collaborated with the Social Work Inspection Agency ( SWIA) in a pilot multi-agency inspection of services for people with learning difficulties, in Ayrshire.

More regular collaboration with Audit Scotland helps us to examine how forces and police authorities meet Best Value requirements. Staff from HMIC England and Wales also helped us to review Scottish forces' use of the Police National Computer ( PNC). We have also collaborated with the Commissions for Racial Equality, Disability Rights and Equal Opportunities, each of whom provided valuable guidance in assessing force compliance with the respective duties relating to race, disability and gender equality.

However, perhaps the most high profile joint working venture is in the field of child protection, for the purpose of which two of our staff officers have been seconded to the Services for Children Unit based at HMIE. With the introduction of the Joint Inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Act 2006, the first round of child protection inspections has taken place throughout Scotland. We have noted the results of these inspection visits and they will form part of our future preparatory work for inspecting police forces and, where relevant, when conducting thematic inspections. It is our view that current liaison arrangements with HMIE are working well and we are actively working at the strategic level to develop processes for the wider inspection of children's services.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE

Our previous role in dealing with complaints against the police was set out in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, as amended. The Act gave us the authority to examine, at the request of a dissatisfied complainer, the manner in which a police force had investigated his or her complaint against a member of police staff. In carrying out this duty we were supported by Her Majesty's Lay Inspector of Constabulary.

In terms of our role in dealing with complaints up to 31 March 2007, this was restricted to examining the manner in which a complaint had been dealt with by a force. We could therefore only enquire into whether the force concerned had adhered to relevant regulations, standard procedures and reasonable timescales, and consider whether it had dealt with the complainer fairly and had thoroughly reviewed all available evidence. We did not have the authority to conduct a fresh investigation into the validity of the complaint, nor could we re-interview witnesses. Similarly, we had no role in examining the decisions taken by procurators fiscal or the courts. However we could, in appropriate circumstances, direct that a force reinvestigate or reconsider a complaint.

On 1 April 2007 the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland ( PCCS) took over this function, following enactment of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006. The PCCS web site can be found at: www.pcc-scotland.org. We continue to deal with a slowly decreasing number of cases that were referred to us before 31 March.

The 2006 Act sets out the working arrangements for the Commissioner who may, at the request of a complainer, conduct a complaint handling review to examine the manner in which a non-criminal complaint has been dealt with by a police force, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency ( SCDEA) or the Scottish Police Services Agency ( SPSA). At the conclusion of such a review the Commissioner will inform the person who made the complaint of his conclusions and the action that he proposes to take as a result. The Commissioner will also compile a report of the complaint handling review and its conclusions for the appropriate police authority. If the Commissioner believes that the matter should be reconsidered, he may direct the relevant police force, authority or agency to do so. He may also give further direction or guidance as to how such reconsideration should be carried out. This includes the authority to direct that the reconsideration be supervised by a person appointed by the Commissioner.

The new Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland will be able to respond to dissatisfied complainers in respect of all written complaints made to the police, including those concerning the quality of service, police policy or procedures. The Commissioner has no remit, however, to investigate complaints inferring criminal behaviour by a member of a police force. That continues to be the responsibility of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS), through the area procurators fiscal.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE DEALT WITH BY HMIC - 2006-2007

During the financial year 2006-2007, we were asked to consider 84 complaints. This is up on last year's total of 76. Table A shows the volume and distribution of complaints that we have been asked to consider over the past five years, including those against serving police officers, police staff and special constables.

Of the 84 new contacts made by complainers this year, we went on to review 38 complaints. The other 46 were not reviewed, either because they fell outside our statutory remit or were forwarded to the PCCS or because the complainer withdrew his or her complaint or failed to reply to correspondence from us. The outcomes of those reviewed cases concluded within the year are shown in Table B.

The table shows that in 14 (36.8%) of reviewed cases, we were satisfied that the force had dealt with the complaint appropriately and that no further action from the force was necessary. On five occasions during 2006-2007, we asked a force to reconsider its handling of a complaint and in 12 cases we made criticism of the force's complaint handling. Within this last category, the nature of our criticisms are listed in Table C. It should be noted that in some cases the force was criticised in more than one area.

TABLE A - COMPLAINTS MADE TO HMIC FROM 2002/2003 TO 2006/2007

TABLE B - OUTCOMES FROM COMPLAINTS REVIEWED BY HMIC DURING 2006/20007

TABLE C - ANALYSIS OF CRITICISMS MADE BY HMIC DURING 2006/2007

« Previous | Contents | Next »