Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The investigation of complaints against the police in Scotland

2. Whose Responsibility?

2.1 The current law gives responsibility for the police complaints process to a number of bodies. They are police authorities, the Crown, the police and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. Each will now be considered in turn.

The police authority

2.2 Re-organisation of local government in 1996 brought a number of important changes for the police service. In particular the system of local accountability was affected by the introduction of police authorities and joint police authorities. In combined police areas where the police force covers more than one local government area, the functions of the police authorities within the combined area are exercised by a joint police authority. Two police force areas were unaffected by the changes, and are controlled by unitary police authorities.

2.3 Responsibility for the police forces in Scotland is currently shared in a tripartite arrangement between:

• The Police Authority
• The Chief Constable
• Scottish Ministers

2.4 Police authorities have statutory responsibilities, clearly defined within a legal framework provided by the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 as amended. These are:

• Setting the budget for the force in order to provide the chief constable with the resources necessary to police the area efficiently and effectively;
• Appointing officers in the ranks of chief constable and assistant chief constable, subject to the consent of Scottish Ministers, and to set the terms of those appointments;
• Keeping themselves informed of the manner in which the chief constable deals with complaints against police officers;
• Dealing with complaints against chief officers.

Complaints against chief officers

2.5 The present law relating to complaints against officers of the rank of chief constable and assistant chief constable is set out in the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officer) (Scotland) Regulations 1999. The regulations address the specific issues of alleged misconduct and alleged criminal action by such officers. In relation to misconduct the regulations apply to:

a) misconduct on the part of a chief constable or assistant chief constable;

b) any report, allegation or complaint from which the police authority considers that it may reasonably be inferred that an act or omission of a senior officer amounts, or may amount, to misconduct;

c) circumstances where a chief officer has been convicted in a court of law of a criminal offence.

2.6 Where a report, allegation or complaint is made from which it may reasonably be inferred that a senior officer has committed a criminal offence then the police authority is required to refer the matter to the procurator fiscal.

2.7 Allegations of misconduct which do not amount to crime are solely for the authority to consider. Where the allegations relate to events which took place before May 1999, police authorities are required to deal with the matter under the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) (Scotland) Regulations 1996. In terms of the 1996 regulations, only two options are available to police authorities when faced with an allegation of misconduct:

• appoint an investigating officer, who shall be a chief constable of another police force, or
• take no further action.

2.8 The most commonly expressed criticism of the 1996 regulations concerned the apparent inability of an authority to seek a preliminary report or assessment of an allegation prior to initiating a full investigation. In raising this issue those concerned expressed the view that to appoint a chief constable from another force to undertake an investigation involved significant cost to public funds and could give rise to a media and public perception that some major issue must inevitably be involved. The difficulties of authority members were particularly acute in cases where an allegation emerges from an untested or unreliable source and in respect of which no further information is available. In these circumstances authorities were faced with a direct choice between either deciding to take no further action or appointing a chief constable from another force to undertake a full investigation. Many saw this as a choice between extremes and there was a general view that some form of short preliminary enquiry which provided additional background information would be of value in informing the authority's decision.

2.9 In response to such criticism, the 1999 regulations introduced a preliminary investigation procedure to allow police authorities, where necessary, to obtain further particulars on receipt of an allegation to determine whether a reasonable inference of misconduct can be drawn. The Scottish Office circular 10/99 gave procedural guidance and clarification on how authorities were expected to discharge their statutory role under the 1999 regulations. The circular stated: "If the report, allegation or complaint is not sufficient in itself to allow the police authority to take that decision, the authority can take whatever steps it considers reasonable to obtain further particulars. These should, however, be limited to obtaining missing facts." However the inspection revealed that there was general uncertainty as to whether this permitted any significant form of preliminary enquiry beyond further correspondence with a complainer and the advice of officials.

2.10 Once the police authority has obtained any additional information, the allegation can be dealt with in one of four ways:

• Consider that it may be reasonably inferred that the allegation may amount to misconduct and appoint a chief constable as investigating officer;
• Take no further action on the grounds that the allegation, even if proven, would not amount to misconduct;
• Take no further action on the grounds that the misconduct alleged, even if proven, would be minor or trivial;
• Determine that the allegation is unfounded or frivolous, take no further action and, if appropriate, consider reporting the matter to the procurator fiscal on the basis of a false or malicious complaint.

2.11 In terms of the 1999 regulations, there is no obligation on the police authority to take further action in cases where it has not appointed a chief constable as investigating officer. However, circular 10/99 suggests that both the officer and complainer be informed in writing of the decision and that, where possible, an attempt be made to resolve the complainer's dissatisfaction.

2.12 In the 1998-99 annual report the Local Government Ombudsman expressed criticism of the manner in which police authorities discharge their responsibilities in regard to complaints against chief officers. In the course of the inspection, a lack of familiarity with the regulations was evident and while the guidance in circular 10/99 has been broadly welcomed, both authority members and chief officers continue to express unease with the current system.

2.13 HMIC considers it important to reiterate that any allegation which involves a potential breach of the criminal law is a matter for the procurator fiscal and there is no requirement for the authority to concern itself with the merits or otherwise of the allegation. A simple referral to the regional procurator fiscal is all that is required.

2.14 In some circumstances police authorities faced with an allegation against a chief officer may consider that independent professional advice would be of value in the course of reaching their decision. HMIC is willing to assist although some authorities take the view that the absence of any reference to HMIC in the regulations or the Scottish Office circular 10/99 precludes this course of action. This is a complex area in which the needs for integrity, transparency, the proper use of public funds and the protection of chief officers from unfounded, eccentric, or malicious complaints all intersect and sometimes conflict. Board members frequently commented on the complexity of the process and their heavy reliance on board officials. Overall HMIC found little evidence of any police authority regarding the existing regulations and guidelines in a positive light. The widespread unease with the current regulations is such that HMIC considers that at the very least further review of their effectiveness is required. HMIC therefore suggests that the Scottish Executive, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) give further consideration to the regulations dealing with complaints against chief police officers, and in particular seek to clarify the extent to which the 1999 regulations allow a preliminary enquiry prior to full consideration of a complaint or allegation.

Complaints against officers below chief officer rank

2.15 The discharge of the police authority's wider responsibilities in respect of complaints was examined in some detail during this inspection and HMIC is grateful to those authority members and officials, who took time to discuss their experiences and views. Practices varied across authorities and the lack of any clear agreement or guidelines on what was or was not good practice featured significantly in discussions. Whilst the primary legislation, now over thirty years old, and subject to amendment, makes it clear that the police authority has a responsibility, it offers no help as to how this responsibility is to be fulfilled.

2.16 At first sight police authorities should be a lynchpin of independent oversight. Democratically elected councillors with statutory powers to scrutinise the operation of a police force are uniquely placed to provide assurance that the police are not "policing themselves." During the inspection some examples of good practice were evident. Generally it was found that the process worked well when a number of councillors had specific responsibility, usually by means of a sub-committee. Whilst their examination of trends and statistics is an important role, the examination of a number of randomly selected completed files added strength to the process. The sub-committee normally carry out their work in private, later reporting in general terms at a public meeting of the full authority. However, even where the process was working well councillors tended to doubt whether they were getting to grips with the issues. In some authorities scrutiny of complaints procedures appeared to be little more than superficial.

2.17 HMIC noted a publication by one police authority giving details of the membership and role of the authority. It contains a page on the authority's role in respect of complaints against the police and offers members of the public the opportunity to make such a complaint through any member of the authority. It also contains details of investigations into allegations against the force's police officers over a three year period and the outcome of these cases. The authority's action in this respect is considered good practice.

2.18 Overall however the evidence gathered in the inspection led HMIC to conclude that, taken as a whole, police authorities exhibit a disappointingly low profile in respect of complaints against police officers. This appears to arise from a number of factors including:

• A lack of understanding among members of the nature of their statutory responsibilities;
• The absence of independent professional advice on the specific subject of complaints. In practice most advice is provided by senior police officers;
• The lack of confidence by authority members in their ability to question senior police officers on a potentially complex subject.

2.19 Although having no direct locus in respect of performance by police authorities, HMIC observe that there appears to be a need for a co-ordinated national view of how police authorities can more effectively discharge their important statutory role in respect of complaints. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), may be well placed to take the lead in this respect. It is possible that training, the provision of specialist advice, and the production of written guidelines to authority members could all play a part in strengthening the impact of local democratic accountability. However, in view of the strength of some of the comments made by authority members, HMIC has considered whether such measures would be sufficient in themselves. A significant number of authority members expressed a view that proper scrutiny of the complaints process would only be possible with active independent advice from a person with appropriate skills and an investigative background at senior level. There were some views that a form of suitable lay membership could achieve this but these views were not universally shared.

2.20 Whilst HMIC as a body has the necessary professional skills to directly advise authority members they are not presently resourced for such a task and it would appear that if police authorities are to continue to be expected to exercise independent oversight of the complaints process there is a need for a renewed examination of how this can most effectively be achieved. HMIC suggests that COSLA and the Scottish Executive jointly consider the role of police authorities in carrying out their statutory function in dealing with complaints, with a view to producing national guidance on good practice. Meanwhile authorities should review their own procedures in the light of their own experience and that of others.

2.21 In examining the statutory obligations of Police Authorities HMIC considered whether the role of the inspectorate in reviewing complaints at the request of a dissatisfied complainer could be developed in a way which would strengthen the democratic oversight provided by police authorities and enhance the overall openness of the system. Under Section 40A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 as amended, any complainer dissatisfied with the outcome of an investigation can ask the inspectorate to examine the manner in which the chief constable has dealt with the complaint. This right is described in the standard leaflet issued to persons making a complaint and annually about 40 complainers avail themselves of this opportunity. Although it is possible for the inspectorate to issue a formal legal direction to a chief constable to have a case reconsidered, the most common process is for HM Lay Inspector to review the file and for the inspectorate to come to a corporate view of the professional quality, objectivity and thoroughness of the investigation. Where it is felt that some further steps may be needed forces are usually quick to volunteer additional measures. At the end of the review process the inspectorate issues letters to the complainer and the chief constable which in effect constitute a formal judgement on the manner in which the complaint has been addressed. Most of these confirm that the investigation was thorough and fair but every year a handful offer some degree of critical comment, often around timescales, the style of correspondence and the need to address wider policy issues. The responsibilities of the inspectorate in reviewing complaints and in particular the role of HM Lay Inspector are described later in the report.

2.22 In talking to police authority members HMIC found few who were familiar with this process and there is no record of a chief constable formally placing details of an inspectorate review of a complaint before a complaints sub-committee or the authority as a whole. This position does not appear to have arisen from any intention to conceal the facts but it is rather a situation in which the inspectorate, forces and police authorities in discharging separate functions have collectively failed to spot the value of "joining up" in order to secure greater transparency and awareness. Having given consideration to the issue and discussed the way forward with chief officers and authority members, HM Inspectorate proposes in future to make police authorities aware of the final outcomes of those complaints examined by the inspectorate. This will be done by copying appropriate correspondence to the clerk to the relevant police authority. Whilst the precise manner in which these notifications are then addressed is a matter for authorities to determine, HMIC considers that minimum good practice would require that the outcome of a review of complaint by the inspectorate, be formally noted by the appropriate committee of the authority. Where details of the case permit HMIC would welcome the publication of a suitably anonymised summary that sets out basic details of the complaint and the views of HMIC. This could be achieved through the published minutes of the authority.

2.23 Finally police authorities can provide legal assistance to officers who are accused of criminal offences. This process is governed by a Scottish Office circular. Authorities are expected to provide assistance where it appears that the officer was acting in good faith. Officers who are refused support can appeal to ministers.

The Crown and the police

Maintaining the independence of criminal investigation

2.24 Under the law of Scotland the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of crime rests with "the Crown" which is independent of both the judiciary and the police. The expression "the Crown" refers to the law officers, being the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, and the procurator fiscal service in Scotland which is headed by the Crown Agent and six regional procurators fiscal. The Law Officers and Advocates Depute are collectively known as "Crown Counsel".

2.25 As a matter of law, the Lord Advocate has overall responsibility for both the investigation and the prosecution of crime in Scotland. In practice, the Lord Advocate requires the investigation of crime be carried out by procurators fiscal and the police, although the power and jurisdiction to investigate crimes independently or through others acting under instruction is retained by the Lord Advocate at all times.

2.26 It follows therefore that because many complaints against police officers amount to an allegation of crime the Crown, acting under the authority of the Lord Advocate, has a responsibility for both the investigation and any subsequent prosecution. It is normally the role of the police to gather evidence and undertake enquiries on behalf of the procurator fiscal but this should not obscure the fact that whatever the degree of delegation, in practice the fiscal retains primacy at all times.

2.27 The common law authority of the Lord Advocate to investigate and prosecute all crime is well established and has been in existence long before the creation of any police force. In addition, the relationship between the Crown and the police has also been regulated by statute. Section 17 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 requires the police to make reports to the appropriate prosecutor. Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that the Lord Advocate may, from time to time, issue instructions to a chief constable with regard to the reporting, for consideration of the question of prosecution, of offences alleged to have been committed within the area of such chief constable, and it shall be the duty of a chief constable to whom such instruction is issued to secure compliance.

2.28 Although it would not be typical in practice, it is important to note that as a matter of law it is possible for an allegation that a crime has been committed to be brought to the notice of the Crown and for all subsequent investigation and prosecution decisions to be undertaken by the Crown with minimal or even no involvement on the part of the police.

2.29 Accordingly, the Crown exercises an entirely separate and independent function from that of police forces. Where there is an allegation that a crime has been committed by a police officer, the Crown addresses its responsibilities through the six regional procurators fiscal who take direct ownership and control for directing criminal investigations.

2.30 In this context it is the primacy of the Crown in all criminal investigations which most distinguishes the Scottish system from that in England and Wales, where the Crown Prosecution Service has primacy in prosecution but has no investigative role.

2.31 During the inspection HMIC found that outwith those with a specialist involvement there was limited understanding of the independent investigative role of the Crown and it is hoped that by setting out the situation in detail HMIC may have assisted in dispelling some of the misunderstanding. The Crown and Fiscal Services annual report for 1998/99 addresses the issue with particular clarity. The report lists five key objectives of the organisation the third of which is to "investigate independently all complaints of criminal conduct by police officers". The text of the report records that "During the year 995 complaints of criminal conduct made against police officers in Scotland were reported to Regional Procurators Fiscal. Of these 76 complaints were referred to the law officers and criminal proceedings were taken in 10 cases".

2.32 HMIC examined the operation of the system in practice from a police perspective. On receipt of an allegation of criminal conduct the deputy chief constable is required to refer details to the regional procurator fiscal and ask for instructions. At this point it is possible for a fiscal to direct that no further enquiries are required or to seek further information, or immediately commence enquiries directly without any further reference to the police. However, by far the most customary response is for the fiscal to ask the deputy chief constable for a police report. This is normally achieved by the appointment of a police investigating officer who reports to the fiscal through the deputy chief constable. The fiscal service views the police report as an initial report which is then subject to direct enquiries either by the procurator fiscal in person or by agents acting on their behalf. The extent of the enquiries made by the fiscal service vary according to the nature of the case, and are subject to written guidelines issued by the Lord Advocate. The guidelines require that as a minimum the complainer should be invited to attend a precognition interview, and that in those cases which are likely to be subject of a report being presented to the Crown all main witnesses should be precognosed. (Precognition is a legal process whereby potential witnesses in a judicial matter are interviewed on behalf of a party to the case to establish their evidence prior to court proceedings.) Following this process any case in which the question of prosecution needs to be considered is referred to the Crown Office for advice. The Lord Advocate's Guidelines to regional procurators fiscal on the investigation of complaints against the police are set out in full in Appendix C to this report.

"Further investigation by my staff sometimes throws up matters which have not been raised in the police investigation. For example witnesses can tell a different story. This does not mean that there has been any deliberate cover up. It is one of the benefits of the system. Police investigations are usually very impartial and thorough but police officers who are witnesses can be less open when asked to give evidence against colleagues."

2.33 HMIC was challenged to give any example of a comparable legal system which offers a greater level of independence in the investigation of criminal complaints against police officers. HMIC found this challenge difficult to counter directly, although in Part II of this report descriptions of systems in other legal jurisdictions which have come to notice during the course of research are reproduced. As a final note on this point whilst HMIC does not profess to be expert in legal and constitutional issues, a number of senior figures have pointed out that the primacy of the Lord Advocate and the Crown in the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland is a fundamental feature of the Scottish system of government and that any change in this role would involve complex and protracted legal change beyond the devolved provisions of the Scotland Act 1998.

2.34 All this said, whatever the reality of the independent investigation of criminal allegations against police officers in Scotland, it is hard to deny that there is a significant issue of perception which needs to be addressed. This partly arises because of the use of police officers in the initial investigation which gives rise to a common view that "the police are investigating themselves". While HMIC would not endorse that opinion, there has been wide consultation on how this perception can be addressed. HMIC had valuable meetings with senior representatives of the Crown and procurator fiscal service and were provided with details of an internal review of procedures for the investigation of police complaints which was underway at the time of the inspection.

2.35 In a manner characteristic of the independence of the Crown, the review has been conducted separately from the work of HMIC. Nevertheless, there has been some fruitful sharing of ideas. It is the understanding of HMIC that some consideration has been given to the possibility of the procurator fiscal service adopting a higher profile in relation to police complaints and perhaps engaging in a more public expression of its primacy in respect of independent investigation. In discussion with chief constables, police staff associations and police authorities, HMIC has been left with the very clear view that any steps in this direction would be greatly welcomed.

2.36 As an initial step chief constables should consider the content of standard letters used by forces to inform the complainer in a criminal allegation that an investigation is in progress. It is customary for such letters to refer to the independent senior police officer appointed to investigate the complaint, but in most cases the letter does not make it clear that the allegation had been referred to the regional procurator fiscal for independent investigation and that the police investigating officer was acting under the fiscals direction. As a result HMIC recommends that chief constables review the standard letters to complainers and undertake any changes which may assist in making clear the independent investigative role of the fiscal service.

Use of external police forces

2.37 The appointment of an investigating officer in terms of the Police (Conduct)(Scotland) Regulations 1996 is a specific matter for the deputy chief constable of the force concerned. However the regulations provide for a deputy chief constable requesting an investigating officer from another police force, subject to the agreement of the chief constable of that force. This is an option which has been increasingly taken by forces where serious criminal or misconduct allegations have been made and where forces have recognised a need to establish the level of independent investigation required by the regulations. Current practice involves agreement between chief constables to provide investigation teams in turn, when requests are made. HMIC are aware of the increasing difficulties forces face in providing such teams, often at short notice and for protracted periods. The problem is not only in the significant costs associated with this type of investigation but with the loss of experienced officers at all levels from normal policing duties in their own areas of responsibility. Nevertheless, where the nature of an incident or allegation merits examination by officers from another force the use of this option can play a valuable role in maintaining external confidence in the integrity of the process.

2.38 During the course of the inspection HMIC was told that there had been cases of criminal allegations in which the procurator fiscal had asked for an investigating officer from an external force and that the request had not been met. In one case finding a suitable "volunteer" for the role had apparently been a problem. In the view of HMIC this constitutes an unacceptable erosion of the investigative primacy of the fiscal service and is indicative of the weaknesses in the somewhat loose arrangements which currently exist in respect of external investigation. HMIC is firm in the view that it is for procurators fiscal to decide who carries out investigations on their behalf and it is for police forces to meet that need. Accordingly HMIC recommends that chief constables formalise arrangements for the investigation of complaints by external forces in a way which ensures that the requirements of the fiscal service can be met on every occasion.

2.39 Whilst the circumstances in which external investigators are used is a matter for the fiscal service it may be of interest that research by HMIC has indicated that in other jurisdictions their use is customary in the following cases:

• Deaths in custody
• Fatal shootings by police officers
• Fatal road accidents involving police vehicles
• Allegations of corruption and malpractice affecting senior ranks
• The death of a serving police officer in unusual circumstances.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary

2.40 The statutory responsibilities of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for Scotland are set out in Sections 33, 40 and 40A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 as amended. These are:

• To visit and enquire into any matter concerning or relating to the operation of Scotland's police forces;
• To submit to the Scottish Ministers an annual report on Scotland's police forces; and
• To keep themselves informed how complaints made by members of the public against police officers are dealt with within Scottish forces.

2.41 The process by which forces are inspected has recently been reviewed and commencing this year each of the 8 Scottish forces will be subject to a detailed primary inspection once every 3 years. In the intervening years, HMIC will monitor the progress of the forces in response to primary inspection recommendations and there will be an Annual Performance Review of all Scottish forces. Inspectorate reports are published with written editions circulated to elected representatives, public bodies and interested parties. They are also available on the Inspectorate website at www.scotland.gov.uk/hmic. Visits to the force complaints department are an important part of the inspection process and always include scrutiny by HM Lay Inspector of Constabulary. During an inspection, procedures are discussed and files and records examined in detail. It is the practice of the Lay Inspector to pay particular regard to any allegations of racial discrimination and to examine all such investigation files in full.

2.42 As part of the new Inspection programme there will be increased emphasis on Thematic Inspections where the inspection focuses, not on one police force or organisation but on the status of a specific issue or subject within the Scottish Police Service generally. This Report is an example of that process where the inspection has examined the handling of complaints against the police in Scotland and is based on evidence gathered not only from within the entire Scottish Police service but from wide consultation involving other parties.

2.43 In addition to the scrutiny of a force's handling of complaints by HMIC at the time of a force Inspection, or as in this case, when the subject becomes the focus of a Thematic Inspection, HMIC's role in relation to complaints was heightened by new statutory powers introduced by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. Section 61 of this Act introduced new provisions in relation to the examination of the way in which complaints against the police are dealt with by police forces. These included the power for HMIC to examine, at the request of a dissatisfied complainer, the manner in which a specific complaint against the police has been dealt with. Following such examination HMIC may, where necessary, direct a chief constable to reconsider the complaint. Whilst any direction or opinion issued by the Inspectorate will be under the corporate ownership of HMIC, HM Lay Inspector has a particular responsibility for complaints.

2.44 Lay assistance to HMIC was introduced to the Scottish Police Service in 1992. This was the first such scheme in the UK. The post of HM Lay Inspector of Constabulary was created by Royal Warrant in 1993. It is filled on a 3 year contractual basis by a person with experience at a senior level in an organisation other than a police force. Vacancies are advertised and candidates are selected through a competitive process operated by the Scottish Executive. The current Lay Inspector of Constabulary is Mr Graham Harcus MA, MEd who joined the inspectorate in 1998 following a career in the education service.

2.45 In the course of this inspection and during the routine work of the inspectorate literally hundreds of investigation files are examined in detail. Whilst this is done on a corporate basis it is customary for HM Lay Inspector to take a lead in this task. Whilst the quality and timescales of some investigations varied the overwhelming weight of evidence from the inspections has supported the conclusion that formal complaint investigations are conducted with impartiality, thoroughness and integrity across all forces.

2.46 On overage around 40 dissatisfied complainers annually exercise their right to ask the inspectorate to review their complaints. When this happens staff at the inspectorate first seek to establish that the force concerned has completed its investigations and has communicated its final position to the complainer. Once this has been done the file is passed to the HM Lay Inspector for review. The Lay Inspector prepares a written report for the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and after discussion of any outstanding issues the Chief Inspector of Constabulary writes to the complainer and the force setting out the corporate view of the inspectorate. In most cases the review has confirmed that the investigation was thorough and fair. In some cases the inspectorate is critical of the manner in which the force has addressed the complaint and has directed a force to take additional measures.

2.47 In Part I Paragraphs 10.15-10.19 of this report, HMIC gives a brief analysis of the kind of issues which sometimes give rise to inspectorate criticism. The locus of HMIC is of course confined to the performance of police forces in respect of these matters investigated by the police. The inspectorate has no locus in respect of criminal allegations which are investigated by the fiscal service and the Crown. Whilst this preserves the independence of the Crown in the investigation of criminal allegations against police officers it can lead to a perception of an uneven balance in the kind of comment which HMIC is able to make. For example, if a dissatisfied complainer requests a review of a case in which it is alleged that they were assaulted in the rear of a van by police officers and later denied a vegetarian meal whilst in custody, HMIC would take steps to establish that the allegation of assault was referred to the fiscal service for investigation and that the force had acted on the fiscal's instructions. If this was confirmed then HMIC would have no further locus in respect of the assault allegation but would be free to comment at length on the issue of the vegetarian meal.

2.48 Whilst this fully discharges the inspectorate's statutory function there are indications that some complainers, not surprisingly, perceive the comments and available feedback to be focussed on matters peripheral to the main allegations. HMIC recognises the difficulties which the fiscal service would face in providing feedback to complainers, particularly in cases where witness credibility was a determining factor. HMIC has no locus beyond the police service and has no further comment to make on this issue other than to observe that the existence of the inspectorate's complaint review powers often raises expectations in relation to feedback on criminal allegations which cannot be met, nor is HMIC able to advise complainers as to how any continuing grievances on these matters may be addressed.

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.

For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.

Making It Work Together