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

4. On the Receiving End

Police officers and others who are subject of complaint

4.1 In this section of the report HMIC considers the situation of some of those who have been, or might yet be, subject of a complaint, and in particular how forces seek to achieve the delicate balance between the need to maintain professional standards and the rights and welfare of police personnel. However, in order to provide a balanced picture it is appropriate to record some of the evidence of the positive views of the service which are daily brought to the attention of senior managers.

Letters of appreciation

4.2 In any report about complaints against the police there is inevitably a focus on alleged wrongdoing, and much discussion of criminal acts and misconduct on the part of police officers. HMIC would wish, at this stage to emphasise the relatively small number of such allegations which are received each year and to balance this with the amount of good work carried out by police officers across Scotland in the course of their daily duties. Just as not all people who might have a grievance against a police officer make a complaint, not everyone who is pleased with the service they receive, write a letter of thanks. Again, in the same way that all complaints do not find their way into the official statistics, many officers and divisions receiving letters of thanks do not forward these to headquarters for central collation. Accordingly the figures below need to be considered with the same qualification as complaints statistics, in that they are unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the true level of public appreciation expressed. In 1998/99 however the number of letters of appreciation received by forces is as shown in Table 1 below. HMIC suggests that forces maintain statistical records of letters of appreciation received, as an indicator of the good and in some cases, exemplary service provided by their officers and other staff.

Table 1: Letters of Appreciation 1998/99

4.3 Although not all forces collate this figure centrally some publish excerpts from letters of appreciation in their annual report. The following are typical of those regularly received by forces across Scotland.

Fair to ourselves?

Misconduct hearings

4.4 Throughout Scotland HMIC found a wide range of interpretations of what does and does not constitute misconduct or what may merit a formal hearing. In some cases HMIC was told that only the most "serious" cases would merit a hearing but definitions of "serious" were not offered. The issues of motoring convictions and unpaid debt may serve to illustrate how interpretations can differ. In some cases police officers who are convicted in the courts of motoring offences are often required to appear before a misconduct hearing where a further fine is imposed. One recent example is illustrated in a case study accompanying this Section. In other forces such an approach is rare and only where there are aggravating factors such as alcohol, wilful conduct, or obstruction of the investigating officers, would any disciplinary measures be taken.

4.5 Differences in approach in respect of officers who fall into difficulties with outstanding debt were even more apparent. In some forces the accumulation of severe debt is interpreted as "discreditable conduct" and officers are placed before a misconduct hearing. In rare cases the accumulation of debt has been punished with a financial penalty. Whilst this may reinforce the ethnical values of the forces concerned and serve as a warning to others, it contrasts starkly with the approach generally taken in which debt is seen as a welfare issue and debt management packages are available to assist those in difficulty.

Striking the balance

4.6 HMIC considers that it is now timely to attempt to achieve greater consistency across the service on misconduct issues. Whilst precise definition may be difficult there may be scope for setting criteria based on attitude and wilfulness rather than outcomes. For example it could be argued that formal misconduct hearings are appropriate for behaviour which is wilful, calculated, persistent, undertaken for personal gain, constitutes an abuse of trust, breaches a fundamental ethical principle or where there is serious neglect of supervisory or managerial responsibility. It may not be appropriate where things have gone wrong due to human error, inexperience, misplaced good intention or bad luck. HMIC does not wish to be prescriptive on this issue but recommends that chief constables agree broad criteria of principle governing matters which merit different degrees of disciplinary action and that these be published as part of the code of practice referred to at recommendation 6.

Regulation warnings

4.7 HMIC also encountered considerable uncertainty and ambiguity on the status and use of disciplinary warnings. These warnings are usually administered in cases where, after enquiry, it is considered that an officer is at fault but the circumstances do not merit a formal hearing. The inspection revealed that such warnings are administered for matters as diverse as failing to submit reports, breach of procedures, conviction for traffic offences, being found drunk and obtaining poor marks in a promotion examination. Some forces incorporate these warnings in an officer's personal record in order that they can inform future career development decisions while other forces consider such action to be improper, apparently on the basis that regulation 14 of the Police (Scotland) Regulations 1976 prohibits such recording. In addition, most forces consider that any future misconduct hearing should not be told of previous warnings, again founding on the 1976 regulations. HMIC finds this position difficult to reconcile with the 1996 regulations which stipulate that warnings administered in terms of the regulations should be recorded. While regulation 14 of the Police (Scotland) Regulations 1976 would appear to mandate the basic elements that shall be included in a constable's personal record it does not provide that no other information may be retained. Moreover, sub-section 14(2)(h) of the 1976 regulations requires a record of service be maintained and goes on to illustrate subjects to be included, again without stipulating that such information is exhaustive. HMIC is of the view that the 1976 regulations do not prohibit recording warnings administered under the 1996 regulations on an individual officer's personal record. However, HMIC is aware of contrary opinions, which were expressed with vigour in the course of the inspection. The wide variations in both opinion and practice associated with this issue cannot be in the best interests of the public or the service and HMIC suggests that chief constables develop common procedures in respect of how disciplinary warnings are administered and the use to which they may be put on a future occasion. It would be prudent for a common procedure to be developed on the basis of sound legal advice.

4.8 Under the current regulations there are 3 types of disciplinary warning:

• Where there is evidence of minor or trivial misconduct by an officer, the regulations remove the need for an investigation and permit the issue of a warning.
• Where the matter merits reporting to the deputy chief constable that officer can instruct that a warning be given without recourse to a full investigation.
• Where after full investigation the deputy chief constable is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of minor misconduct, a warning can be issued rather than requiring the officer to appear before a misconduct hearing.

4.9 HMIC would wish warnings to have a more robust status ideally supported by specific action such as, training or mentoring, and they should be fully considered should any further breach occur. If this is achieved, it is possible that formal warnings, associated with specific requirements as to future conduct, could diminish the need for costly time-consuming and potentially stressful hearings in those cases which did not merit severe sanction.

Suspension

4.10 Suspension from duty is a measure taken, to a varying extent, by all police forces when it is felt necessary to totally remove an officer from the organisation whilst allegations are considered. HMIC found abundant evidence that suspension was a traumatic experience for the officers concerned. It is an area in which the needs of the organisations, the public interest, and the welfare of the officer, present a number of sometimes conflicting demands which need to be carefully balanced. HMIC is not convinced that this balance is always achieved.

4.11 Suspension of a chief police officer requires the approval of Scottish Ministers. A police authority may decide that a chief officer ought to be suspended if it has received a report, allegation or complaint from which it appears that the officer may have committed a disciplinary or criminal offence. Similar conditions apply in the case of other ranks. An officer may not be suspended unless such action is necessary for the effective investigation of the allegation and/or suspension is deemed to be in the public interest.

4.12 HMIC found that there was little consistency across Scotland on the grounds which would merit suspension and there were significant differences in the information and support available to officers. HMIC considers that this is an area which merits attention and accordingly recommends that criteria for suspension and the support available to suspended officers be included in a national code of practice referred to at recommendation 6.

4.13 The following good practice points were established during the inspection:

• Written statements of criteria for suspension.
• The use of alternatives to suspension such as non-operational or administrative duties at a place separate from the issue under examination.
• Written guidelines to suspended officers and their managers.
• Inclusion in the guidelines of clear and encouraging descriptions of the support available to officers, their rights and their obligations.
• Automatic notification to the force welfare officer.
• Automatic notification to the officers staff association representative.
• Appointment of a force liaison officer.
• Regular updates to the officer on the progress of the case.

4.14 There have been some disturbing cases in which officers have been cleared of serious allegations only to emerge from a period of suspension psychologically damaged, embittered towards the organisation, and unable to return to their previous levels of performance. HMIC hopes that a more consistent and open approach to the use of suspension, combined with the more rapid resolution of appropriate cases highlighted in Part 1 Paragraph 3.27 will reduce the often negative impact of suspension upon individuals and their value to the organisation.

Role of the Scottish Police Federation

4.15 HMIC is grateful to the members and officials of Scotland's largest police staff association, the Scottish Police Federation, who participated in the formal consultation process and contributed views based on their own experiences throughout the inspection. Whilst supportive of the current system in most respects, the Federation demonstrated a willingness to discuss its strengths and weaknesses in an objective and helpful manner and made an important contribution to the inspection.

4.16 Federation officials in each force play an important role in the complaints process by providing officers who are the subject of allegations with advice and support and where criminal proceedings are taken, they assist with arrangements for the provision of legal assistance for the officer. At misconduct hearings it is normal practice for the officer appearing before the hearing to be represented by a Federation official, many of whom have built up considerable expertise in relation to the conduct regulations and also those governing the appeals process.

4.17 The Federation also undertakes an important role in providing support to suspended officers. Notwithstanding the appointment by most forces of liaison officers from within the suspended officer's working environment, the additional contact and support given by Federation officers was said by officers with experience of suspension to have been important to them. Some had received better support than others from their local Federation but generally the feedback on the assistance provided was very positive. The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS) provides similar support and advice in respect of its own members.

4.18 On the subject of representation at hearings comments were sometimes mixed. Whilst many officers were supportive of the federation role there were a minority who questioned whether a junior ranking officer was well placed to offer robust challenge to allegations brought by a deputy chief constable. Federation representatives are alert to this issue and intend to consider whether anything further needs to be done to address such perceptions.

< 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