 |
 |
| HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
|
|
|||
| > What We Do > Police > HMIC |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
10.1 In this part of the report HMIC considers how the police service and the wider community can learn from complaints, and how the knowledge gained may be made available to those responsible for policing and professional standards.
Complainer surveys
10.2 In the course of the inspection HMIC has endeavoured to establish a picture of how the complaints system is viewed by those in society who actually make a complaint against the police. While HMIC is not resourced to conduct a widespread survey of complainers, some use has been made of existing work carried out by others and from HMIC's own experience in addressing the needs of those complainers who seek a formal review of the manner in which a complaint has been handled. Additionally, the appellant role of HMIC within the existing complaints system also rendered it inappropriate to make direct contact with complainers who may yet to seek to refer their own complaint for inspectorate review. However, some useful information can be drawn from existing literature and is worthy of consideration in this report.
Scottish Human Rights Centre
10.3 HMIC benefited from valuable consultation with the Scottish Human Rights Centre (SHRC) during the inspection and was provided with details of a complainers survey carried out by the organisation in early 1999. It is acknowledged by SHRC that the survey was not definitive or exhaustive but it did manage to identify the flavour of the types of issues uppermost in some complainer's minds.
10.4 In the early part of 1999, the Scottish Human Rights Centre contacted around 50 individuals who had made initial enquiries with them regarding a police complaint. Of the 50 contacted, 21 replies were received. Some key findings from the respondents were as follows:
10.5 The survey also considered the reasons for making a complaint against the police. While individual motivation may be a particularly complex factor to analyse, it is interesting that the reasons complainers gave for making a complaint were in the main directed towards police practices or systems rather than some retributive desire for action against a particular officer. The following chart (figure 3) indicates the reasons given by complainers surveyed for making a complaint against the police, and reflects the fact that very often more than one reason was given by a respondent.
Reasons For Making A Complaint Against The Police
Figure 3
10.6 It was commented by Scottish Human Rights Centre that the survey identified that the high level of dissatisfaction with feedback to complainers reflected the need for any effective complaints system to be "user friendly". In illustrating this point further, a number of case studies were presented to HMIC. Two are reproduced here:
|
SHRC Case Study No. 1 Not taking complaints seriously A woman had been in correspondence with the force for a number of years regarding an issue about which she wished to make a complaint. While her initial letter had been regarded as lacking in detail a further more detailed letter submitted by her was never acknowledged by the force. She contacted SHRC as, according to the complainer, despite writing repeatedly with her complaint she has never received any contact from the police. |
|
SHRC Case Study No. 2 Persistence Required A complainer was engaged in correspondence with a force over a 5 year period regarding the manner in which a crime, where the complainer was a victim, had been investigated. At the end of this 5 year period, the complainer did receive a letter from the force apologising confirming the complaint was justified. However, the complainer was not provided with any information regarding what action if any had been taken against the officers involved. |
10.7 The Scottish Human Rights Centre submitted a document to HMIC entitled "The Need for an Independent Complaints Body". It states:
|
"As long as there is an appearance that justice is not being done there will be grounds for criticising the procedures. The Scottish Human Rights Centre has repeatedly called for a system which is open, transparent and accessible to the public." |
10.8 HMIC agrees with the view that an effective complaints system must be open, transparent and accessible to the public. In seeking to achieve these goals HMIC considers that greater knowledge, consistency and effectiveness of existing arrangements would assist significantly in achieving this objective. The Scottish Human Rights Centre concludes that only a wholly independent police complaints body could achieve the openness, transparency and accessibility desired. In reporting this view, HMIC considers that the proposals in Part I of this report will enable significant advances to be made within the existing framework whilst longer term issues are debated.
Police force survey
10.9 In the early 1990s, one of the forces in Scotland conducted a review amongst members of the public who had made complaints against the police. The survey was carried out in 1991 and related to complaints made in 1990. In total, 41 complainers participated in the survey. In an effort to protect confidentiality and ensure complainer confidence, an officer previously unrelated to any complaints process undertook the review and thereafter reported directly to the deputy chief constable. The review was conducted anonymously, and it was underlined to complainers that it was not intended to re-examine the substantive issue in the complaint.
10.10 Some interesting findings from the experience were as follows:
10.11 Clearly the results may reflect many factors, not least of all the few number of complaints included in the survey. At the time of the inspection HMIC were told that another force was undertaking a similar exercise. HMIC considers this to be good practice and would encourage other forces to take similar steps.
Experience of HMIC
10.12 During the course of the inspection HMIC saw a number of examples of good practice of the analysis of complaint patterns being fed into management action. In a force the minutes of divisional management meetings record input by members of the complaints department which highlight areas of potential improvement. A number of forces are developing computerised systems which will allow more detailed analysis and the rapid recognition of emerging trends. Whilst these trends are encouraging HMIC nevertheless feels that there is scope for more progress in this area.
10.13 The issue of officers who are subject of persistent but unsubstantiated complaints is a difficult one in that police officers, like all citizens, are entitled to be seen as innocent until proven guilty. However a persistent pattern of allegations is undoubtedly a matter of legitimate management interest. Some forces have a system of case conferences triggered when more than a set number of complaints are made over a specific period. It is usual for such a conference to discuss the training needs of the officer, any behavioural issues and the role of supervision and management. HMIC suggests that all forces have in place some form of structured system for addressing the issues presented by officers who are persistently subject of complaint.
10.14 The 40 or so complaints which are referred to HMIC each year by dissatisfied complainers represent only a small fraction of the total number of complaints made to forces and do not provide a sufficient basis for any detailed statistical analysis. However a number of themes have emerged with sufficient consistency to be worthy of mention. These are:
Getting started
10.15 A surprisingly high number of referrals for HMIC relate not to the final outcome of complaints but to the apparent reluctance of a force to accept, register and investigate allegations from a complainer. There have been cases in which "preliminary enquiries" and "attempts to conciliate" have dragged on for months and in one or two cases for years. HMIC is also aware of cases in which the force claims that the complaint has been conciliated but the complainer denies that this has happened. Whenever the allegations are such that a formal investigation is merited HMIC will require forces to undertake that action. Often however, by the time that happens positions have become entrenched and sometimes Members of Parliament and other public figures have been drawn into an issue which was capable of quick and effective resolution at a much earlier stage. HMIC suggests that forces set and monitor tight timescales for preliminary enquiries and attempted conciliation. In order to avoid uncertainty as to whether conciliation has been achieved it should be "signed off" in a way which leaves no room for misunderstanding.
The tone of the final letter
10.16 Telling a complainer that their complaint is unsubstantiated is a task which with the best of intentions is likely to result in some dissatisfaction. However in a small number of cases the tone and content of some letters from forces are of a kind which can make a difficult situation worse. A common consequence is that further correspondence is generated to HMIC, the Scottish Executive and a range of other organisations. Perceptions can be aggravated when a complainer from an ordinary background receives a letter which is seen as brief and dismissive but a Member of Parliament enquiring on the constituent's behalf, receives a reply which is lengthy and informative. When this happens it can encourage a belief that the nature of a final letter is in some way influenced by the social standing of the complainer. HMIC suggest that letters to complainers should be comprehensive, free of jargon and where appropriate contain a brief précis of the investigating officer's report. During the inspection a number of letters were sampled. In one force they were seen as particularly good but there were also positive examples from elsewhere.
Identifying allegations that may be criminal
10.17 Where an allegation against a police officer is of a criminal nature forces are required to refer the matter to the regional procurator fiscal. Although some operate more expeditiously than others in this regard, from complainers letters expressing dissatisfaction and from evidence obtained during the inspection, HMIC has found examples of when this rule has not been applied. In particular where the allegation is of a marginally criminal nature force performance was seen to be varied. For example where the allegation is of "rough handling" or "inaccurate evidence" a judgement has to be made as to whether what is alleged falls into the category of "criminal". HMIC has not the slightest doubt that such judgements are the prerogative of the procurator fiscal and it is unacceptable for a police officer of whatever seniority to presume a marginal case to be "non criminal" in the absence of a fiscal's instruction. Cases falling into this category which have not been seen by the fiscal are likely to result in HMIC expressing criticism of the performance of the force.
Keeping to timescales
10.18 Whilst the severity of allegations and the complexity of an enquiry can, to some extent, determine how long an investigation might reasonably take, HMIC has on a number of occasions criticised forces for undue delay
Putting things right
10.19 It is not sufficient to address a complaint in the narrow context of a specific allegation. Often an investigation reveals failures in police training or guidelines. HMIC will look for evidence that a force has sought to "put things right" whether a specific allegation is substantiated or not.
Analysing the national picture
10.20 At a more strategic level HMIC also had the opportunity of discussions with a number of senior police officers on the absence of a constructive analysis of the average 1000 criminal complaints which are investigated in Scotland each year. This is in marked contrast to England and Wales where the Police Complaints Authority publishes a comprehensive annual report. Chief constables would welcome information on national trends and in particular an independent view in respect of those areas where management action might play a role in reducing the opportunities for complaint. Any such information would complement the complaint pattern analysis and management action plans which are an increasing feature of good practice at force level. The more this aspect was considered the more it was apparent to HMIC that the division of responsibility between the police, the procurator fiscal service, HMIC and government provided for a system which was robust in its independence, but which lacked total corporate analysis by any single body. HMIC see this as a weakness which diminishes transparency and effectively prevents a general political and public awareness of trends, outcomes and learning opportunities from the complaints process.
10.21 Without wishing to exceed its locus, HMIC has nevertheless considered briefly some of the candidates who could undertake such a strategic role. Among those discussed were:
Whatever might be achieved in practice, any major involvement of the police service in producing an annual analysis of complaints would be perceived as lacking in independence.
The direct involvement of the Crown in the investigation of complaints and any related prosecutions would appear to be inconsistent with adopting a public stance on overall trends, particularly in respect of matters still under investigation.
While HMIC has the expertise for this task and lay membership at senior level, its staff are also participants in the current system both through the inspection process and as a source of appeal for dissatisfied complainers. This creates a risk that HMIC would not be perceived as totally independent in its analysis. However the Police Complaints Authority in England and Wales, whose annual report HMIC earlier described as "comprehensive", is both a major participant in the complaints system and the body responsible for public reporting and analysis. If HMIC were to undertake this role in Scotland there would be some resourcing implications and possibly the need for an extension of statutory powers.
The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS), put forward a helpful submission to HMIC in the course of this inspection which argued for a "Police Complaints Monitoring Group" established under the Scottish Executive with a responsibility for monitoring trends, exemplifying best practice and producing an annual report.
Scottish universities undoubtedly have the skills to undertake research and analysis and could conceivably be engaged to undertake work on complaints against the police on behalf of government.
10.22 The above list is not intended to be exhaustive and no arrangement could succeed without access to information. This would necessitate the police, Crown Office, police authorities, HMIC and others agreeing to pool information which each at present hold separately.
10.23 Whatever arrangement, if any, is to be taken forward, HMIC is of the opinion that confidence in the police complaints system would be greatly enhanced by the production of a consolidated annual report analysing trends, offering advice on good practice and providing a focus for debate both locally and nationally. HMIC therefore recommends that the Scottish Executive liaise with the Crown to establish arrangements for the production and publication of an annual report setting out national statistics and trends in complaints against the police in Scotland, supported by objective comment on good practice and remedial action
|
Recommendation 15 HMIC recommends that the Scottish Executive liaise with the Crown to establish arrangements for the production and publication of an annual report setting out national statistics and trends in complaints against the police in Scotland, supported by objective comment on good practice and remedial action. |
Minority ethnic groups
10.24 Last year in Scotland there were 9 recorded allegations of racial discriminatory behaviour. During all inspections HMIC takes a close interest in complaints involving a racial element. No consistent theme has emerged and no matters of major concern have been brought to notice. However, 2 case studies have been included in this report in order to illustrate a continuing need for consistency in recording such complaints. The report also contains a number of separate recommendations intended to improve the accessibility of the system to minority groups. Complaints other than those which allege discriminatory behaviour can sometimes provide an indication that a particular minority group is experiencing difficulties in respect of the service provided by the police. For example if complaints of a poor response to calls for assistance were more prevalent from a minority ethnic group, that might indicate an underlying problem. Analysis of this nature can only occur if forces establish and record the ethnic origin of members of the public who make complaints other than those which are overtly racial. HMIC found that this rarely happens. This is part of a wider issue of the extent to which the Scottish police service does, or more frequently does not, record the ethnic origins of members of the public who require the services of the police. HMIC will return to this broader issue as part of a separate thematic inspection which will measure the response of the service to the recommendations from the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. Preliminary work on this inspection commenced in 1999 and the final inspection report is planned for publication later this year.
Customer expectations
10.25 In the above sections of the report HMIC has considered such evidence as is available on the expectations and experience of the customers of the police complaints system. However it has to be recognised that this is limited in scope and the wider debate could usefully be informed by more comprehensive research. HMIC therefore suggests that the Scottish Executive commission research into customer expectations and experiences in respect of the police complaints system and that the findings be used to assist in developing some of the procedures and guidelines recommended in this report. The views of minority ethnic groups would be of particular value in research of this nature.
Force performance
10.26 During the inspection HM Inspectors found that most complaints departments were setting local objectives towards achieving performance related targets, particularly for recognised timescales and the provision of management information. All forces were using computer technology to assist this process, although the technical capacity of the equipment and its overall effectiveness was found to be diverse. In one force, use is made of commercially available software developed by an English force specifically for complaints departments and adapted to suit the Scottish Regulations. The system is expensive, but provides excellent levels of management and statistical information. Another force has an in-house system which is perhaps not as robust as the earlier described model, but nevertheless offers a range of useful management information. In other forces the systems are generally adaptations of commercially available business software, or hybrid products, which provide information within the scope of their limited purpose. The use of different computer systems when taken with the previously reported differences in complaint recording practice makes benchmarking performance between forces extremely difficult. The technical difficulties should not however be regarded as insurmountable and HMIC suggest that forces work towards using the same software, to provide a common level of complaint statistics and management information essential for annual review/analysis. In the meantime forces should consider using other measuring techniques, such as peer group testing, to facilitate critical examination of performance across the entire range of issues affecting complaints against the police.
< 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.
