Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

Transcription

1 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland independent and effective investigations and reviews independent and effective investigations and reviews

2 Index 1. Role of the PIRC 2. Key findings 3. Background 4. The Review 5. Conclusions Page 1

3 1. Role of PIRC Sections 34 and 35 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 ( the Act ) provide that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner ( the PIRC ) may examine the manner in which particular kinds of complaints are dealt with by Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. Through agreements with UK police bodies operating in Scotland, the PIRC may also examine the manner in which these bodies deal with complaints. The PIRC cannot review complaints of criminal behaviour against police officers or police staff, or complaints made by persons serving, or who have served with the police, about the terms and conditions of their service. In performing this review function, the PIRC obtains information from the police body which dealt with the complaint. This information is considered together with information provided by the person who made the complaint ( the applicant ). An assessment is then made as to whether in all the circumstances the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. Among the factors taken into account when making this assessment are the following: whether sufficient enquiries into the complaint have been carried out by the policing body; whether the policing body s response to the complaint is supported by all material information available; whether in dealing with the complaint the policing body has adhered to all relevant policies, procedures and legal provisions; whether the policing body s response to the complaint is adequately reasoned; and where the complaint has resulted in the policing body identifying measures necessary to improve its service, whether these measures are adequate and have been implemented. 2. Key findings The complaints in this case arose from an incident at the applicant s home on 23 October 2013 resulting in the applicant making an emergency call to Police Scotland. In August 2014, the applicant applied to Police Scotland for access to information held about her in relation to the incident. She thereafter submitted four complaints: that her emergency call had been edited; that inaccurate information had been recorded about her; that a statement she had provided was missing; and that she was treated inappropriately by officers at [Police Office X]. Of the four complaints considered, it was found that none were dealt with to a reasonable standard. Four recommendations were made in this connection. Page 2

4 3. Background The applicant and her then partner [Mr A] had arranged to hold a photoshoot at their home address on 23 October Two females were present within the address to be photographed by Mr A for an adult website. The applicant had originally agreed to participate in the photoshoot. She later changed her mind which resulted in a disagreement between the applicant and the two females. The applicant, feeling threatened by their behaviour, left the property and made an emergency call to Police Scotland. The applicant then attended at [Medical Practice W] although it is unclear from the available information why she did so. Constable G and Constable H attended at [Medical Practice W] and subsequently returned with the applicant to her home address. The applicant submitted a Subject Access Request to Police Scotland in August 2014 regarding information that they may have held about her in relation to the incident on 23 October She received a response to this request on 10 October 2014 after which both the applicant and Mr A submitted separate complaints about the police. Mr A submitted complaints to the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) by on 16 March 2015 on behalf of the applicant. The correspondence was forwarded to Police Scotland by the SPA on 17 March Sergeant C was appointed to investigate the complaints. On 15 June 2015, a statement of complaint was noted from the applicant by Sergeant H. During October and November 2015, the applicant corresponded by with Sergeant C in which she clarified her points of complaint. A Heads of Complaint form was compiled by Police Scotland on 15 December 2015 which the applicant refused to sign as she felt it did not contain all of her complaints. According to the applicant, she submitted four complaints to Police Scotland while the Heads of Complaint form recorded only two complaints. Chief Inspector D responded to the applicant s complaints, as detailed on the Heads of Complaint form, by letter of 11 February Page 3

5 4. The Review Complaint 1: Edited 999 call The applicant complained that the emergency call she made to Police Scotland on 23 October 2013 was edited. She raised concerns in relation to the timing, content and duration of the call recording. On 21 November 2014 the applicant received information from Police Scotland in response to her Subject Access Request which showed that her emergency call had been received by Police Scotland at 1208 hours on 23 October The applicant believed this to be incorrect as the itemised bill for her mobile telephone showed that she had made a call to another number at that time. The emergency call did not appear on the telephone bill. The applicant believed her call to Police Scotland had been made approximately 5 minutes earlier at 1203 hours. The applicant was provided with a transcript of her emergency call which she believed to be inaccurate. On 4 December 2014, she attended at Police Office X in order to listen to a recording of the call. It is the applicant s position that phrases which she recalls saying were missing from the recording. The applicant also thought her call had lasted approximately 5 minutes however the recording she was played lasted only two minutes and five seconds. The applicant also felt that part of the call had been edited to give the appearance that she was complaining about Mr A rather than the two females. Police Handling of Complaint 1 Chief Inspector D provided the following response in her letter of 11 February 2016: Your complaint about the call being edited.led to a meeting with [Detective Sergeant E] and [Detective Inspector F] regarding the phone call. During this meeting you provided them with a copy of your mobile phone bill, and they explained that there may be technical reasons why the time stamps differ on your phone bill than on the police systems. In making a determination in relation to the allegations that your 999 call was edited I have considered your version of events, and the evidence provided by the officers you have already spoken to within Police Scotland. I have also reviewed the statements from the officers who attended at the incident, [Constables G and H], and from [Inspector K] who was in charge of the Force Contact Centre at the material time. Furthermore I have reviewed the advice from the Communications Data Investigation Unit, the single point of contact for telephony enquiries. They have explained that because 999 calls are free from both mobile and landline telephones, they do not appear on itemised bills. This explains why the call does not show on the itemised bill you provided previously. Page 4

6 Police Scotland never edit calls made to their control rooms, and likewise legacy [Force Area Y] did not either. All calls received in the Force Contact Centre, Area Control Room or Service Centre from the public, either routine or emergency, are recorded electronically by a computer application known as NICE Perform. They are recorded on a non-editable hard drive and cannot be tampered with. When requests are received for recordings of these calls, either as evidence for court or in connection with a complaint against the police, the recording can be reviewed and then transferred to DVD for the reporting officer. This is achieved using Windows Media Player and in October 2013 this function was carried out by the FCC Supervisor or the FCC Inspector. The FCC Supervisor is a civilian supervisor who works alongside the FCC Inspector. Once the recording has been burned to the disc it cannot be tampered with. Any attempt to do so would, in any case, easily be detected by comparison with the original non-editable version on NICE Perform. There is a known issue with the clock on NICE Perform, which has always been approximately 5 or 6 minutes ahead of time. I understand that previous attempts to have the clock reset have been unsuccessful. This means that when asked to search for a call at 12:00 on the STORM system, which is the system used by the call takers to type up a call from the public, you will expect to find it on NICE Perform somewhere around 12:05. On 23 October 2013 the call handler began inputting your call at about 12:08 on STORM. The call was recorded on NICE Perform, giving a starting time of 12:13. This difference is entirely in line with every recording that [Inspector K] has ever been asked to record from the system. [Inspector K] has listened to the call in its entirety (2 minutes and 5 seconds) on the NICE perform and categorically states that there is no sign of any break in the recording or any other anomaly with the recording. It would be impossible for this call to be tampered with. Whilst I appreciate the matter may have caused you distress, the recording that you were played at [Police Office X] is an exact copy of the call you made at the material time. I consider this part of your complaint to be not upheld Page 5

7 Consideration of Complaint 1 In relation to the applicant s complaint that the recording of her emergency call had been edited, Inspector K advised in his statement that calls are recorded to a non-editable hard drive and cannot be tampered with. He further confirmed that he had listened to the recording and was certain that it had not been tampered with, again stating that it would impossible to do so. Police Scotland supplied the PIRC with a recording of the applicant s emergency call and the content was consistent with a transcript of the conversation between the applicant and the call handler, which was also provided. Based on the evidence available it is considered that Chief Inspector D was justified in not upholding the aspect of the applicant s complaint that the content of her emergency call had been edited. The applicant also complained that she remembered the call handler asking her to slow down or calm down as she was panicking, and that this section of the conversation was not included in the Police Scotland recording. She was also concerned that the recording was significantly shorter than she expected. In this regard, it is unclear whether Police Scotland considered how long it may have taken for the call to be transferred to a Police Scotland operator, and, if any of the conversation noted by the applicant as missing from the Police Scotland recording, was between the applicant and the BT Operator who would have received the call before transferring it to Police Scotland. Police Scotland confirmed to the PIRC that calls are recorded on its NICE Perform system from the point of transfer. Any conversation prior to that point, between the caller and the BT Operator, is not recorded on Police Scotland systems. Further enquiry to establish the extent of the conversation between the applicant and the BT operator may have enabled Chief Inspector D to provide a more comprehensive response to the applicant in relation to the duration and content of the call. The applicant also complained that she made her emergency call approximately five minutes before the time it was first recorded on the Police Scotland STORM system at hours. Chief Inspector D s response focused on the time difference between the Police Scotland STORM and NICE Perform systems. However, it appears to be the time the call was first input on the STORM system that the applicant considers to be incorrect and this factor was not addressed in the response. It may have been useful to establish the time the emergency call was received by the BT Operator however, that factor alone would not have explained the call being input on the Police Scotland s STORM system at when the applicant s telephone bill recorded her placing a call to another number at that time. In this regard, the applicant advised in her statement that Detective Sergeant E and Detective Inspector F informed her that there were technical reasons why the timings on the Police Scotland system may differ from the timings on the applicant s mobile telephone system. However, no statements were obtained from Detective Sergeant E or Detective Inspector F to explain what those technical reasons might be, and no enquiry was carried out to establish if a timing difference does exist between the Police Scotland systems and the system used by the applicant s mobile telephone provider. Section of The Police Scotland Complaints about the Police Standard Operating Procedure ( the Complaints SOP ) states that information gathered during the investigation into a complaint should be of a suitable quality and quantity to enable a full and informed response to be provided, while Section states that the complaint response should fully address the complainer s allegations and concerns. In this case, no enquiry was conducted to establish when the applicant s call was initially received by the BT Operator, or the duration and content of that portion of the call. Additionally, Page 6

8 no enquiry was carried out to establish whether a timing difference exists between the Police Scotland STORM system and the applicant s mobile telephone provider. It is therefore considered that insufficient enquiry was carried out in order to fully address the applicant s concerns in relation to the timing, duration and content of her emergency call. Accordingly it is considered that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland provides the applicant with a further explanation about the process for receiving emergency calls, and addresses whether a portion of the call may not have been recorded as it took place between the applicant and the BT operator. It is also recommended that Police Scotland provides a clearer explanation for any timing discrepancy between Police Scotland systems and the applicant s mobile telephone provider or confirms if they are unable to do so. Complaint 2: Inaccurate VPD entry The applicant complained that, following the incident on 23 October 2013, officers falsified information about her on the Police Scotland Vulnerable Persons Database (VPD). Within an dated 7 November 2015 from the applicant to Sergeant C, she specified inaccuracies within the VPD entries relating to her and her child. These have been summarised as follows: the time of the incident on 23 October was incorrectly recorded as am there are inconsistencies in the recording of the time she reported the incident to Police Scotland the entries incorrectly raised concerns about the applicant s mental health and further state the applicant appears to suffer from some form of undiagnosed aspergers or autism that the circumstances around the incident on 23 October 2013 have been misrepresented by suggesting: that Mr A is involving the applicant in an escort agency; the applicant is using her sitting room as a photo studio; and, the behaviour of the applicant and Mr A may impact on the wellbeing of the applicant s child. Police Handling of Complaint 2 Chief Inspector D provided the following response in her letter of 11 February 2016: Following the original incident an entry was submitted to the VPD system, however this has been reviewed by [Sergeant C] and it clearly states that your son was not present during the incident as he was at nursery. It is commonplace for officers to submit entries on the Vulnerable Persons Database (VPD) following any call where children have been present, or where children may reside, if they have identified a potential cause of any risk or harm to the child. In your circumstances the latter may have applied, hence the VPD entry. Following the submission of the VPD entry the content of the document is then discussed in a multi-agency meeting, and thereafter any of the partner agencies proceed as they see fit. This process is to ensure that children and vulnerable persons are supported and all agencies can share any information that they see fit. Page 7

9 The above information is intended to help you understand how your complaint has been progressed and dealt with. In considering all of the above circumstances, I can find no wrong doing, therefore the complaint is not upheld. Consideration of Complaint 2 Chief Inspector D s response focused on confirming to the applicant that the VPD entries showed her son had not been present within the applicant s home during the incident on 23 October This point relates to a concern raised by the applicant in her statement of 15 June 2015, that the Social Work Department had changed information on the police report to make it appear that her son had been present during the incident. The complaints about the content of the VPD entry raised within the applicant s of 7 November 2015 to Sergeant C were not addressed. Accordingly, it is considered that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland provides a further response to the applicant addressing her complaint that officers falsified information about her on the vulnerable persons database. Complaint 3: Missing Statement The applicant complained that the statement she provided to Constable G on 23 October 2013 is missing. According to the applicant, when she made her Subject Access Request, she was told by Police Scotland initially that the statement she provided to Constable G on 23 October 2013 had been withheld from release. She was then advised that the statement was lost, and subsequently that it [the statement] had no mention of her in it. The applicant s complaint therefore appears to relate to the lack of clarity from Police Scotland about the existence or otherwise of the statement. Police Handling of Complaint 3 Police Scotland did not respond to this aspect of the applicant s complaint. Consideration of Complaint 3 Police Scotland did not record the applicant s complaint that the statement she says she provided on 23 October 2013 is missing. Accordingly, it is considered that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland now records the applicant s complaint, that a statement she provided on 23 October 2013 is missing, and provides the applicant with a response. Page 8

10 Complaint 4: Inappropriate treatment by officers The applicant complained in her statement of 15 June 2015 that she was treated inappropriately by officers at [Police Office X]. The applicant expanded on this complaint in an to Sergeant C dated 22 October She stated that she first attended at [Police Office X] on 4 December 2014 to listen to the recording of her emergency call and met with two officers on that occasion. The applicant s second visit was to discuss the timing of her emergency call and the statement she says she made on 23 October The applicant states she met with Detective Sergeant E and Detective Inspector F on 16 December 2014 in that regard. According to the applicant the way in which I was treated by these 4 officers was absolutely terrible and appalling and in no way acceptable. The applicant further complained that, on both occasions, she was attended to in an area that did not afford her any privacy. Police Handling of Complaint 4 Police Scotland did not respond to this aspect of the applicant s complaint. Consideration of Complaint 4 Police Scotland did not record this aspect of the applicant s complaint. Accordingly, it is considered that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland now records and responds to the applicant s complaint that, on two occasions, she was treated in an inappropriate manner by officers and was not afforded privacy when meeting with officers at [Police Office X]. Page 9

11 5. Conclusions Complaint 1: Edited 999 call It is concluded that this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland provides the applicant with a further explanation about the process for receiving emergency calls, and addresses whether a portion of the call may not have been recorded. It is also recommended that Police Scotland provides a clearer explanation for any timing discrepancy between Police Scotland s systems and the applicant s mobile telephone provider or confirms if they are unable to do so. Complaint 2: Inaccurate VPD entry It is concluded that this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland provides a further response to the applicant addressing her complaint that officers falsified information about her on the vulnerable persons database. Complaint 3: Missing statement It is concluded that this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland now records the applicant s complaint, that a statement she provided on 23 October 2013 cannot be located, and provides the applicant with a response. Complaint 4: Inappropriate treatment by officers It is concluded that this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland now records and responds to the applicant s complaint that, on two occasions, she was treated in an inappropriate manner by officers and was not afforded privacy when meeting with officers at [Police Office X]. Lynn McCord Review Officer Nicola Hendry Senior Review Officer Page 10