Report - Police Scotland - Police Investigations & Review

609/13| April 2015
Report of a Complaint Handling
Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews
independent and effective investigations and reviews
609/13 | April 2015
Index
1.
Role of the PIRC
2.
Key findings
3.
Background
4.
The Review
5.
Conclusions
Page | 1
609/13 | April 2015
1.
Role of PIRC
Sections 34 and 35 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (“the Act”)
provides 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:
2.

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.
Key findings
The complaints in this case arose following the police investigation into the death of the applicant’s
brother.
Of the five complaints considered, it was found that four were dealt with to a reasonable standard while
one was not. One recommendation was made in this connection.
Page | 2
609/13 | April 2015
3.
Background
On 16 January 2013, the applicant contacted Strathclyde Police to advise that she had been unable to
contact her brother (Mr A) by telephone for several weeks. The applicant advised that, as she lived
some distance away from his home, she was unable to personally check up on him. At 2.45 pm,
Constables B and C, along with two other officers, attended at Mr A’s front door and forced entry to the
flat, where they found Mr A dead.
The post mortem examination of Mr A found that, given the degree of decomposition, he had been
dead for several days before he was found. The pathologist confirmed, however, that factors such as
ambient room temperature meant that he could not exclude the possibility that Mr A had been dead for
a number of weeks. The cause of Mr A’s death, which was treated as non-suspicious by the police and
the Procurator Fiscal, was recorded as “alcoholic liver disease”.
The applicant believed that foul play could not be excluded and thereafter complained to the police
about the standard of its investigation into Mr A’s death. These concerns were responded to in writing
by Chief Inspector D on 2 April 2013. The applicant was unhappy with how her complaints had been
dealt with and applied to the PIRC for review. The PIRC review was issued in November 2013
(PIRC/00021/13). The applicant continued to correspond with Police Scotland and the PIRC regarding
her concerns about the investigation into Mr A’s death.
In this connection Police Scotland wrote to the applicant on 13 February and 13 March 2014. The
applicant continued to communicate with Police Scotland regarding Mr A’s death which led Detective
Sergeant E obtaining from the applicant a statement of complaint on 8 September 2014 for the matters
which she believed remained outstanding. Detective Sergeant E thereafter submitted a report detailing
his findings and, on 26 September 2014, Superintendent F issued a written response to the applicant.
4.
The Review
Complaint 1: Identification of Mr A
In her statement of complaint, the applicant complained that Constables B and C would not have been
able to identify the deceased as Mr A due to the decomposed state of the body.
Police Handling of Complaint 1
Superintendent F responded to the complaint as follows:
“In respect of the Identification of your brother, the experienced Police Officers who attended at
the scene of your brother’s death had a number of previous interactions with your brother and
were in a position to positively identify the body of your brother. These officers would not have
Page | 3
609/13 | April 2015
done so had this not been the case. Police systems checks have been carried out which confirm
that the Officers had dealings with your brother on a number of occasions in recent times.
Procurator Fiscal Depute [Ms G], Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit, who was involved in the
investigation into your brother’s death has also been re-contacted and confirms that she was
satisfied that your brother had been identified by two credible witnesses who knew your brother
through their professional dealings with him. [Ms G] confirmed that the officers were
independent, credible witnesses and there was no requirement for a family member to view the
body of your brother as the death was not suspicious and this approach is often adopted in such
circumstances. At the time of your brother’s death you were updated by Police Officers regarding
the on-going process and you did not appear at any stage to intimate your wish to attend and
view your brother’s body.”
Consideration of Complaint 1
Constables B and C both state that they could identify Mr A as they had dealt with him on several
occasions in the past. Police crime reports have been checked which confirm that Constables B and C
did have previous interactions with Mr A.
On account of the death being treated as non-suspicious, no photographs were taken of the deceased.
However, the post mortem examination found that the degree of decomposition was in keeping with Mr
A having been dead for “several days”. There is no evidence to suggest that the degree of
decomposition was such that a visual identification could not be made.
As the conclusion reached by the police is supported by the available evidence, it is considered that the
complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard.
Complaint 2: Failure to return clothing
In her statement, the applicant complained that the police had failed to return the clothing worn by Mr A
at the time of his death.
Police Handling of Complaint 2
In 2013, Sergeant H provided the following information to the applicant:
“All reports and statements received by our department in reference to [your] brother’s death
have been reviewed and no reference can be located regarding an instruction by police to
Mortuary staff to destroy clothing. It may be possible that your brother’s clothing was disposed
for contamination reasons however the exact reason for disposal can only be confirmed by
Mortuary staff.
I am aware your email has been copied to a representative of COPFS and the most appropriate
avenue to progress this query would be to raise this matter with the PF who can liaise directly
with Mortuary staff.”
Page | 4
609/13 | April 2015
The applicant thereafter sent an email to Police Scotland dated 6 November 2013 which stated:
“The mortuary staff HAVE informed me with an explanation.
Again they state that “Strathclyde Police informed the mortuary staff on 16 th January that my
brother’s death was non suspicious and did not require my brother’s soiled clothing for forensics”
therefore the clothing was destroyed…”
In her response, Superintendent F advised the applicant that it would appear that the complaint made
in her statement had been responded to in previous communications and referred the applicant to
previous correspondence and explanations which had been provided.
Consideration of Complaint 2
Whilst Sergeant H advised the applicant that there was no evidence that the police had given an
instruction to destroy Mr A’s clothes, this is a materially different issue from that raised by the applicant
in her statement, which is that the police had failed to return Mr A’s clothing. Accordingly the complaint
has not been dealt with to a reasonable standard.
As part of the review of this complaint, the Sudden Death Standard Operating Procedure (the Sudden
Death SOP) in place at the time of Mr A’s death was examined. This states at paragraph 10.2.2:
“Clothing that is unfit for return to relatives is to be placed in a clinical waste bin for destruction
unless otherwise requested by the attending officers. Accordingly, officers attending a death
should always enquire into the family’s wishes regarding the deceased’s clothing.”
It goes on to state at paragraph 11.4.1:
“All articles of clothing are to be placed directly into polythene bags. Damp or blood stained
articles are to be placed in uncontaminated brown paper bags. As a general rule, where the
clothing of a deceased person is unfit to return, it is to be destroyed after 72 hours… Before such
action is taken the officer in charge of the enquiry is to inform the relatives of the action to be
taken. In the event of the relative wishing to see such clothing before destruction he/she is to be
advised to attend the mortuary before the expiry of 72 hours.”
From the applicant’s complaint, it is not clear that this procedure was followed by the police. It is
therefore recommended that Police Scotland establishes whether the standard procedure was followed
in respect of Mr A’s clothing and then issues a further response to the applicant informing her of the
findings in this regard.
Complaint 3: Recording scene in flat
The applicant complained that the police had failed to accurately record the scene of disarray in Mr A’s
flat and thus did not present the full facts to the Procurator Fiscal.
Page | 5
609/13 | April 2015
Police Handling of Complaint 3
In his response of 2 April 2013, Chief Inspector D advised the applicant:
“Having reviewed the sudden death report submitted for the information of the Procurator Fiscal,
I would conclude that the report lacked any detail of the scenes of disarray within the living room.
Information with regards to the condition of the bathroom and hallway area could have been
further expanded. Had this been done, Constable [J] would have been in a better position to
advise and prepare you for the scene observed within your brother’s flat. I would offer my
sincerest regret if you feel let down by the level of information provided to you or feel that this
has in some way compounded your grief by leading you to believe that your brother died as a
result of a disturbance having taken place within his home.”
Detective Sergeant E’s report into this complaint stated:
“The complainer has complained police failed to detail the “scene of disarray” and blood staining
throughout the flat in the sudden death report. The officers who attended the scene note several
articles within the flat, such as a chair upturned however state that this is consistent with
previous visits to the locus. The officers have documented within the sudden death report faeces
within the bathroom and a stained towel on the floor… It is reasonable to infer that the sudden
death report could have been expanded and detailed account of the locus provided to the PF
however it is the position of the PF that while further information would have assisted it would not
have altered the investigation. Learning point – More accurate information with the sudden death
report.”
In her response, Superintendent F advised the applicant that it would appear that the complaint had
been responded to in previous communications and referred the applicant to previous correspondence
and explanations which had been provided.
Consideration of Complaint 3
It is clear from Chief Inspector D’s response that he acknowledged the scene in Mr A’s flat could have
been described in greater detail within the death report and an apology was offered in this regard.
Superintendent F was therefore correct to inform the applicant that this matter had been responded to
in previous communication. Accordingly, it is considered that this complaint has been dealt with to a
reasonable standard.
In order to allay the applicant’s concerns over this omission, it may have been helpful if Superintendent
F’s response had informed her of the Procurator Fiscal’s view that further information would not have
changed matters.
Page | 6
609/13 | April 2015
Complaint 4: Failure to obtain medical information from GP
In her statement, the applicant complained that the police had failed to obtain relevant medical history
from Mr A’s GP. She had raised with Police Scotland a similar complaint to this in February 2014,
where she complained that Strathclyde Police had failed to provide adequate information in the death
report regarding Mr A’s medical history and medication.
Police Handling of Complaint 4
The police response of 13 March 2014 stated:
“Details of medical information, including medicines, were taken from the Police Casualty
Surgeon’s Report and included in the Death Report. I can confirm that there was no detail
available in the Police Surgeon’s Report in relation to medical history and as a result, none was
included in the Death Report, although details of your brother’s General Practitioner were
provided.
Medical history information is not a mandatory requirement in Death Reports as, for various
reasons, these details may not be available at the time of report. Following submission of the
Death Report, any further police investigation deemed appropriate would be at the instruction of
the Procurator Fiscal.”
In her response, Superintendent F advised the applicant that it would appear that the complaint had
been responded to in previous communications and referred the applicant to previous correspondence
and explanations which had been provided.
Consideration of Complaint 4
The Sudden Death SOP in place at that time confirms that it was not a mandatory requirement that
medical history information or medication details be included within death reports. It follows that there
was no obligation on the police to contact Mr A’s GP for this information. The police response in this
connection is therefore justified by the evidence.
In light of the contents of the police response of 13 March 2014, it is considered that Superintendent F
was correct to inform the applicant that this matter had been responded to in previous communication
and, accordingly, the complaint has been dealt with to a reasonable standard.
Complaint 5: Failure of officers to identify blood on sofa
The applicant complains that the sofa within her brother’s flat was ‘blood stained’ and that the attending
officers failed to spot this.
Page | 7
609/13 | April 2015
Police Handling of Complaint 5
In her response, Superintendent F advised the applicant that she considered that the complaint had
been dealt with in previous communications and referred the applicant to previous correspondence and
explanations which had been provided.
Consideration of Complaint 5
The response from Superintendent F lacked detail in providing a specific response to the complaint.
The only item of correspondence which appears to have addressed this complaint was Chief Inspector
D’s letter of 2 April 2013 which indicated that “no persons recall the presence of blood on the sofa”.
However, in that response to the applicant’s concerns the letter further states that a crime scene
manager (who was described as a specialist officer trained to review crime scenes and ensure that all
pertinent evidence is collected) had subsequently attended Mr A’s flat. Accordingly, the matter has
been dealt with to a reasonable standard but it would have been helpful if Superintendent F had
specifically referred to this in her response.
5.
Conclusions
Complaints 1, 3, 4 and 5
It is concluded that these complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No further action is
required in this connection.
Complaint 2: Failure to return clothing
It is concluded that this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that
Police Scotland establishes whether the standard procedure was followed in respect of Mr A’s clothing
and that a further response is thereafter issued to the applicant informing her of the findings in this
regard.
Kate Frame
Police Investigation and Review Commissioner
Page | 8