Report - Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

00460/14 | May 2015
Report of a Complaint Handling
Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews
independent and effective investigations and reviews
00460/14 | May 2015
Index
1.
Role of the PIRC
2.
Key findings
3.
Background
4.
The Review
5.
Conclusions
Page | 1
00460/14 | May 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 from a number of allegations reported to Police Scotland by the
applicant.
Of the three complaints considered, it was found that one was dealt with to a reasonable standard and
the remainder were not. One recommendation was made in this connection.
Page | 2
00460/14 | May 2015
3.
Background
In 2004, the applicant acquired the lease of a large property in Scotland and employed Mr and Ms A to
work in the property, which he furnished with antique furniture, china, silver and paintings belonging to
his mother.
The relationship between the applicant and Mr and Ms A deteriorated and Mr and Ms A alleged that the
applicant owed them a substantial amount in unpaid wages. According to Mr and Ms A, the applicant
transferred ownership of the furniture and other items to them, in lieu of payment of wages. A
document to this effect dated 18 July 2004 was produced by Mr and Ms A. The applicant contends that
this document was forged by Mr and Ms A and engaged the services of a handwriting expert, Mr G, to
help him prove this. Mr G concluded that the applicant’s signature on the document was genuine but
he was unable to report on the time sequence in which the document was compiled.
A protracted dispute ensued between the applicant and Mr and Ms A over the ownership of the
furniture and other items, during which time the applicant’s mother passed away. At various stages in
the dispute, the applicant reported to Police Scotland that Mr and Ms A had stolen the property. This
allegation was investigated by Detective Sergeant B in 2005 but no criminal proceedings were taken by
the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (“the COPFS”).
Civil proceedings were taken by the applicant in the intervening years; however in June 2013 he
complained to Police Scotland about its handling of the matter. On 26 August 2013, Inspector C wrote
to the applicant informing him that his dispute with Mr and Ms A was a civil matter.
The applicant subsequently instigated further civil proceedings in relation to the disputed property which
led to the Court of Session ruling that the property belonged to the applicant’s mother’s estate and that
Mr and Ms A should return the property to the solicitor acting as executor of the estate.
The applicant contacted Police Scotland in August 2014 to report that Mr and Ms A had not returned all
of the property to him and that some of the property which had been returned was damaged. The
applicant also raised the matter of the forged document at this time. Sergeant E responded to the
applicant as follows:
“The Court of Session that sat in [location] in June 2014 conducted Civil Proceedings in relation
to the property from [house]. The result of these proceedings was a civil determination in relation
to the return of any outstanding items. As a result, this does not change the police position in
relation to this matter. If further compliance with the civil determination by [Mr and Mrs A] is
required, then it would need to be pursued through the civil courts and would not be dealt with as
a criminal investigation. The case has already been reviewed by the Crown Office who have
stated that there will be no criminal investigation and that this decision would not be revisited.
The way items are packaged is subjective and standards will vary depending on the
expectations of an individual. The Court of Session directed items to be returned to the executor
of the estate … but did not specify HOW the items were to be returned. If you are not satisfied
Page | 3
00460/14 | May 2015
with the manner in which items were packaged by [Mr and Ms A] on their return then this would
be a matter to be worked out in the civil court.
In relation to the alleged forgery of your signature, the document referred to is a document dated
18/07/2004 signed by yourself and witnessed by [named person]. This document states that you
transfer all furnishings and household contents to [Mr and Ms A] in lieu of money owed from
unpaid wages and other expenses. You assert that your signature is a forgery. However, [Mr G],
the handwriting expert, states in his report “my original opinion that the signature of [the
applicant] is genuine is sustained” and indicated that the most likely explanation is that you have
forgotten writing the signature…”
The applicant subsequently complained about the police handling of the reports which he had made.
On 17 December 2014, Chief Inspector F responded to the complaints.
4.
The Review
Complaint 1: Failure to investigate theft allegations
The applicant complained that Police Scotland failed to properly investigate allegations of theft and
damage to property belonging to the estate of his mother. This related to Detective Sergeant B’s
investigation in 2005 and Mr and Ms A not returning property following the Court of Session ruling in
2014. He further stated that the property that had been returned had been poorly packed and was
damaged as a result and that some of the items had been deliberately damaged by Mr and Ms A prior
to transportation.
Police Handling of Complaint 1
Chief Inspector F responded as follows to the complaint:
“In 2004 you reported a theft of property … This matter was investigated by then Detective
Sergeant [B] and deemed to be a civil matter. Following his enquiry, Detective Sergeant [B]
compiled a briefing for Crown Office who, having considered the information, determined that no
criminality was involved.
You were not satisfied with this and, following a ruling in the civil court, you again sought to have
the police attend to it as a criminal matter. The circumstances were examined once more by
Sergeant [E] and the Force Solicitor who determined that there was no criminality. I have
enclosed a copy of the letter sent to you by Sergeant [E] which explained her rationale.
I am satisfied that sufficient enquiry has been carried out by officers in relation to your
allegations and that there is no evidence of criminality therefore this aspect of your complaint is
not upheld.”
Page | 4
00460/14 | May 2015
Consideration of Complaint 1
With regard to Detective Sergeant B’s 2005 investigation, the applicant also raised concerns about the
theft of his property with the COPFS, the body responsible for prosecuting crime in Scotland. COPFS
responded to the applicant and informed him that no criminal investigation would be instructed into the
matters he raised. In light of this, it is considered that this aspect of the response to the applicant was
appropriate.
A copy of the Court of Session interlocutor issued in relation to the applicant’s civil action was included
in his complaint file. This document shows that the Court ordered the return of the property to the
executor of the applicant’s mother’s estate. The interlocutor is a civil order and failure to comply its
terms is, as Police Scotland has advised, a civil matter.
With regard to the applicant’s concern about poorly packaged items, the response from Police Scotland
informs him this is a civil matter. However, it does not mention his allegation that some of the property
returned to him had been damaged deliberately (i.e. vandalised) prior to being returned. While the
return of the property named in the interlocutor is a civil matter, the response to the applicant should
have advised him of the police position in respect of the alleged deliberate damage to the property that
had been returned.
As the response did not fully address the applicant’s complaint, it is considered that this complaint was
not dealt with to a reasonable standard. Accordingly, it is recommended that Police Scotland now
responds to the applicant’s complaint that it did not properly investigate his allegation of vandalism.
Complaint 2: Forged documents
The applicant complained that Police Scotland failed to investigate his allegation that the document
assigning the property to Mr and Ms A had been forged.
Police Handling of Complaint 2
As per her response quoted above, Chief Inspector F referred the applicant to the position outlined by
Sergeant E that the opinion of the handwriting expert was that the signature on the document was
genuine and that the most likely explanation was that the applicant had forgotten signing the document.
Consideration of Complaint 2
It is considered that Chief Inspector F was correct to refer the applicant to opinion of the handwriting
expert, which points away from Mr and Ms A having forged the signature. It is noted that the applicant
has also raised his concern over Mr and Ms A’s alleged actions with the COPFS, and that no criminal
investigation was instructed. Accordingly, the complaint has been dealt with to a reasonable standard.
Page | 5
00460/14 | May 2015
Complaint 3: Stolen documents
The applicant complained that Police Scotland failed to investigate an allegation he made that
documents, correspondence, photos and invoices were stolen from him.
Police Handling of Complaint 3
Chief Inspector F’s response did not address the complaint.
Consideration of Complaint 3
As Chief Inspector F’s response did not address the complaint, it has not been dealt with to a
reasonable standard.
However, the applicant has also raised this matter with the COPFS and has been told that no criminal
investigation will be instructed in this connection. In light of this, no recommendation is made.
5.
Conclusions
Complaint 1
It is concluded that this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. Accordingly, it is
recommended that Police Scotland now responds to the applicant’s complaint that it did not properly
investigate his allegation of vandalism.
Complaint 2
It is concluded that this complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard.
Complaint 3
It is concluded that this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. However, for the reason
given no recommendation is made in this connection.
Catherine Cumming
Review Officer
Jamie McGrandles
Head of Reviews
Police Investigations & Review Commissioner
Page | 6