16 complaints over top police officers ...but none upheld
Toothless regulator savaged in damning report
A WATCHDOG has issued a damning report on the Scottish Police Authority amid claims it has failed to properly investigate complaints against several senior officers.
None of the 16 ‘relevant’ complaints was upheld by the SPA, yet there was insufficient explanation as to why.
In a devastating audit, the organisation was also accused of failing to respond correctly to complaints, lacking transparency and taking too long to resolve cases brought to its attention.
The audit, by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC), follows the suspension of a number of senior officers – including Chief Constable Phil Gormley – as complaints about them by fellow officers are investigated. However, it does not look at those cases.
The PIRC review assesses how the SPA, the government body responsible for overseeing the force, is handling complaints against officers raised by members of the public.
Commissioner Kate Frame found that in many of the cases involving senior officers, there was insufficient information about what evidence had been gathered and how a final decision was reached.
She said the SPA received 48 complaints which it thought fell within its remit over a two-year period until March 31, 2017, and 30 were about officers ranked Assistant Chief Constable and above. Fourteen were about SPA staff and four were about the SPA board.
Many complaints about senior officers were not investigated properly. The PIRC considered 16 of them ‘relevant’ complaints but in most cases, the SPA had made no attempt to agree with the member of the public what the complaint was about.
Mrs Frame also found the files for most of the cases did not contain evidence that the SPA had made sufficient inquiries.
The PIRC said: ‘Decisions on complaints were made which lacked clarity and transparency and, in many cases, there was insufficient explanation to demonstrate how the decision was reached. The average time taken by the SPA to conclude complaints and preliminary misconduct assessments was excessive... as was the emphasis placed on members of the public to produce evidence in support of their complaint.’
The audit found failings in the SPA’s assessment of which complaints fell within its remit and whether they should be dealt with as complaints or allegations of misconduct. It found the SPA received 14 complaints about senior officers during the period which should have been progressed as potential misconduct allegations. But only half were referred to the SPA’s complaints and conduct committee for assessment and, of those, just one was deemed to amount to alleged misconduct, resulting in its referral to the PIRC.
The PIRC made several recommendations to the SPA, including amending its internal guidance.
In a report on the SPA, Audit Scotland recently highlighted ‘unacceptable’ examples of poor governance. SPA chairman Andrew Flanagan resigned in June, and in August chief executive John Foley announced his early retirement.
SPA chairman Susan Deacon said: ‘This latest PIRC report raises a number of important areas for the SPA’s attention, some of which have already been dealt with or are in progress.
‘It is essential that the SPA work with other organisations with a role and interest in complaint handling to ensure that our systems and practices are robust and work effectively.
‘Lacking clarity and transparency’