Police watchdog told to review complaints against top two officers

The police watchdog has been ordered to review complaints made about Scotland’s two most senior officers.

Allegations concerning negligence with information were made against Chief Constable Phil Gormley and former deputy chief constable Neil Richardson.

Neither complaint was upheld by the Scottish Police Authority but the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (Pirc) has found it did not handle the allegations reasonably.

The commissioner has now ordered the SPA to review its decisions and apologise to the man involved.

It comes as Mr Gormley is separately being investigated for alleged gross misconduct.

The SPA said: “We note the outcome of the Pirc’s complaint handling review. A reconsideration of the relevant complaints will be initiated as soon as possible and we will work closely with the Pirc to address the learning points highlighted within the report.”

The complaints came from a man who sent a letter to Mr Richardson in November 2015 raisingconcernsaboutofficers in the professional standards department. This was passed to a superintendent in charge of the same department, who replied in December that year.

The man then wrote to the chief constable complaining about this. An inspector of Mr Gormley’s secretariat wrote back saying his letter had been passed to Mr Richardson – the officer the man had complained about.

In March 2016, it was alleged to the SPA that passing these letters to the person or department they were about was negligent but the body did not uphold his complaints. The subsequent Pirc review found the body did not adhere to protocol when handling the complaint against Mr Richardson. It found there was no reasoning in SPA responses as to why it decided the allegation would not, if proved, amount to misconduct.

There was no explanation of what inquiries were carried out, what facts were established or how these facts led to the complaint not being upheld. It was deemed by the commissionerthattheinquiry into the complaint was insufficient and the response inadequate.

Meanwhile, the Pirc review said it was not acceptable for a letter of complaint about a police officer to be passed to that same individual. As the complaint was about a senior officer, it should have been sent to the SPA. The SPA has been told to send a fresh response to the man addressing the issues raised and fully explain the outcome of the reconsiderations.