Chamber and committees

Thank you. My final question follows up on your earlier point about the importance of independence in the process. You said a moment ago that you do not have much experience of or engagement with the PIRC, but would you see the PIRC as a body that could undertake independent handling and scrutiny of complaints, as you conceive of that process, or are you suggesting that we should consider a body that is even further removed from the existing structures of policing in Scotland for handling such complaints?

Good morning, Ms Gribbon. I am interested in your point about the necessity for independence in the complaints handling process. I understand that there are three areas in which complaints may be given some consideration. The first relates to the general HR relationships of a police officer who is serving with the organisation; the second is the professional standards department; and the third is potentially the PIRC. Is the committee to conclude that, from your experience and case load, you think that, under the current arrangements, procedurally and culturally, none of those three elements is working effectively to protect the public interest when it comes to complaints about police officers’ conduct?

That is a very significant statement that you have just put on the record, which sharply focuses your evidence. Thank you for that.

The bill includes a provision that will apply the duty of candour to police officers in relation to their actions, but, listening to you, it strikes me that we need to consider carefully whether the obligations that we say to the Government should be in the bill should be applied to the process of complaints handling within the police service. In your powerful opening statement, you have recounted to us that things that we would all consider to be absolutely essential—fundamentally, truth and integrity—are not always present in the system, as you have experienced it as a serving police officer.

Is it your point that the bill that we have in front of us does not get close to affecting a real source of difficulty, which is the effectiveness of the professional standards system in Police Scotland? Is that a fair summary of your position, Ms Gribbon?

Good morning, Mr Clarke. I have a technical question. Can you explain what CAAPD is?

Thank you for that. I recall that reference now.

You bring a perspective to the discussion that is very different from what we have heard from other witnesses so far, and it is a really important perspective. However, it illustrates that the system basically does not seem to be satisfactory from anyone’s perspective. Is that a fair reflection of the evidence that you have given to us in the context of the other evidence that we have heard?

If a complaint is made against a police officer, there will be a desire on the part of that police officer to have the matter resolved openly, properly and timeously, but, in your experience, that has not been the case. Is that correct?

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Ms Robertson. You have made a powerful case about the need for what I might call a significant hurricane of fresh air into the system. You have obviously seen the bill that we have before us; am I right to deduce that, given your experience, you do not think that the bill is adequate to address the degree of scrutiny and transparency that is required of the system?

Good morning, Stephanie. Thank you very much for coming in today and for the courage that you have demonstrated in facing up to the circumstances that we are discussing, which we are truly sorry about.

A moment ago, you made the point to Russell Findlay that, essentially, you were having to work against the system and you were pleading for help from the police. That strikes me as being entirely the wrong position for you to have been in, as a mother who was searching for your son. Could you say a little bit more about how you felt about how the police acted towards you when you began to raise your concerns about how they had handled your case?