Chamber and committees

I am trying to get my head around all the different categories of complaints and criminality that police officers might be accused of. You might have alluded to that earlier in response to one of my colleagues. I suppose that a typical example of a complaint might be when a member of the public says that excessive force was used in the middle of an arrest and that, in effect, they have been assaulted. Given that low test, is there not quite a fine line in those cases?

That is helpful.

I am interested in a specific area in relation to public complaints against the police, which was mentioned in a previous evidence session. The issue concerns instances of poor investigatory processes within a police investigation—as were evident in the Emma Caldwell case, for example, where, 20 years later, we can see that the police followed lines of inquiry that do not seem to stand up. In such instances, are there processes currently, or are processes proposed in the bill, that will allow a family to complain about the quality of an investigation?

I can see how tricky that might be. Do you think that there might be other checks and balances in the system now that would prevent an investigation from going down completely the wrong path for so long?

Does a member of the public report that to the PIRC first? Is that how it works?

How can that still be a misconduct issue? Perhaps you cannot answer that. I am struggling to understand why Police Scotland still pursues the officer for misconduct on something that a court has dealt with. I can understand if there were other separate issues involved, because those would then have to be dealt with. However, if it is a simple case of an assault, surely the matter is dealt with at court—I am talking about cases in which the officer is found not guilty.

I agree. It seems unfair that an officer could reach their natural retirement date, rather than taking early retirement, and that, a year later, an allegation that they were not aware of could come along. Do you agree that there has to be quite a high test?

What is the difference, really? What is the PIRC doing? I understand that point, but, when there is an allegation, are you saying that the PIRC will ask to see all the people concerned, take statements from them and draw up a report?

Right. I also want to ask you about the timescales for these circumstances. The PIRC then investigates the criminal case, and that can take up to three months.

Oh, yes, you did say that.

That was helpful.

I am trying to get my head around the range of complaints and misconduct that could be covered by the bill; indeed, I asked the previous panel the same question. I am trying to understand this by highlighting the example of a case from a long time ago—the Emma Caldwell case—and asking whether, in your view, it would happen today. In that case, the police investigation has been exposed as being thin and as having gone down the wrong lines of inquiry; indeed, the family themselves could clearly see that the police were investigating the wrong people. Would this bill help in any way, or would other provisions prevent that happening today?

It is all very well talking about hypothetical situations, but we have examples of cases where the police have failed. I know that you cannot account for what happened all that time ago, but I am just trying to understand this. To me, as a legislator, there does not seem to be much point in passing this bill unless it can fix what has gone wrong.