Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Criminal Justice Committee 24 April 2024

24 Apr 2024 · S6 · Criminal Justice Committee

Item of business

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Margaret Gribbon Watch on SPTV

I have very limited experience of the PIRC, because the officers whom I have acted for have not been deemed to be members of the public for the purposes of their complaint, so the PIRC did not have oversight there. Largely, my experience has related to misconduct complaints dealt with under the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014, which are for assistant chief constables and below. More often than not, a misconduct complaint will fall under the remit of the PSD rather than HR, which deals with more grievance-type complaints. However, there can sometimes be an overlap. My experience of what is called people and development in Police Scotland, which is HR, largely relates to the Rhona Malone case. It simply refused to deal with her complaint as a grievance. That was clearly a concern. However, I have a lot more experience of the PSD, and one of the recurring themes in the cases that I deal with is the role of the PSD. I will give a stark example of that. I am currently dealing with a case for a detective inspector that relates to the inconsistent approach that they say the PSD takes. There is evidence that the PSD is not handling matters impartially and independently in some cases, and there is certainly evidence that suggests that there is outside interference in the decisions that it takes. In the case that I am currently dealing with, my client has alleged inconsistency of treatment. She says that she has called out sexism and misogyny against herself and other female officers in the area of policing that she works in, and in police officers’ attitudes towards female complainers of sex crimes. She made those complaints and she is now the subject of a PSD investigation for what she says are trivial misdemeanours that do not warrant a PSD investigation. One example of inconsistency that she gave involves an officer whom she supervises. She and a sergeant have made complaints. They believe that that officer exhibits sexist and misogynistic conduct. The officer was guilty of off-duty criminal conduct. There are no ambiguities about that; the British Transport Police was involved. The officer, who was intoxicated, abused a female transport worker and most of the incident was recorded on a body cam. There was a preliminary assessment by the PSD, which can determine whether a matter falls into the category of gross misconduct, misconduct or an improvement action—colloquially, that is a slap on the wrist, if you like. An improvement action means that the matter is not subject to any investigation and does not go any further. The officer was guilty of off-duty criminal conduct and the professional standards department determined that that warranted only an improvement action. To me, that is inexplicable. You have a police officer who is guilty of an off-duty crime—he abused and alarmed a female transport worker. That behaviour was consistent with the behaviour that my client—a detective inspector—and a female sergeant spoke about in relation to this officer. Despite all that, he was issued with only an improvement action. That is just completely inexplicable. 10:30

Search Hansard contributions

Criminal Justice Committee 24 April 2024

In the same item of business