Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland independent and effective investigations and reviews independent and effective investigations and reviews
Index 1. Role of the PIRC 2. Key findings 3. Background 4. The Review 5. Conclusions Page 1
1. Role of PIRC Sections 34 and 35 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 ( the Act ) provide that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner ( the PIRC ) may examine the manner in which particular kinds of complaints are dealt with by Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. Through agreements with UK police bodies operating in Scotland, the PIRC may also examine the manner in which these bodies deal with complaints. The PIRC cannot review complaints of criminal behaviour against police officers or police staff, or complaints made by persons serving, or who have served with the police, about the terms and conditions of their service. In performing this review function, the PIRC obtains information from the police body which dealt with the complaint. This information is considered together with information provided by the person who made the complaint ( the applicant ). An assessment is then made as to whether in all the circumstances the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. Among the factors taken into account when making this assessment are the following: whether sufficient enquiries into the complaint have been carried out by the policing body; whether the policing body s response to the complaint is supported by all material information available; whether in dealing with the complaint the policing body has adhered to all relevant policies, procedures and legal provisions; whether the policing body s response to the complaint is adequately reasoned; and where the complaint has resulted in the policing body identifying measures necessary to improve its service, whether these measures are adequate and have been implemented. 2. Key findings The complaint in this case arose after the applicant was involved in a road traffic collision. One complaint was reviewed, namely that: Officers from Police Scotland did not fully investigate the road traffic collision that the applicant was involved in on 31 December 2014. The report has found that the complaint has been handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required in this connection. Page 2
3. Background Shortly before midnight on 31 December 2014, the applicant was involved in a two vehicle near-fatal road traffic collision. The applicant was the driver of vehicle 1. At this time the applicant was travelling with a friend, Ms A, who had asked the applicant to take her to her mother s home for Hogmanay. Ms A was travelling as a front seat passenger within vehicle 1. Mr B was the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision, with his wife, Mrs C as his front seat passenger (vehicle 2). As a result of the collision all four persons involved sustained injuries, with Ms A, Mrs C and the applicant sustaining injuries that can be described as serious. The applicant spent several weeks in hospital, having sustained a brain injury as a result of the collision. The applicant was dissatisfied with how Police Scotland had investigated the road traffic collision, and raised his complaint via Police Scotland s online reporting form on 27 June 2017. Temporary Inspector D was appointed as the enquiry officer. The applicant agreed and signed a Heads of Complaint form and provided a statement of complaint on 4 August 2018. The applicant received a response to his complaint from Chief Inspector E in a letter dated 22 September 2017. Page 3
4. The Review Complaint: Collision not fully investigated The applicant complained that, following his involvement in a road traffic collision, officers failed to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the collision. The applicant maintains that the officers relied solely upon the witness statements and in doing so failed to establish the facts surrounding the incident. Police Handling of Complaint From the statement you have provided, I understand that you were driving at locus and were aware of another car coming towards you, (a 64 plate White Kia Sportage), which you state was partially on your side of the road. As a result you moved further to the nearside of the road and hit a pothole, which caused the front nearside of your car to collapse. You state you over corrected, crossed over the other side of the road, collided with a wall, and came to rest just down from the wall facing west. I note you thereafter state that your vehicle was then struck by [vehicle 2] within 30 seconds of coming to a rest. I am also aware from this report, that as a result of the collision you sustained life-threatening injuries, and that your front seat passenger, [Ms A] along with [Mrs C] who was in the other vehicle, sustained serious injuries. I am informed by [Temporary Inspector D] that in the immediate aftermath of the incident, and given the extent of your injuries, a full collision investigation was conducted by [Constables G & H], and that an Enquiry Officer [Constable F], was appointed. I understand from [Temporary Inspector D s] report that the subsequent findings of the collision investigation and physical evidence gathered during same, provide that your vehicle crossed from the southbound carriageway onto the northbound carriageway, and directly into the path of the northbound [vehicle 2], causing both vehicles to collide at this time. These findings, which are corroborated by witness statements, do not support your recollection of the collision or provide any evidence of your vehicle having been struck whilst stationary. The aforementioned would also indicate you were responsible for the collision. I am aware from [Temporary Inspector D s] report that he has met and discussed these findings with you, and that he also requested a [Constable I], from our Collision Investigation Oversight Unit, to conduct a review of the original collision investigation. I note that the results of [Constable I s] review and his supporting statement concur with the original collision investigation findings of [Constables G & H]. Page 4
Having considered all the information available to me, and in the absence of corroborative evidence or information to the contrary, I am of the view that the collision was fully investigated by [Constables G & H], and as such I am unable to uphold your complaint. Consideration of Complaint In his complaint to Police Scotland, the applicant contends that officers did not request his telematics driving data after the collision. The applicant is of the opinion that the telematics driving data supports his position that there had been two collisions. The applicant expands on his theory by stating that his telematics driving data details that his vehicle was stationary from 23:49:21 on the night in question 6 minutes and 39 seconds before Police Scotland had raised the corresponding incident report. The applicant argues that the discrepancy between both times supports his theory that there were two collisions, and his position that he lost control of his vehicle, collided with a wall, came to a standstill, and was then struck by vehicle 2. The applicant has complained that officers did not contact his insurance provider to request the telematics driving data and that they have disregarded any evidence that he has provided. He has also said that the officers failed to investigate the facts and have only taken statements. The applicant obtained the telematics driving data report and forwarded a copy to the PIRC to inform the review process. The information contained in the report indicates that the vehicle had been travelling between 59mph and 61mph shortly before the incident. The report does not contain any data that would indicate, conclusively or even speculatively, whether the applicant s vehicle - vehicle 1 - had collided with vehicle 2 or the wall first. The officers that attended at the scene of the accident provided statements detailing their involvement. Within his statement, Constable F confirmed that he was instructed to attend at the scene of the collision, and upon arrival, was notified that he would be the enquiry officer. Constable F has stated that he ensured that neither vehicle had been moved (other than to remove the injured parties) and that he noted the damage caused to both of the vehicles and a nearby wall. Constable F has stated that in the days and weeks following the collision, he spoke with witnesses and obtained statements from them, and also kept in touch with the applicant s family. Throughout his statement, Constable F has detailed his actions in relation to this enquiry, explaining that he: coordinated the actions of the officers both at the scene and at the hospital to ensure that he was kept updated regarding the injuries sustained by those involved in the collision; noted the details of the damage caused to both vehicles and a nearby wall; noted the weather conditions and the speedlimit imposed on the road where the collision occurred (50 mph); spoke with witnesses and obtained statements from them; and established the direction of travel for each vehicle. Constable F has also stated that having considered the information obtained from the witness statements alongside that provided by the collision investigators Constables G & H - it was apparent that the applicant had been responsible for the accident. Page 5
In order to address the applicant s concerns surrounding the telematics driving data, Constable F has stated that he was made aware of the existence of the black box during a discussion that he had with the applicant s mother. Constable F has said that he brought this information to the attention of the collision investigators Constables G and H - who were thereafter required to attend at the holding depot and further examine the damage to both vehicles. Within his statement, Constable G has stated that upon attending at the collision scene, he noted the damage to both vehicles and a nearby wall near to where vehicle 1 had come to a rest. He stated that Constable F had made him aware as to what the witnesses said had occurred, and he thereafter examined the locus. Constable G has stated that his examination of the locus involved: noting the weather and road conditions; the spread of debris around the vehicles at the locus; and the scuff marks on the roadway and kerbs that he assessed along with the corresponding damage to vehicle 1. Constable G has stated that there was a large amount of debris on the roadway that was spread on the road around the position of [vehicle 2] and south west around the resting position of [vehicle 1]. Constable G thereafter stated that he and Constable H conducted a survey of the area that included the road layout and all of the physical evidence identified at the locus. Constable G has stated that the applicant s family made him aware of a sunken drain in the eastern drainage channel which they believed could have been a contributory factor in causing the applicant to lose control of his vehicle. However Constable G addressed this in his statement by stating that if the driver had hit the sunken drain it would imply that the vehicle was driving within the [drain] channel and was potentially out of control. He further added that the road was in good condition with no defects that, in his opinion, would have contributed to the incident. Constable G thereafter analysed the available physical evidence and concluded that: The southbound [vehicle 1] has initially struck the east kerb with the rear nearside wheel and did thereafter enter the northbound carriageway facing south west presenting the nearside of the vehicle into the path of the northbound [vehicle 2]. The impact between the vehicles has caused [vehicle 1] to rotate in an anti-clockwise rotation, strike the front nearside wheel on the west kerb, continue to rotate, strike the rear underside thereafter colliding with the wall continuing south west coming to rest in it s resultant position. Within his statement, Constable G has stated that he had considered the telematics driving data and the discrepancy in the timings as described by the applicant. He concluded: I do not believe this discrepancy to be significant in terms of the collision sequence because, as described, the physical evidence does not support the claim that [vehicle 1] was stationary. Accordingly, the available information indicates that Constable G considered not only the witness statements, but also all available physical evidence in order to reach a conclusion as to the most probable sequence of events. Page 6
Constable G s statement is supported by that provided by Constable H. Within his statement, Constable H has stated that upon arriving at the collision scene, he observed the damage caused to both vehicles and their respective resting places, along with the damage caused to a nearby wall. He thereafter became aware as to what the witnesses were saying in respect of the direction of travel and how the collision occurred. Constable H stated that he examined the locus along with Constable G. Constable H said that he was aware of the statement provided by Constable G regarding this incident, and that he fully corroborates its contents. Furthermore, in order to address the applicant s position that his vehicle was stationary when vehicle 2 struck him, Constable H has stated: From the physical evidence available and position of the vehicles, [vehicle 1] must have been travelling in a north to south direction in order to come to rest in the resultant position. There is no possible way [vehicle 1] could have been stationary in the roadway and then struck by the northbound [vehicle 2]. The physical evidence does not corroborate this. The debris field also indicates that the collision has been caused by a south bound vehicle striking the front of [vehicle 2] and thereafter continuing south. Again, should [vehicle 1] have been stationary and then struck by [vehicle 2], then all the debris would have led in a northbound direction from [vehicle 2] to [vehicle 1], however this is not the case. As mentioned within Chief Inspector E s response, Temporary Inspector D met with the applicant to discuss the findings of their investigation; however, the applicant was unwilling to accept the version of events that were presented to him. As a consequence, Temporary Inspector D agreed with the applicant for an officer from the collision investigation oversight unit, namely Constable I, to review the information gathered in respect of the collision in order to determine whether the conclusion reached by Constables G and H was indeed correct. Constable I provided a statement explaining the evidence he reviewed and the conclusions he reached. Within his statement, Constable I said that he established that a scale plan drawing had been compiled using the survey data recorded at the scene; and obtained the photographs from the initial investigation of the collision. Constable I stated that he used the positioning of the marks and the damage shown on both vehicles to create a reconstruction of the events. This resulted in Constable I reaching the same conclusion as Constables G and H. Furthermore, Constable I stated that the physical evidence available did not support the applicant s view that there had been two collisions. As detailed previously within this report, Constable F obtained witness statements following the collision. These witness statements have been provided to the PIRC and have been considered during the course of the review. Of note is that within her statement, Ms A - the passenger in the applicant s vehicle - described having asked the applicant to take her to her mother s home for Hogmanay. She stated that whilst being driven to her mother s home, she felt that the applicant was driving too fast and that she had requested that he slow down. Ms A said that the applicants response to her was do you want to get there for the bells or not. Ms A further stated that as they were driving on the road, she believed that the applicant was Page 7
driving fast; and that when he took a left hand bend in the road they saw a car approaching in the opposite direction that she believed had caused the applicant to panic and brake resulting in him losing control of his car. Ms A stated that she remembers that they hit vehicle 2. Ms A also stated it s my opinion the accident was [the applicant s] fault. He was travelling too fast. Days after the collision, statements were also taken from Mr B and Mrs C the occupants of vehicle 2. Within his statement, Mr B said I just remember a big silver thing travelling at speed across my path, I shouted as it hit us and continued past us to the passenger side. Mr B s statement is supported by that provided by Mrs C. Mrs C stated that she was travelling in the passenger seat of vehicle 2 and that, as they approached a local hospital, she looked out of the passenger window towards the lights and then remembers her husband shouting. At this time, Mrs C said she looked up and saw a Silver Car, it was moving fast towards us and across out [sic] path, my husband braked but the silver Car collided with us, with an almighty bang. The Silver Car continued passed my side, like it was in mid air then I heard a loud bang. It can be confirmed from the crash investigation report obtained by the applicant that the data collected from the black box on his vehicle indicated that his journey had ended at 23:49:21. It has already been noted within this review that the police incident report was raised at 23:56:06. However, noteworthy is that the time logged on the police incident report is reflective of the time that the incident was reported to Police Scotland - it would not necessarily be the exact time that the collision occurred. Although not included in Chief Inspector E s response, it can be confirmed that the existence of the telematics driving data and the applicant s position regarding the time discrepancies has been considered by the officers within their statements and thereafter discredited. It is clear from the available evidence that the officers investigating this incident have taken into account a significant amount of physical evidence alongside their own observations at the locus in order to reach an informed conclusion as to the sequence of events immediately before the collision. The fact that the three civilian witnesses involved in this collision all state that the applicant was at fault and that his vehicle collided with vehicle 2 before colliding with the wall only served to reinforce the investigating officers conclusions. Although the telematics driving data report was not available to the officers at the time of the investigation, it does not contain evidence that conclusively disproves the investigating officers conclusions. On the contrary, it provides support to Ms A s position that the applicant was driving fast shortly before the collision. Accordingly, it is considered that the response provided by Chief Inspector E is supported by the material information available and as such it is considered that this complaint has been handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required in this connection. Page 8
5. Conclusions Complaint: Collision not fully investigated It is concluded that this complaint has been handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required in this connection. Nicola Mayes Review Officer Ilya Zharov Head of Policy and Review Page 9