Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

It is good to know that you are meeting the 90-day target. Is it fair to say that the PIRC does a lot of the work in preparing reports for the Crown?

In the case of an accusation of assault—I thought that a typical accusation might be, “When you handcuffed me, you actually assaulted me” or something like that—why would it take six months for the Crown to duly decide on sufficiency of evidence in what is quite a simple case?

That makes sense. Thank you very much.

Right, I see. In the first instance, it will come to you, having been reported to the police—