Tayside Police have apologised to a couple for failings in their investigation into complaints about verbal abuse by youths.
The case has come to light after the husband and wife who have not been named asked John McNeill, the police complaints commissioner for Scotland, to look into the way the force dealt with them.
The wife is disabled and comes from abroad. She and her husband were subjected to racial and sexual taunts by the youths, with several incidents being reported to officers between autumn 2010 and spring last year.
Mr McNeill’s report explains that on one occasion two youths had been verbally abusive and used rude gestures. The man was able to name one of them, but it was decided there was insufficient evidence to charge him.
Some months later, the man had seen this youth again in a group that had thrown gravel at his windows. About two weeks after that the same youth was involved in shouting and swearing at the couple and racially abusing the woman.
The youth was charged over this last incident and the case was passed to the reporter to the children’s panel.
Mr McNeill was asked to decide if the force had taken the man’s complaints seriously and coordinated enquiries effectively.
He studied letters the man sent to the force, one of which stated: ”Both of us are angry and upset at my treatment from Tayside Police, especially given previous incidents.
”My wife was repeatedly racially abused by youths over a period of months and suffered sexually suggestive remarks alongside hateful remarks about her disability and threats.
”My wife and I were passed between various constables and there seemed to be no central recording of statements given to officers.”
A Tayside Police inspector took statements from the couple and looked at the reports on the various incidents. He also spoke to some of the officers involved.
The inspector said: ”I think that the complainer has every justification in questioning the police response to what was a recurring incidence of abuse of his wife.
”There appears to have been no cohesion within the section in response to this ongoing problem. No one has taken responsibility for formulating a coordinated response within the section in an effort to mitigate the problem or to bring the persons responsible to book.”
These findings were passed to a chief inspector, who then wrote to the man saying: ”It is clear that these incidents were being dealt with in isolation with no collective overview, and as such the impact on yourself and your wife was not recognised sufficiently.
”This was a general failing on our part and, while it cannot be directly attributed to one officer, it is recognised that the service you received fell short of what should have been expected. I apologise for this and assure you that this has been brought to the attention of supervisors in your area.
”They are now aware of the need to consider links between apparently separate incidents which may represent a course of action against a person which has significant impact on the quality of life of that person and others associated with them.”
Mr McNeill said the force clearly recognised the deficiencies in the approach it had taken to the various allegations made by the applicant.
”In essence, these had been treated as a series of isolated events rather than a persistent course of conduct by the youths involved. Action was taken to ensure that any future allegations made by the applicant and his wife were coordinated by a designated officer. In the commissioner’s view, this will assist in ensuring a cohesive approach to any future incidents.”