POLICE failed to adequately respond to two calls about an inebriated driver who later went on to seriously injure a pedestrian, the police complaints commissioner has found.
Police Scotland's Tayside division received two calls from a member of the public on June 1 about a man on the road in Forfar, Angus, who was thought to be unfit to drive.
A few hours after the calls, the driver struck a 30-year-old female pedestrian, who sustained serious injuries.
The man was later arrested and convicted of driving under the influence of drink or drugs, and the officers involved were referred to complaints watchdog the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC).
PIRC investigators examined police command and control systems, control room recordings, radio traffic, intelligence systems and obtained statements from police and members of the public. They found that police failed to gather enough information or circulate the correct information about the man, and did not conduct proper intelligence checks.
The PIRC report states: "Prior to the crash, officers of Police Scotland had on two separate occasions been provided with information by a member of the public regarding the fitness of the man to drive.
"The Commissioner, Professor John McNeill, states that officers did not obtain enough information and did not circulate correct information.
"Furthermore, the officers, all from Tayside division, did not carry out intelligence checks on the national police Scottish Intelligence Database that would have provided information that may have helped them stop and arrest the driver before the later serious road accident.
"The investigation by PIRC staff also revealed that staff were accessing an old intelligence system that includes out-of-date information."
Prof McNeill said: "My investigation has revealed a number of areas of concern in relation to how Police Scotland handled this incident.
"There are clearly lessons to be learned by individual officers but there are wider issues that should be addressed specifically in relation to the use of out-of-date intelligence systems by Tayside division."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article