Ten years after the death of their son, the parents of a young man found dead in Wick Harbour in 1997 are to receive an unreserved apology from the chief constable of Northern Constabulary for the way he and his force handled their complaints about the police investigation into his death. In the intervening years, Hugh and June McLeod's distress has been compounded by the way the police have handled a series of complaints from the family. When the first Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS), Jim Martin, took up his post in April this year, their complaint was one of the first to land on his desk. He has now issued his report, which is deeply critical of Northern Constabulary and its chief constable, Ian Latimer.

This is the second time Mr Martin has ordered a force to apologise to someone making a complaint. Last month, he asked Strathclyde Police to apologise to the family of a 14-year-old youth who was held in a police cell for 59 hours. In that incident, Mr Martin found there was in Strathclyde Police "what appears to be a systemic failure in relation to the detention in custody of children". In the case of the McLeod family, he comes to a not dissimilar conclusion that the attitude taken towards the family by the police "smacks at times of institutional arrogance". His report, which also criticises some of the McLeods' actions, makes a number of general recommendations about more prompt responses, but, crucially, recommends that Mr Latimer personally meets with the family. One of the main grievances expressed by almost all complainants against public bodies is that they don't receive an apology when things go wrong. This is routine to avoid anything which could be construed as an admission of guilt in any subsequent legal action, but that need not always preclude an expression of genuine regret.

One of the significant factors in this case is that Mr Martin says that if the family had not used the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to a report by the chief constable of Central Scotland Police into how Northern Constabulary had handled their complaints, the extent of their shortcomings would not have come to light. That underlines the lack of transparency which is at the root of so many complaints. In this case, some of the difficulties between the police and the family (who believe their son's death was not properly investigated) stem from a delay in providing them with information, such as the post-mortem results. That is a different issue from the handling of the subsequent complaints, but where complaints are not responded to seriously and courteously, the effect is that suspicion is deepened rather than allayed. Mr Martin, a former teacher, says that should be the lesson in this case. It also demonstrates how prone to "institutional arrogance" public bodies such as the police can be and that if that remains unchecked, it is soon followed by public distrust.