Category Archives: Crime

FAIR COP: Police Scotland officers fabricated intelligence in order to spy on journalists & sources in CCU spying scandal – evidence from Durham Constabulary’s Chief Constable to Holyrood Justice Committee

Chief Constable says Police Scotland hindered probe. SCOTLAND’S single national Police service – Police Scotland has been accused of fabricating intelligence to justify spying on journalists and sources – in connection with the unsolved murder of Emma Caldwell – who was murdered in South Lanarkshire, in May 2005.

Last Thursday, the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee heard from Michael Barton – the Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary – who candidly told MSPs that ‘evidence’ in the form of intelligence used by Scottish Police Officers to spy on their colleagues, and journalists – “was a lie”.

Chief Constable Barton was attending the Scottish Parliament to give evidence in connection with the Durham Constabulary investigation into events at Police Scotland where officers were found to have deliberately and illegally obtained communications data on journalists, while circumventing the judicial process around obtaining interception warrants.

The damning statement from the Durham Constabulary Chief in relation to Scottish Police officers fabricating intelligence – came in an exchange with Justice Committee member Stewart Stevenson MSP (SNP).

During questions, Mr Stevenson attempted to make a legal point to Mr Barton, stating: “… It would be perfectly legal for Police Scotland to have the intelligence that led to the action.”

However, Chief Constable Barton responded to the MSP, stating : “Not if it is wrong.”

Stewart Stevenson continued: ” No. I was going to make the point that having it does not make it correct.”

However, Chief Constable Barton did not back down, and said: “Police Scotland cannot keep something about somebody when it is a lie.”

Stewart Stevenson again raised the issue of the validity & existence of the intelligence at Police Scotland, stating: “I understand that, but it was perfectly proper for Police Scotland to have it in the first place before it concluded, as you say, that it was a lie.”

However, Chief Constable Barton was candid in his response, stating: “No. It was never legitimate for Police Scotland to have it, because it had made it up.”

The exchange between the two then ended with Stewart Stevenson saying: “Okay. That is clear.”

After that short, yet critical exchange, the meeting was brought to a halt, due to an ‘overrun of time’.

However, during earlier questions & answers, Chief Constable Michael Barton also accused the single Scottish Police force of preventing him from carrying out a full-scale misconduct probe.

Michael Barton said came up against a “culture of secrecy” at Police Scotland.

He also said Police Scotland’s complaints staff should be “put into a sack and shaken up”

Durham Constabulary’s Operation Seastorm report on the Counter Corruption Unit.

The Counter Corruption Unit (CCU) was used by Police Scotland to secretly spy on journalists & sources while circumventing judicial procures to obtain communications interception warrants.

A full report by the Sunday Mail newspaper on the Durham Constabulary report and spying scandal at Police Scotland can be viewed here: Police Scotland’s embarrassing illegal spying scandal began with a ‘suspicious’ Costa Coffee meeting

Police Scotland has earlier claimed that a full investigation had eventually been carried out into events at the Counter Corruption Unit (CCU), adding that there had been “significant organisational learning” from the case.

Seven Police Scotland officers from the counter corruption unit (CCU) were cleared by in-house Police hearings of misconduct in January following a lengthy investigation involving several police forces.

Police Scotland had asked their counterpart in Northern Ireland – the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) to ‘examine’ the allegations of misconduct.

The investigation, by Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton, concluded that there was no misconduct on the part of any officer.

However, officers were found to have obtained communications data without judicial permission while trying to identify a journalist’s sources, after information about the Emma Caldwell murder inquiry was leaked.

An investigation by the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (IOCCO) into the actions of Police Scotland officers said the failures “could properly be viewed as reckless”, however, Police Scotland’s senior officers maintained throughout that it had been an issue of “misjudgement” by an officer “misinterpreting” a newly-introduced code.

After the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (IOCCO) identified that there had been a breach of protocols in June 2015, Durham Constabulary was asked to look into the breach.

The English force recommended a full misconduct probe, which was carried out by the Police Service of Northern Ireland – which resulted in all seven officers being cleared by their Northern Ireland Police colleagues.

Mr Barton told MSPs that he had initially been asked to conduct a full investigation, but later found this was downgraded to an inquiry – a lesser form of probe which would mean he would not have access to all documents or be able to interview people under caution.

He said: “As far as I was concerned, I was asked to investigate. That’s what I wanted to do. And I was prevented from doing so.”

Mr Barton said he was frustrated by the decision, and said there was “a lack of openness in certain parts of the organisation – and that remains so”.

He added: “I think currently, the lawyers in Police Scotland are not transparent, and they’re overly defensive, and they’re risk-averse, and that got in my way.”

In responses to questions Michael Barton added: “I got dreadfully cross with the legal people and the professional standards department people because I think they misinterpreted the rules, frankly, and I think they’re too risk averse, but they’re still smashing people. But it’s the culture.

“It’s that secrecy, that lack of transparency, that’s incredibly unfair to everybody, because there isn’t speedy justice.”

Mr Barton told Holyrood’s justice sub-committee on policing that the complaints processes at the Scottish single force needed to be “shaken up”.

He said: “What’s happened here, over time, is people have dug them into the trenches. So you can’t seem to get out of it. I think it’s preposterous that in an inquiry I was asked to go and speak to officers, and they couldn’t be held to account for what they told me.

“They could have just told me a load of old bunkum and I’d have had to write it down and hand it on to somebody who’s investigating, and then they’d look at me and say, ‘you’re not so good Mick, you’ve just put a load of bunkum in front of me’ because it couldn’t be a probing interview under caution.

“I think it’s grown over time. But I do think it needs everybody put into a sack and shaken up and told, ‘for heaven’s sake fix it, and stop it’. Because the only people who are suffering as a result of this are the complainants who are making complaints, and they have a less than optimal service, and the officers themselves, because it’s dreadful that they’re held under suspicion for quite so long.”

Following the conclusion of the misconduct probe, Police Scotland acknowledged that guidelines had been breached and said there had been “significant organisational learning” as a result of the case.

Dep Ch Con Rose Fitzpatrick – who was recently in the headlines for receiving ‘relocation’ payments of £67,000 and having a tax bill of £53,000 paid for her from public cash – claimed: “A full misconduct investigation was carried out by PSNI at our request, which is the element of the process that Chief Constable Barton says he was prevented from undertaking.

“The PSNI investigation found that there was no misconduct on the part of any of the seven officers who were investigated. It is our position, supported by external and independent legal opinion from a QC, that our regulations would not have permitted Chief Constable Barton from carrying out both the complaint enquiry and the misconduct investigation.

“We have previously said that there has been significant organisational learning from these enquiries and a report on this has been provided to the Scottish Parliament’s justice sub-committee.”

In the wake of additional revelations during the testimony of Chief Constable Michael Barton – who told MSPs that Police Scotland officers wanted to destroy evidence of illegally obtained surveillance data, the Justice Committee has since written to Police Scotland asking for assurances the data will not be destroyed.

A letter to Police Scotland, from the Justice sub-Committee on Policing states the following:

The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing is aware that Police Scotland has written to at least one of the complainants involved in the Counter Corruption Unit (CCU) investigation to inform them of the process going forward now that the conduct investigation has concluded.

The correspondence indicates that it is Police Scotland’s intention in the coming weeks to cleanse the contents of the relevant Force databases and to remove all material not considered to reflect the truth of those matters. Police Scotland is taking this action to reflect the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) judgement of 8 August 2016.

The Sub-Committee understands that the IPT’s view is that the destruction of this data without the consent of the applicants would appear to be in breach of the agreement contained within the order. The IPT has instructed that Police Scotland should desist from this action, unless it makes a further application to the Tribunal.

The conduct investigation has been completed, but there may be continuing related proceedings, for example in the High Court. The Sub-Committee is therefore seeking an urgent assurance from Police Scotland that it will not destroy any evidence or data until the applicants have consented.

The Justice sub-committee on Policing also wrote to the Scottish Police Authority, asking for information on the SPA’s oversight responsibilities for the process and the CCU investigation and the SPA’s view on Police Scotland’s proposed action to destroy evidence of illegality, and timeframe.

The full evidence session with Durham Chief Constable Michael Barton,  Investigator Darren Ellis of Durham Constabulary and the Justice sub-Committee on Policing can be viewed here:

Durham Constabulary Chief Constable evidence to Justice Sub committee on Policing 22 Feb 2018

Full report of Justice sub-Committee on Policing, Counter-corruption Unit (Durham Constabulary Reports):

The Convener: Item 2 is an evidence session on Durham Constabulary’s reports on Police Scotland’s counter-corruption unit. I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 2, which is a private paper. I welcome Michael Barton, chief constable, and Darren Ellis, senior investigator, from Durham Constabulary. Thank you for travelling to see us. Chief constable, I invite you to make some opening remarks, if you wish to.

Chief Constable Michael Barton (Durham Constabulary): Thank you for your invitation to us both. This is not the first time that we have been in Scotland, because we were up for seven months on our investigation. The reason why I wrote to the committee was that I read the Official Report of a previous meeting that you had in relation to the matter, and I felt that some of the evidence that was given to you needed to be corrected.

The Convener: Your report and others have generated a considerable amount of paper and contain a lot of detailed information. Can I ask first about your terms of reference? Do you believe that there was clarity about that?

Chief Constable Barton: I will ask Darren Ellis to follow up on what I say. I was called by Chief Constable Gormley and asked to do an inquiry. It was going to be in two parts. First of all, there was to be an independent investigation, as described by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The law department in Police Scotland had given the IPT in London an undertaking that it would conduct an independent investigation, because the authorisations that had been gained within the counter-corruption unit were deemed to be unlawful by the IPT. I agreed to do that. The other part of the investigation involved reviewing a number of cases that the counter-corruption unit had been part of. When I scoped that part of the inquiry, I realised that it would be too much for us. It would have been an inordinate amount of work for Durham to do all its own business as well as both sides of the inquiry, so I asked the chief constable of Northumbria Police, with Chief Constable Gormley’s agreement, whether they would do that part of the inquiry.

When I was given the inquiry, it was made clear to me by the chief constable that we were being asked to do an investigation. That means that we can investigate, access all the documents and interview people, so that we can make a recommendation on whether or not there may be misconduct. Of course, all the way through any such inquiry, we must be cognisant that criminal matters may be revealed. By the way, we were satisfied all the way through the inquiry that there were no criminal matters that needed to be referred, but it is always something that we have at the back of our mind.

However, as we were doing our inquiry we were told, “This isn’t an investigation. This is an inquiry.” That is where I became a little bit confused and concerned. Have I got that right, Darren?

Darren Ellis (Durham Constabulary): Yes. What struck me was that, although the terms of reference for the piece of work were eminently clear, the chronology—without getting too detailed—was such that an inspection by the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office in June 2015 identified something that was later deemed to be unlawful. That was reported a month later, and then in more detail in November 2015.

The four adversely affected people, as they were termed by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal process, were in themselves complainants. Let us not lose sight of the fact that, at that time, two of the four were serving members of Police Scotland. Those people did not provide a complaint statement until February 2016. They were clear that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal process was to ensue, but they did not know what they did not know—one could argue, that those individuals were perhaps not engaged with, and nor were matters explained in any great detail or with any great haste, so they really did not know the position until the IPT position, in the August, was clear. That led to my staff having to re-engage with the complainants at that juncture, to find out what they were concerned about, and to determine the length and breadth of the work that needed to be done. That was done subsequent to any terms of reference.

In short, I think that the terms of reference were set far too early. The work that we were required to do was based on an undertaking on Police Scotland’s behalf to the IPT to fulfil an independent investigation. There were also four complainants who needed to be engaged with, reassured and satisfied, and answers given. The terms of reference, I would argue, were set far too early.

The Convener: That seems to be a pivotal part of the issue. The relationship between any misconduct or discipline issues—call them what you will; I am not sure what they would be called south of the border—and criminal matters would also be pivotal. It would be important for the individuals to understand their status and to know whether they were a witness, a suspect or an accused. Was no clarity given on those aspects in the initial brief? How were you initially advised?

Chief Constable Barton: I was initially asked to conduct an investigation, and that is what I agreed with Phil Gormley. Subsequently, the professional standards department in Police Scotland decided that we should conduct only an inquiry. I argued with the department all the way through that I should be allowed to do an investigation, because that was the commitment that Police Scotland had given the IPT, but I was never allowed to do an investigation. We were not allowed investigation status, which would have enabled us to speak to officers who may or may not have been guilty of misconduct and who it was certainly pivotal for us to speak to under caution.

The Convener: I do not wish to labour the point, but underpinning this are various pieces of legislation. Criminal matters are at the behest of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and misconduct matters are at the behest of the deputy chief constable. Was there any discussion of the parameters?

Chief Constable Barton: It was unsaid. I cannot be clear about whether we had a specific agreement—it would have been an unspoken agreement. I do lots of inquiries in other forces, and there is an unspoken agreement that, when we are conducting misconduct inquiries, if we reveal criminality, there will be an immediate discussion with, in Scotland, the relevant law officer or, in England, the Crown Prosecution Service or relevant chief constable. The criminality side was not a problem. I was not concerned at all about that component of our terms of reference.

I do not know whether that is helpful.

The Convener: The issue seems to hinge on the initial contact, which is what I am trying to burrow down into.

Chief Constable Barton: Yes, it does.

The Convener: It is not unreasonable for a chief constable who is asked to investigate something to assume that it will be what the layperson assumes is an investigation. However, I am trying to link the issue into the investigatory powers system, what Police Scotland’s expectation was and whether Chief Constable Gormley asked you to deliver that expectation rather than an inquiry that might have encompassed misconduct and indeed criminality.

Chief Constable Barton: As far as I am concerned, I was asked to investigate and I agree that it was what the common man or woman would understand to be an investigation. That is what I wanted to do, but I was prevented from doing so.

The Convener: Members have a number of questions, but I will ask a final one. Were the terms of reference in writing?

Darren Ellis: Yes, but I refer to my earlier point that the terms of reference arrived in August or September 2016 and, at that point, we had not engaged with the complainants. I agree with Mr Barton that Mr Gormley’s request for an independent investigation came as a direct result of the wording that was provided by the IPT. However, with respect, sir, we should remember that, as part of that process, we also had four individuals who quite distinctly had made complaints to Police Scotland. Our investigation was to cover the requirements of the IPT process and the undertaking given by Police Scotland, but it was also to satisfy the four individuals who had made police complaints to Police Scotland, as they were entitled to do.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): I have a very simple quick question. Chief constable, you said that, when you initially looked at what you were being asked to do, it was beyond what you felt that Durham could undertake and hence Northumbria Police was brought to the table. Were there any downsides as a result of dividing the task in that way? I hope to hear that the answer is no.

Chief Constable Barton:#You will not be disappointed. There were no downsides whatsoever—that is why we divided it. In fact, if we had kept both tasks, there would have been confusion. What we gave Northumbria was a review of everything that was completely disconnected to the inquiry, and we kept everything that was connected to the inquiry. The two were completely separate tasks. When Phil Gormley first spoke to me, we discussed the fact that one was a really big task. The Northumbria force is more than twice the size of mine and, after a bit of cajoling, it agreed to take that. Seriously—it was not a small undertaking.

Stewart Stevenson: The two forces that were undertaking the work would have talked to each other if what they were doing revealed the need to do so.

Chief Constable Barton: Yes. We kept in touch, but I do not think that we found anything that strictly overlapped.

The Convener: I understand that Liam McArthur has a supplementary question on that.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD): Towards the end of the report to the SPA, you say:

“The findings have been reached on the basis that the alleged conduct occurred without any influence or participation from any officer of an Executive rank.”

You go on to say:

“However, in reaching this conclusion the SPA must also consider the restricted working environment Durham have operated within as articulated in the ‘Lessons Learned’ chapter. In particular the fact that Durham have not been able to fully investigate the conduct of the officers within the CCU by means of an unfettered misconduct investigation.”

That level of concern almost begs the question whether, in producing the report, you have legitimised a process in which you do not appear to have full confidence. Would that be a fair characterisation?

Chief Constable Barton: It was clear to me when we started on the process—when we first made contact with the four people who had been deeply wronged—that we had to try to bring fairness and justice to their position. My position at the start—it remains so, and I have articulated this to the deputy chief constable, as well as to the chief superintendent—was that if they had allowed me to do an independent investigation, I could have brought an end to the matter much sooner and much more effectively for the four complainants, because of course it is still not over.

I was frustrated, but it was clear that Police Scotland—erroneously, I believe—felt that I had to go through an inquiry for it subsequently to launch an independent investigation. In effect, it was putting me in as an interim investigator in order for there to be an independent investigation thereafter. I pointed out to Police Scotland more than once that I felt myself to be sufficiently independent.

To try to answer the question, Mr McArthur, it is instructive that, in the evidence that you were given at your previous meeting, a question was put to Chief Superintendent Speirs about the idea that people who deal with misconduct cannot deal with complaints. There is a real separation of those issues in the current interpretation within Police Scotland. I think that that is wrong.

Mr Speirs said that, to run an investigation, officers “cannot have any previous involvement in any complaint handling.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 23 November 2017; c 6.]

That is wrong. It is not what the regulations say. The regulations say three things about my status if I am to do any investigation. The first is that I must be a rank above the officers that are being investigated. I fulfil that criterion. Secondly, I must have the appropriate skills and experience. That is for others to judge. Thirdly, I must act impartially—and that is it. The false—in my view—separation between complaints and misconduct simply serves to lengthen the process, and Police Scotland does that all the time.

The way that I would have dealt with the matter if I had been in Police Scotland when it was first alerted to it is through IOCCO. IOCCO governs me, too—it governs the entire country. It is a really important day for me when, in effect, the High Court comes into my organisation and looks at the secret stuff that I do, so I have to be on my best behaviour, and I am prepared for that meeting. Generally, we get a clean bill of health, although sometimes minor recommendations are made.

However, the IOCCO report that Police Scotland got in June 2015 was excoriating. Police Scotland was told that people had acted illegally. Following the verbal report in June, Police Scotland got the report in July. At that time, two of the officers were still serving and two were retired. Even though they were in jeopardy and had been wronged, Police Scotland did not contact them.

The IOCCO report was published in November 2015. The four officers who were wronged were written to—in a regimented way—as a result of that report, but not by Police Scotland. They were told that they were in jeopardy. They were perplexed because, at that time, there had still been no contact from Police Scotland, even though it employed two of those people.

Then—I think that it was in February 2016—a complaint was made. As far as I can make out, that was Police Scotland’s first contact with the four people, bearing in mind that it had been told that it had acted unlawfully the previous June.

I need to put the matter into context and explain how I would have dealt with the situation. This committee meeting is necessary, but it is such a pity that we are here. If I had got a report from a High Court judge in June, I would have said. “We need to put this right—now.” I would have immediately made sure that the counter-corruption unit was fit for purpose. If I considered that some people needed training, that would have been done promptly; if I considered that people needed to be investigated, they would have been deployed elsewhere. I would have kept the High Court judge formally informed every month and informally informed every fortnight. Those four people would have been approached and we would have reassured them that everything that we had obtained illegally had been destroyed forthwith. That material has still has not been destroyed. Indeed, last week, I got a letter from Police Scotland asking me to oversee the destruction of the material that was obtained illegally in 2015.

If that had all been done, we would not be where we are. I have had four complainants, one of whom who is still a serving officer—Sergeant Steven Adams. He has been—and remains—gravely wronged. We have got—

The Convener: Mr Barton, I am sorry to interrupt you, but we have to go with what is in the report, so it would probably be helpful not to mention individuals, please.

Chief Constable Barton: Okay; that is fine.

Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con): I seek clarification from the clerks about what we can and cannot say. Police Scotland is an inanimate object; it is a single force. What are we talking about here? Police Scotland is the police force under investigation and we must drill down into who has, as I understand it, blocked the investigation that Mr Barton thought that he could fully carry out but was not allowed to do so.

The Convener: I have conferred with the clerks. I am very keen that we thoroughly look into the matter. However, we have a lot of communications, which Margaret Mitchell is aware of, that suggest that some proceedings are still live. That issue is at the back of my mind when talking about individual officers. I am not trying to fetter Mr Barton’s explanation of the whole circumstances—

Chief Constable Barton: I have absolutely no intention of naming any officers who may—or may not—be in jeopardy. That would be incorrect of me and it could jeopardise further proceedings, so I will not do that. However, the names of the four people who were wronged is a matter of public record—they are named in the reports by the IOCCO, the IPT and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland, all of which are in the public domain. I am simply repeating things that are in the public domain. I have no intention at all of embarrassing you, convener.

The Convener: No, it is not embarrassing—

Chief Constable Barton: Sorry, I meant legally embarrassing.

The Convener: Please continue.

Chief Constable Barton: We have four people who were—and continue to be—gravely wronged. Our problem when dealing with those four people is that, every time that we go to see them again, they feel that there is more conspiratorial activity by Police Scotland. I can understand why, because they are not getting to the end of it all. I try to reassure them that there is no conspiracy in Police Scotland and that the situation is a result of ineptitude. I reassure the committee that it is certainly not a conspiracy.

However, because this has carried on so long, we have four complainants, one of whom still works for the organisation, who feel that the organisation is ganging up on them. As a result, every time we see them, we get more allegations that we have to field in our inquiry.

I am simply trying to point out to you that Police Scotland’s aim is to be speedy with all this, but its current interpretation of the rules that it works under is, I think, wrong and does not serve anybody. Officers wait for years to get an adjudication and complainants wait for years to get satisfaction.

The Convener: On the point about the interpretation of the regulations, I believe that Police Scotland sought Queen’s counsel opinion and shared it with you.

Chief Constable Barton: I sought that too, and the legal opinion that I received was exactly what I thought it would be. I have a law degree, and I read and interpreted the regulations. What has happened is that Police Scotland has created a policy on top of the regulations, and it is working not to the regulations but to the policy that it wrote after the regulations. That policy does not carry the force of regulation. The regulations are clear; indeed, I have already explained the three things that I need to be in order to conduct an investigation.

I do not know whether I am going to be unhelpful here, but the way in which this is being misinterpreted is that Police Scotland is separating complaints from misconduct. When a member of the public complains to Police Scotland, the complaint is investigated; when that investigation is finished and it appears that there might be misconduct, the matter is pushed into the misconduct line. However, the complainant is told, “It’s all done and dusted. That’s it—your complaint’s been dealt with.” If they say, “What’s happening with the misconduct issue?”, they are told, “That’s nothing to do with you. It’s a completely separate matter.” That is wrong. If a complainant complains about something in my organisation, they are able to stay with the matter all the way through and we absolutely keep them informed—so much so, indeed, that they can be invited to the hearing, if there is one. They will certainly be informed of the result.

In my force, if the result takes us into misconduct, we will say, “This officer”—we would not name them, but the complainant would know who they were—“has got to have management advice and go on a training course.” At the end of the training course—say, a year later—we would inform the complainant of exactly what we had done. That does not happen in Scotland. Once Police Scotland deems the complaint closed, that is it. The complainant is pretty much set free, and the misconduct element is addressed completely separately and not transparently.

The Convener: Thank you for that. I see that members have a number of questions.

Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP): Just to backtrack a wee bit, how much time elapsed between your thinking that you were about to conduct an investigation and your subsequently being told that it was an inquiry?

Darren Ellis: It was two to three months. The team and I started in earnest in early December. In the initial stages of any investigation, we clear the ground, gain understanding, obtain documents and speak to witnesses—not vulnerable ones, but ones who can help with the picture. Then the dialogue started with Police Scotland.

Rona Mackay: So you actually had a chance to start the investigation—or what you thought was going to be an investigation.

Darren Ellis: Absolutely.

Chief Constable Barton: There are one or two nuances with regard to the difference between inquiries and investigations, but, to help you, I would say that the main difference is that in an inquiry we cannot interview officers under caution. If we spoke to the officers who might be at risk, whatever they said to us could never be used in a subsequent investigation. That seemed bizarre to me. There was therefore no point in speaking to the officers, because whatever they told us would not be helpful to the person who subsequently took over my inquiry.

Rona Mackay: Finally, has this ever happened to you before, or is it something entirely new?

Chief Constable Barton: This is a novel experience for me.

Margaret Mitchell: You have said that we are talking about ineptitude rather than anything more serious. It is comforting that, at this stage, that is your conclusion.

Do you think that some of the ineptitude has been a result of having a single force—a single force that was under review because of what had happened? Given that the single force was under review, do you think that it was appropriate that it was the arbiter, that it set the policy and that it made the determination that you could not continue the investigation and that you could look only at complaints rather than conduct?

Chief Constable Barton: I cannot comment on whether I was asked to do an inquiry rather than conduct an investigation because there was a single force. Quite frankly, that did not cross my mind; I was dealing with what I was dealing with.

I think that there was a lack of openness in certain parts of the organisation—in the legal department, certainly—and that remains the case. When we conducted our inquiry, we wanted to look at everything. When we looked at the senior officers, we needed to see the emails that people sent each other before coming before your committee, to find out whether there was a conspiracy that involved people not telling you the truth, but we were told that we could not see those email chains.

The legal officers in Police Scotland misinterpreted legal privilege. We never asked to see legally privileged documents, which are documents relating to advice provided by a solicitor or a lawyer to their client. It is legitimate for a senior police officer or a member of the Scottish Police Federation to sit down with their solicitor and to be absolutely sure that those conversations are sacrosanct. I did not want to breach that, but the law officers in Police Scotland misinterpreted legal privilege—they deemed anything that a senior officer did as a result of such a meeting to be legally privileged, which is clearly nonsense. It took me two or three months just to get through that impasse.

Another impasse was to do with the fact that we wanted to speak to senior officers who had retired. Police Scotland wanted us to do that as part of the inquiry, but lawyers in Police Scotland said that we were not allowed to know where those retired officers lived, because that would be a breach of data protection. We asked them very politely how the devil we could get in touch with those people. Eventually—after another two months—we got the details and we were able to go and see them.

I think that, currently, the lawyers in Police Scotland are not transparent. They are also overly defensive and risk averse, and that got in my way. I cannot say whether that has anything to do with it being a single force.

Margaret Mitchell: That certainly chimes with the concern that some of us have had since the inception of Police Scotland that the checks and balances are not there to ensure the necessary accountability, transparency and openness. It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest if the organisation that is under investigation can block the passing on of information.

Could you comment on Northumbria Police’s report?

Chief Constable Barton: I have not seen that. I know that if Northumbria Police has not sent it, it is pretty much sent.

Margaret Mitchell: Have you reached any conclusions about the culture in the organisation? Northumbria Police’s report says:

“Within Police Scotland and unlike the complaints process in England, officers subject of an investigation by Police Scotland PSD/CCU often resulted in a counter allegation made against those officers who are conducting the investigation.”

It goes on to say:

“It is unclear if this is orchestrated by individuals or they are coerced in to this course of action by legal representatives, federation or peers but this does appear to be the immediate response following any executive action taken as part of CCU/PSD investigations.”

Chief Constable Barton: Darren Ellis might come in after my comment on this because he is closer to some of the detail.

What you describe to me, Ms Mitchell, is a culture. The reason why I fall on my sword smartly in any such situation and do so genuinely is that organisations need to have humility. That applies especially to police forces, because we yield power on behalf of our communities and states and it is crucial that we exercise that power with humility. Therefore, I fall on my sword quickly.

That is why I know what I would have done in this case. Darren Ellis, who is my former head of professional standards, would have come into my office and looked grave. It would have been clear to me within five minutes what I would have to do, which would be to have the four complainants in and apologise profusely.

When that does not happen, it permeates an organisation. Individually, there are some smashing people in Police Scotland. Everybody we met was a smashing person. I have to say that I got dreadfully cross with the legal people and the PSD people because they misinterpreted the rules, to be frank, and are too risk averse, but they are still smashing people. The issue is the culture.

It was instructive that, when one of the committee members asked what the four complainants were like, Mr Speirs said something like, “Oh well, we have sort of subcontracted that to Durham and Durham are really in touch with them and looking after them.” Yes, we are, but only by default. That should have been done by Police Scotland. It should have been really clear from day 1. That is why the officer who continues to serve continues to have a grave injustice inflicted upon him.

Margaret Mitchell: You said in your opening statement that there was information given to the committee that needed to be corrected. Has that now been corrected?

Chief Constable Barton: No.

Margaret Mitchell: Will you elaborate on what that was?

Chief Constable Barton: Thank you. I will now take you through the Official Report of your meeting of 23 November 2017, if you do not mind.

The end of the paragraph at the top of column 6 says: “the process seems to have become complicated and somewhat protracted.”

I emphasise to you that that is because of the decisions that I have just described—the way that risk-averse decisions were made. However, I agree with the convener at the time, who suggested that it did not need to be so.

I disagree that “Complaints and conduct are two separate matters in … the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014”.

They are not. That is just how they have been misinterpreted.

The Official Report says that it was “Police Scotland’s intention to publish a redacted version” of our report. I have sent you an unredacted version of both our reports. I sent them before the end of the year. As the reports’ author, the handling codes on those documents gave me the right to do that.

Halfway down column 7, Chief Superintendent Speirs said: “It would probably be unfair for me to go into the finer details because that, in itself, would probably identify those officers.”

Those officers are already named in three separate published reports.

At the top of column 8, he says: “The report becoming public would prejudice the investigation.”

However, the matters looked into were already in the public domain in the IPT judgment, the IOCCO review and the HMICS report. People say that they want to be open and transparent but everything that they do and say militates against that.

At the bottom of column 8, Chief Superintendent Speirs says that providing a summary “would be incredibly unfair on the officers who are subject to the inquiry at this time”.

He has got that wrong. It is incredibly unfair to the four complainants and, actually, the length of the process is incredibly unfair to the officers. That secrecy and lack of transparency are incredibly unfair to everybody, because there is not speedy justice.

At the bottom of column 9, Chief Superintendent Speirs says: “The redaction will largely be in the Durham report and will relate to very personal information.”

At the bottom of column 13, in response to Ms Mackay’s question, he goes on to say that my report “goes into fine detail about the officers”, such as “their ages”—I never mentioned anybody’s age—and “their postings”. I mentioned their relevant postings—whether they were in the CCU or part of the murder inquiry or neither. He says that my report contained “a whole raft of other details.”

Forgive me, but there was no raft of other details. There were no ages. I simply named the officers and where they worked, and that information was drawn from three reports that were in the public domain.

At the top of column 14, Chief Superintendent Speirs says: That is a good question. I will be honest with you that the report is written in Durham’s style.”

There is an implication there that, bless me, I have created a Durham style that is not quite up to snuff in Scotland. I absolutely disagree with that judgment. He goes on:

“When we asked that force to do an investigation and provide a report, we accepted the report in the format that it provided. I gave the force guidance on the normal approach that Police Scotland anticipated, but I am working with the report that Durham submitted to us.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 23 November 2017; c 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14.]

The implication is that he told us exactly how he wanted his report and we failed to comply. He gave us one sheet of paper, which I have supplied to the committee, with a Police Scotland heading on it—that was it. I have done quite a few such reports, and the most important parts of them are the lessons learned, but that was not part of any template that we were given. The really instructive thing is that, when we spoke to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as we had to because that service took over the inquiry, and we had to brief it, we found that the Police Service of Northern Ireland was told by Police Scotland—by Mr Speirs’s department—to follow our report structure, because they found it helpful.

At column 19, Mr Finnie asks about suspension. I never spoke to anybody about suspension. It was never raised with me and I did not offer an opinion, as that was not within my brief. However, since it was mentioned and there was an implication that we were involved, I will say this: I do not think that those officers in the CCU should have continued in the CCU after the decision was made by IOCCO. I am going back now to June 2015.

I am sorry for going on, convener, but I have one more comment. Actually, it is more of a comment about timeliness. I moved at pace, and the only times that we paused were when we asked for preliminary assessments. At any time in our inquiry, the officers in the professional standards department could have done a preliminary assessment. If they had done that, they could have switched the process, even under their arcane rules, into an investigation, and they chose not to do that. We gave them ample opportunity on a number of occasions to switch to a full investigation. We were balked in speaking to some people because we were not given the addresses and we were balked because we were not allowed to see what were assessed as being legally privileged documents, although they were not. I just wanted to comment on timeliness.

The Convener: Thank you—it has been helpful to get all that on the record. I am told that it is also important to put on the record that, as the unredacted reports were Police Scotland and SPA reports, the sub-committee was unable to publish them—as you will be aware, we publish all documentation in advance of meetings. Members are therefore not able to refer to those particular reports.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab): It sounds to me as though there are two fundamental issues. One issue is the timing of the setting of the scope of your work. As I understand it, the complainants had not had the opportunity to come forward at the point that the scope was set. Is that correct?

Chief Constable Barton: They had not come forward in an informed manner.

Daniel Johnson: The second issue is the interpretation of regulations. You are saying that the same regulations apply to all forces in the United Kingdom, but that Police Scotland has interpreted them in a different way. Is that right?

Chief Constable Barton: No, that is not true. There are different regulations in Scotland. The main difference is that Police Scotland officers can make a complaint as if they were a member of the public. Police officers in England and Wales cannot do that.

Daniel Johnson: Are you saying that, in essence, there should be no difference in how a complaint is pursued thereafter?

Chief Constable Barton: When I saw the Police Scotland regulations, I was entirely comfortable with them because what was in them is the same as what I had worked with in England and Wales. When I saw those three rules for doing an independent investigation, they were fine by me. However, I think that how the regulations have been wrapped up in procedure and policy thereafter in Police Scotland is the reason why the problems started.

Daniel Johnson: You referred a number of times to having done a number of similar investigations in the past and in a number of different forces in the rest of the UK. So that we can get an understanding of how unique your experience in Scotland has been, will you tell us how many you have done?

Chief Constable Barton: I am conducting some quite confidential inquiries at the moment. I have not just inquired into England and Wales matters; I inquire into matters in other countries, but I am not at liberty to explain that. All I can say is that I was flummoxed by the interpretation—misinterpretation, in my view—of how we should proceed.

Darren Ellis: I was the head of PSD for seven years, so my total runs into dozens. I have never been confronted by the issue that we were confronted by here.

Durham picked up four adversely affected, disillusioned people who had not been given respect. You should keep looking to see whether any of the Police Scotland values of integrity, fairness and respect shine through in this plot. Misunderstandings and myths built up because those people had not been shown respect by being given an explanation.

I can understand why your are drilling down into the terms of reference, but, outwith Durham conducting an independent investigation, what did we need in further detail? The investigation started with the four individuals not really understanding the terms of reference. For terms of reference to be meaningful, they needed to be pliable and flexible enough to meet the needs of the four complainants.

Notwithstanding that, for the IPT process to meet its statutory responsibility—this has been shared with Police Scotland—it has to oversee an effective remedy, which, as written down in the regulations, is an investigation on which reasonable decisions can be made. It has yet to be decided whether the process adopted by Police Scotland meets the needs of the complainants who have spoken to the IPT.

Daniel Johnson: That is a really critical point. I hear your differences of opinion with Mr Speirs’ evidence and I hear what you are saying about how the legal department interprets the regulations. Is the source of the issues regarding the way that Police Scotland has interpreted the regulations and implemented its processes and procedures limited to the legal department, or does it extend beyond that? To what extent is there a responsibility on senior officers to ensure that their legal processes are fit for purpose and serve the interest of the officers in their force?

Chief Constable Barton: I have a great deal of sympathy for the chief officers of Police Scotland, because the process is one that they have received rather than one that they have designed.

I think that the situation started with an overcautious approach. My impression is that the unions—Unison, the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents—sat down and asked themselves how they would work in the process. The process has become overly protracted, and I understand that the Scottish Police Federation has lodged judicial review proceedings against the force. That tends to create polarised opinions. The only way in which to make the regulations breathe and work so that people can feel that there is fairness is for there to be co-operation on all sides.

The issue is not principally or exclusively the legal department. All that I have to say is that I got quite cross at times with the way in which it dealt with our reasonable requests for information. However, the process has grown like Topsy, and people have added in a little word here and a little word there. I will give you an example. Darren, have you got the policy in front of you? Can you find where two or three items have been added?

Darren Ellis: Yes, I have the guidance.

Chief Constable Barton: Will you find the policy, Darren? Thank you. That will help the committee to understand how I think things have grown.

I refer members to part 2 of the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014, on “Misconduct investigations”. Regulation 10(5) states: “An investigator appointed under paragraph (4)(a) must— (a) be a constable of a higher rank than the constable being investigated; and (b) have the necessary knowledge, skills and expertise to plan and manage the misconduct investigation in relation to which the appointment is made.”

Regulation 10(6) states: “The deputy chief constable must not appoint as an investigator any constable whose appointment could give rise to a reasonable concern as to whether that constable could act impartially in relation to the misconduct investigation.”

I will explain how that regulation has been interpreted. People have considered a situation in which somebody has a look at something in a preliminary inquiry and they have asked themselves whether that person could be impartial for the second half of that work. In order to ensure that they are bombproof on that aspect, they have built into the policy that the person who does the inquiry cannot do the investigation.

They have taken that view instead of taking a pragmatic view. Goodness me! I do not know any of the protagonists in this inquiry—other than Mr Gormley, when I entered into the work—so I must be seen as impartial, yet I was not deemed impartial because Police Scotland concentrated on the rule that it had created, over and above the regs, that the person who did an inquiry could not do an investigation. Does that answer that point?

Daniel Johnson: It does. I have a final question. It is clear that you found that the legal department put stumbling blocks in your way. Did you experience any other blockages or impediments from other people in Police Scotland as you tried to do your work?

Darren Ellis: Irrespective of which legislation you are speaking about, which conduct or complaint regulation you are using or whether the matter relates to England, Wales or Scotland, there is an expectation that, on receipt of a complaint—no matter what it looks like—a preliminary assessment will be conducted. That preliminary assessment has never been carried out in this investigation, and that is a significant issue.

I was initially told that a preliminary assessment had been completed. I was then told that one had not been completed. Then I was told that one had been completed and lost, and, after that, I was again told that one had not been completed. Over six to eight weeks, I tried to identify the starting point and what Police Scotland considered to be the views of the four complainants and the IPT, because an assessment of that would dictate the play. I do not believe that that work was ever done—

Chief Constable Barton: We do not know, do we?

Darren Ellis: We do not know. That is another reason for the delay. It was a really difficult position, because I did not have a starting point.

The Convener: Are there items of correspondence or email exchanges regarding that particular aspect?

Darren Ellis: Not to my knowledge. The last instruction was that, after a degree of searching, consultation and engagement with key members of staff, there should be a preliminary assessment. That is a fairly significant piece of work and it is required for a complaint at even the lowest level, which the case that we are discussing is not at—as we know, it was described as serious, unlawful and in need of an independent investigation by the IPT. Therefore, for a preliminary investigation to be absent is surprising and of concern.

Liam McArthur: At various stages, you have referred to ineptitude within Police Scotland, a culture of secrecy and risk aversion and a number of other concerns. You have given evidence on why you have come to your conclusions. At any stage, did you have conversations with the former chief constable or, more recently, DCC Livingstone, about those concerns, recognising that you appear to have come up against impasses with the legal department and others?

Chief Constable Barton: Can I name the two chief officers I have spoken to?

The Convener: Yes.

Chief Constable Barton: I have not spoken to Mr Livingstone about it, because he is not part of this. On the decision making, I have been speaking to DCC Fitzpatrick. I also spoke to Mr Gormley when he first rang me. Because he was the chief constable, I would not have expected to speak to him at all after that. However, when I was frustrated by an early meeting with the professional standards department, I met him at a National Police Chiefs Council meeting and asked him to have a word, because the process was not moving as quickly as I would have liked it to. That was the length and breadth of our conversation. I would not have anticipated the conversation being more than that, because the chief constable has to be kept separate in these matters as they can sometimes be called on to adjudicate. That would be the standard procedure for me—I would not want to compromise him.

It is a matter of record that DCC Fitzpatrick does not agree with my interpretation. She stands by Police Scotland’s interpretation, and you are right to note that Police Scotland has received advice from lawyers. However, I think that that advice is wrong.

The Convener: As part of your engagement, were you given a point of contact? Were you given any support from Police Scotland in the form of a staff office or something of that nature?

Chief Constable Barton: We are pretty much self-contained. We do lots of these investigations, and we are not needy people. Our point of contact was the professional standards department—principally Mr Speirs.

Ben Macpherson (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP): Much of what I wanted to ask has already been covered. Going back to the issue of the obstruction that you felt you encountered in relation to the legal team in particular, do you feel that that was a culture that had continued from historical arrangements pre-merger, or did it appear to be a set of practices that had come about in recent times?

Chief Constable Barton: My understanding—which accords with the findings of the judicial reviews—is that the federation, the supers, the professional standards department and the lawyers have got into a position whereby things have been made overly legalistic, which is not what the regulations called for. The regulations were designed to get rid of that over-lawyerliness, so that people could sit down and learn lessons. The intention was to ensure that the complaints would be a liberating experience for an organisation because they would shine the light on where people were getting let down. However, that is not what has happened in this case. What has happened here is that, over time, people have dug themselves into trenches and they cannot seem to get out of them.

It is preposterous that, in an inquiry, I was invited to speak to officers who could not be held to account for what they told me, which meant that I could not conduct probing interviews under caution. They could have just told me a load of old bunkum and I would have had to write it down and hand it on to someone who was investigating it, who might have looked at me and said, “You’re not so good, Mick. You’ve just put a load of bunkum in front of me.”

My answer to your question is that that culture has grown over time. I think that everybody needs to be put into a sack, shaken up and told, “For heaven’s sake, fix it—stop this.” The only people who are suffering are the people who make complaints, who are getting a less-than-optimal service, and the officers themselves—it is dreadful that they are being held under suspicion for quite so long.

Darren Ellis: Members of the public are suffering, too. They deserve openness, transparency and explanation. If their rights cease to exist from the point at which the complaint inquiry is completed and do not continue right to the end of the process, that is contrary to what all the strategic documents say about explanation, apology, openness, transparency and understanding—those things are never achieved.

Mr Livingstone was interviewed as part of our inquiry, but his involvement was not significant and was discounted in the SPA report. It is right to explain that the work that Northumbria Police did was on recommendation 39. I am sure that the committee is overseeing the previous 38 recommendations with regard to the counter-corruption unit.

Chief Constable Barton: You are referring to the HMIC report.

Darren Ellis: Yes. When we were investigating processes in the counter-corruption unit, other stakeholders had observed that improvement—38 recommendations’ worth of improvement—was required. We did not see the application of any policy book or any rationale around decision making that would have made our hypotheses and conclusions a bit different. If we understood why certain individuals embarked on certain actions, the picture might have been different, but there is nothing to defer to in helping us to understand the decision-making rationale as to why what we would call actions in the investigation that brought about the illegal applications were taken. The absence of any explanation of why that was done or where it would take the investigator makes it all the more concerning.

The Convener: I am not clear whether the committee’s role includes sack shaking. We can look into that and get back to you.

Chief Constable Barton: It is a great English custom. [Laughter.]

The Convener: It sounds like a commendable practice.

Margaret Mitchell: You have highlighted that there are four people who have been seriously wronged, and it appears that they are still being wronged. The committee has received a letter from one of the complainants. I think that you said that the IPT is deliberating on whether Police Scotland has delivered a “reasoned decision” as required by the IPT judgment. Those deliberations are still on-going.

The complainant says that, despite that, an attempt has been made to close down the whole episode, as the letter from Alan Speirs shows. It says: “I write to advise you”— “you” being the complainant— “that in line with the IPT recommendations, it is the intention of Police Scotland to cleanse the contents of the relevant Force databases and all material not considered to reflect the truth of these matters will now be removed.”

I take it that you would be absolutely opposed to that, as the committee has already said it is.

Chief Constable Barton: No—that bit needs to be done.

Margaret Mitchell: That is interesting.

Chief Constable Barton: In my evidence, I said that, if I had been the chief or the senior officer who in 2015 had received the very critical IOCCO report that said, “The activity that you engaged in against those four people in April of this year was illegal and you shouldn’t have done it,” I would have got rid of that material then and there. That is the material that DCC Fitzpatrick invited me to oversee the destruction of, when she wrote to me last week. We will do that, but we have not yet put in place the arrangements for that. The phone records that were illegally obtained still exist in Police Scotland. They are sealed off, but they still exist and they need to be destroyed. We will oversee the destruction of those records.

Margaret Mitchell: I am a bit puzzled—I am not sure that I understand that, and the complainant certainly does not, because—

Chief Constable Barton: You have hit the nail on the head with the fact that you are perplexed. Because people take an overly lawyerly approach to the issue, rather than sitting down and having a normal conversation in everyday language, they do not understand what has happened. That is exactly what has happened to the four complainants all the way through. They have either been starved of information or have been given very legalistic and dry information. Frankly, it is hard to understand some of the letters.

Margaret Mitchell: Should the destruction of the records not be halted until the investigation is fully complete if there is even a scintilla of uncertainty about whether they are relevant?

Chief Constable Barton: I would do that only after I had contacted the force. I am not going to steam in and destroy records without going to see the four complainants. We have a good relationship with the four complainants and we will not do anything pivotal in the inquiry unless they are kept briefed. I did not tell you that, because it is just like breathing.

Darren Ellis: Those letters are really recent—they could even have been sent this week. I am picking up a vibe from you, Mrs Mitchell. It is our shout to provide quality assurance to the four complainants. We will not oversee any destruction of data until we are sure that all proceedings ensuing from this debacle are concluded. Two of the complainants are in the room today and I am sure that we would have their consent for Police Scotland to hold that information until all matters are finalised. It would be wrong to destroy the data before then, because it could contain information that is helpful to those four, who may consider other proceedings.

Margaret Mitchell: Thank you. That is greatly reassuring.

The Convener: Yes. It is helpful to have that on the record. Stewart, do you have a question?

Stewart Stevenson: I want to get absolute clarity, so I will use a particular form of words. The data or information about which we are talking is data or information that it has been determined it is not legal for Police Scotland to have. Let me correct myself. The process by which Police Scotland obtained the data is not legal and, therefore, it is not legal for Police Scotland to hold that data. That is the data about which we are having this discussion.

Darren Ellis: It is three forms of data. It is the data that led to the application, the application process itself and the data received as a result of the application process.

Stewart Stevenson: Yes. However, to be absolutely clear, I am not focusing on the process, because all that we can destroy—when and if that happens—is the data and information that is obtained.

Chief Constable Barton: No—we can destroy the false intelligence that was used to acquire the data. All of it must be cleansed. Anything that is wrong, in any of the process—from the start, before any data was even collected—must be cleansed.

Stewart Stevenson: I was just making sure that we have on record a clear understanding of what data we are talking about. As a layperson, it seemed to me that there was a danger that—

Chief Constable Barton: Could I help? Data was obtained, but information and intelligence was used to obtain that data. The information and intelligence will be cleansed as well as the data itself.

Stewart Stevenson: Sorry—I will return to that subject. It would be perfectly legal for Police Scotland to have the intelligence that led to the action—

Chief Constable Barton: Not if it is wrong.

Stewart Stevenson: No. I was going to make the point that having it does not make it correct.

Chief Constable Barton: Police Scotland cannot keep something about somebody when it is a lie.

Stewart Stevenson: I understand that, but it was perfectly proper for Police Scotland to have it in the first place before it concluded, as you say, that it was a lie.

Chief Constable Barton: No. It was never legitimate for Police Scotland to have it, because it had made it up.

Stewart Stevenson: Okay. That is clear.

The Convener: We have gone over our time. Mr Barton, I know that you have read previous Official Reports. You also talked about the pivotal role that senior officers could have played in this issue. Our early engagement on the issue was with former Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson. Do you wish to comment on your examination of the Official Report and on whether DCC Richardson has been helpful to us in discharging our obligations in relation to scrutinising the issue?

Chief Constable Barton: My preference is that you read the report that I provided to the Scottish Police Authority. I am very clear in that report.

The Convener: I am grateful for that response.

Thank you, Mr Barton and Mr Ellis, for your attention to detail on the issue and for coming here today. I wish you a safe journey home.

14:10 Meeting continued in private until 14:25.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

CRIME ON,CROWN: Historical Abuse probe dropped as Crown Office forced to pay £10K to law firm Clyde & Co – after judge suspends Police search warrant to obtain evidence relating to accusations against ‘influential’ clients

Crown Office paid £10K to law firm subject of Police raid. SCOTLAND’S Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has been forced to pay £10K public cash in legal and ‘other fees’ to a law firm representing a ‘important client’ in relation to a botched search blocked by a judge.

The payment of £10,021.38 to Edinburgh law firm Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick) was revealed by prosecutors in response to a Freedom of Information request amid ongoing media enquiries which have now established any possible criminal prosecution in connection with the allegations of abuse is “dead in the water”.

The events surrounding the search warrant occurred last summer, in which Police Officers obtained a search warrant to raid the premises of Edinburgh law firm Clyde & Co, in relation to material officers believed the firm held relating to evidence of historical sexual abuse of minors.

A search warrant issued by a Sheriff upon an application from the Crown Office to raid the law firm, resulting in two police officers attending the offices of Clyde & Co at 58 Albany Street, Edinburgh, at 10am on 22 July 2016 with a search warrant to obtain the evidence.

However, a stand off ensued while Clyde & Co applied to the court for a judge to revoke the search warrant.

The search warrant was subsequently revoked blocked by senior judge Lord Brodie after counsel for Clyde & Co claimed legal professional privilege was attached to the alleged evidence of abuse.

While the Crown Office have now admitted they were required to pay legal & other fees to Clyde & Co, prosecutors refused to divulge any further information on the case, citing the information was held as part of a criminal investigation – which has now been dropped.

Christine Lazzarin for the Crown Office stated in the FOI response: “Firstly I should clarify that a Bill of Suspension hearing emanates from criminal proceedings and any correspondence held between COPFS, the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service (SCTS), Police Scotland and Clyde & Co in relation to this hearing is exempt.”

“By way of explanation, this correspondence is held by a Scottish Public Authority, namely the Procurator Fiscal, for the purposes of an investigation which the Procurator Fiscal had a duty to conduct to ascertain whether a person should be prosecuted for an offence and it is therefore exempt from release in terms of Section 34(1)(a)(i) of FOISA.”

“This is not an absolute exemption and I have therefore considered whether the public interest favours disclosure of the information, notwithstanding the exemption.”

“Whilst I appreciate that there is a great deal of information in relation to the hearing publically accessible on the SCTS web-site, I consider that there is a strong public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of correspondence in connection with allegations of criminality and consequently the Bill of Suspension hearing.”

“The confidentiality of such information ensures that the agencies involved in the criminal justice process can report to the Procurator Fiscal in a manner which is free and frank and for this reason I consider that the public interest favours upholding the exemption.”

“You have also asked for information about fees, costs, legal expenses or other funds paid by COPFS to SCTS and Clyde & Co. I can advise that COPFS paid a total of £10,021.38 in fees, and other legal costs to Clyde & Co after the hearing.”

Further enquiries into the case by the media have now established the investigation into the case of alleged abuse has now been dropped – with legal insiders at the Crown Office blaming the Crown Office handling of the search warrant, and the effect of Lord Brodie’s order cancelling the search warrant.

Legal sources have also speculated Police Scotland may have been forced to pay the same law firm – Clyde & Co – for their actions in seeking to serve the warrant and obtain the alleged evidence of abuse.

During the Financial year 2016 to 2017, a mysteriously large sum of public cash – £213,933.24 was paid to Clyde & Co by Police Scotland according to figures obtained in a recent media investigation into Police payments to law firms, reported in more detail here: Concerns on Public Bodies Legal Fees spending as figures reveal Scottish Police Authority fork out over £1m in legal fees, Police Scotland spend at least £1.3 million on external lawyers

However, faced with further searching enquiries, Police Scotland have point blank refused to disclose any further information about their payments to Clyde & Co and other law firms.

While the Crown Office have now dropped a prosecution in relation to the alleged abuse, the media are eager to speak to anyone involved in the investigation, or the victims themselves, who can if they wish come forward to DOI, by way of contacting the blog at

This latest floundered investigation into what is alleged to be an influential figure in relation to historical abuse crimes – is another blow for the failing leadership of the Crown Office – under current Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC & Solicitor General Alison Di Rollo (sister of Glasgow solicitor & former Law Society of Scotland President – Austin Lafferty)

Last month, it was revealed the Crown Office has given jobs – without interview – to relatives of high ranking Crown Office staff, who then went on to be charged with drug dealing offences – information which came to light in an ongoing investigation into Prosecutors interests and a secret Crown Office register of interests, reported in more detail here: DECLARE THE CROWN: Secrecy block on Crown Office Register of Interests – after fears info will reveal crooked staff, dodgy business dealings, prosecutors links to judiciary, criminals, drugs dealers and dodgy law firms

The Sunday Mail newspaper reported the payments from the Crown Office to Clyde & Co here:

Court chiefs fork out £10k to law firm after botched raid in abuse probe

‘Standards were not met’ when cops turned up with a warrant at Clyde and Co’s Edinburgh office and tried to seize ‘privileged and confidential’ material.

By Craig McDonald Sunday Mail 8 OCT 2017

Prosecutors have paid £10,000 to a law firm after a botched raid on their offices.

Police wanted to seize files from Clyde and Co lawyers that they believed related to an abuse investigation.

But the firm objected, stating the material was “privileged and confidential”.

Despite this, two officers turned up at the firm’s Edinburgh branch with a search warrant in July last year. The warrant was eventually blocked after a court hearing.

Judge Lord Brodie later ruled “standards were not met” regarding prosecutors’ handling of the case.

The Crown Office have now paid £10,021 in legal fees and costs to Clyde and Co.

Detective Constable Nicola Gow called Clyde and Co by phone on July 7 last year to tell the firm they had information in their files that might be relevant to a criminal inquiry.

Graeme Watson, a partner, told her he would check what information he could provide but that “client files were privileged and confidential”.

Gow said she would discuss it with her superior officer but told the firm “a search warrant might be sought”.

Watson wrote to the sheriff clerk in Edinburgh stating the files were covered by the “Data Protection Act, confidentiality and agent-client privilege”.

Two police officers turned up at the firm’s building in the city’s Albany Street with a warrant at 10am on July 22.

Clyde and Co went to court to have it blocked. In his judgment, Lord Brodie found the procurator fiscal’s actions in applying for the warrant “to have been oppressive”.

He said the wording was “misleading, if not simply inaccurate” and “requisite standards were not met”.

The Crown Office said last week: “We note the terms of Lord Brodie’s decision. The Lord Advocate has taken steps to ensure there will be no repeat of this situation.”

Police Scotland said: “As this is a matter for the Crown Office, it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”

Clyde and Co declined to comment.


A full report on the opinion by Lord Brodie and his revocation of the Police Scotland search warrant was published by Scottish Law Reporter here: Police raid on Edinburgh law firm halted by judge – Lord Brodie hits out at Crown search warrant tactics against Clyde & Co over historic sex crimes investigation

An excerpt from the Bill of Suspension, signed by Lord Brodie in relation to the search warrant follows:



Complainers:  Smith QC; Clyde & Co

Respondent:  No appearance (Crown Office did not appear at hearing)

22 July 2016

[1]        The complainers in this bill of suspension are a limited liability partnership, being solicitors with a place of business at Albany House, 58 Albany Street, Edinburgh. The respondent is the Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh. The complainers seek suspension of a search warrant granted by the sheriff at Edinburgh on the application of the respondent, dated 21 July 2016 and timed at 1537 hours (“the search warrant”). The application which came before me, on 22 July 2016 not long before 1700 hours in chambers, was for interim suspension of the warrant. As at that time the bill had not been warranted for service. Having heard Mr  Smith on behalf of the complainers, I adjourned in order to allow my clerk to advise Crown Office that the application had been presented and to invite the attendance of an advocate depute to represent the respondent. That invitation was made by telephone at a little after 1700 hours. It was not taken up. Having heard Mr Smith further, I suspended the search warrant ad interim, granted warrant for service of the bill and continued the matter to a date to be fixed.

[2]        The circumstances in which that application was made, as I understood them from what appeared in the bill, in two telephone attendance notes and the explanation provided by Mr Andrew Smith QC, who was accompanied and instructed by Mr Graeme Watson, Solicitor Advocate, a partner in the complainers, are as follows.

[3]        A client of the complainers is S.  The complainers have acted for S in relation to claims for damages against it by individuals on the basis of its vicarious liability for alleged acts which occurred at a particular location, L.  These claims have been discontinued on account of an acceptance that any claims were time-barred. It is averred by the complainers that in course of taking instructions from representatives of S these representatives “disclosed certain matters and were provided with advice… which advice and information being disclosed was privileged.” As I understood matters, the complainers retain in their possession documents and files, both paper and digital, generated in the course of acting for S which include information and advice in respect of which S, whose specific instructions have been taken on the point, asserts legal privilege.

[4]        On 7 July 2016 Detective Constable Nicola Gow contacted the complainers by telephone. She spoke to Mr Watson. There were at least three telephone calls between DC Gow and Mr Watson on that day. I was shown copies of Mr Watson’s telephone attendance notes. DC Gow indicated that she was aware that the complainers held certain information in their client files for S that might be relevant to a criminal inquiry which was currently being undertaken.  She already had copies of some documents but wished to obtain originals of these (including what she described as “originals” of unsigned statements held digitally), the litigation files and such other documents which were in the possession of the complainers. Mr Watson advised that the complainers would check what information they had access to with a view to establishing its whereabouts and what might be capable of being produced. Mr Watson indicated that the client files were privileged and confidential. Mr Watson advised that in the event of him receiving instructions to do so, he was willing to excise from the file certain material in order to assist the police inquiry. DC Gow suggested that they might arrange a time to look at the files together. Mr Watson said that he would need to take instructions on that proposal but that a provisional date for such a joint consideration of the files could be arranged. DC Gow indicated that she would discuss matters with her superior officer but that a search warrant might be sought.

[5]        On 11 July 2016, in anticipation that an application for a warrant might be made, Mr Watson, on behalf of S wrote to the Sheriff Clerk in Edinburgh requesting that the Sheriff Clerk contact the complainers in the event of any application to the sheriff with a view to S being represented at any hearing before the sheriff. Mr Watson explained in that letter that the complainers and S had provided such assistance to Police Scotland as they could within the confines of the Data Protection Act 1998, confidentiality and agent-client privilege. The letter included the sentence: “In our submission it would be oppressive and prejudicial for a warrant to be granted without first hearing from [S].” No reply has been received to that letter.

[6]        Subsequent to the conversations between Mr Watson and DC Gow and prior to 22 July 2016 neither the police, the respondent nor any other representative of the Crown contacted the complainers in relation to recovery of documents held by the complainers.

[7]        At about 1000 hours on 22 July 2016 two police officers attended at the offices of the complainers at 58 Albany Street, Edinburgh, claiming to be in possession of the search warrant which they proposed to execute. Initially they were reluctant to allow Mr Watson to read the search warrant and then they were reluctant to allow him to copy it. Once Mr Watson had succeeded in persuading the police officers to allow him to read and copy the search warrant he was able to ascertain that it had been granted at common law in terms of the crave of a petition at the instance of the respondent in these terms:

“to any Constable of Police Service of Scotland and/or members of staff from the Scottish Police Authority or any other Officer of Law with such assistance as they may deem necessary, to enter and search the offices, out buildings and storage facilities of Clyde & Co, Albany House, 58 Albany Street, Edinburgh and to be at liberty to secure and take possession of any papers relating to L whether in electronic or paper format, and any other evidence which may be material to the investigation into the alleged abuse at L held by said Clyde & Co, whether in a computer system or otherwise.”

Insofar as material to the issues raised in the bill, the averments in the petition were as follows:

“[S] have provided copies of documents referring to a code of conduct for staff … a punishment book, lists … statements, including what purports to be a statement taken from [a named person] and signed by her …

[S] have indicated that the originals of these documents are held by their legal representatives, Clyde & Co, Albany House, 58 Albany Street, Edinburgh. A request has been made to have these documents released to Police Scotland, however, the solicitor has refused to release these documents, citing reasons of client confidentiality.

The solicitor has indicated that they will provide the originals of the documents already provided in copy format only.

“There are reasonable grounds for believing that evidence material to the investigation … is found within the documents being withheld by the solicitor.  The solicitor has indicated to an officer of Police Scotland that there are two boxes of papers and electronic records relating to [L].”

The full note by Lord Brodie – which was published three months after the events of the search warrant took place, can be found here: COPFS Bill of Suspension – Clyde & Co – Lord Brodie

It is also worth noting the Scottish Government have recently announced the scrapping of time bar on historical sexual abuse cases, as the case referred to Lord Brodie does contain references to claims in relation to allegations of abuse becoming time barred.

The Scottish Government announcement on scrapping time bar for claims in relation to historical sexual abuse states the following:

The Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 is a piece of legislation which changes the rules around the time limits within which you can make a claim for compensation in the civil courts. Usually you have to make your claim within three years of the injury, or (if it is later) three years from your sixteenth birthday.

This change will mean that there will no longer be a time bar on childhood abuse claims in the civil courts. (It applies to abuse of a person under the age of 18.) There will no longer be a requirement to make a claim within the three years or to ask the court to use its discretion to allow the case to go ahead after that period.

The law usually prevents claims being taken to court more than once. The Act makes a limited change to this for childhood abuse claims. If you took a claim to court before the Act became law, but lost because of the time bar, the Act means that you should not be prevented from taking another claim to court.

This change is in relation to the three year limitation period, which is relevant to abuse that took place on or after 26 September 1964.

The commencement of the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 means survivors of child abuse no longer face the ‘time-bar’ that requires personal injury actions for civil damages to be made within three years of the related incident.

Minister for Community Safety & Legal Affairs Annabelle Ewing, who took the legislation through Parliament, said the move was an important part of wider Scottish Government action to support survivors of childhood abuse.

Ms Ewing said: “Child abuse is the most horrific betrayal of our young people and, even where such crimes were committed decades ago, we will do all we can to help survivors get the justice they deserve. Police Scotland and the Crown continue to work tirelessly to bring perpetrators to justice through our criminal courts. And, while it may not be the right way forward for all, survivors may now be considering the option of accessing justice through the civil courts.

“This legal milestone would not have happened but for the courage of many adult survivors whose persistence and dedication have shone a light on the dark realities of child abuse. Through their brave testimonies they have made clear the great hurt and damage caused by the very individuals and institutions who should have cared for them.

“Alongside our national survivor support fund, the establishment of the independent public Inquiry into in-care childhood abuse, and the current consultation on a potential financial redress scheme, this removal of the civil time-bar underlines the Government’s commitment to ensuring Scotland is beginning to make amends for the grave failings of the past.”

Welcoming the introduction of the Act, Joanne McMeeking, Head of Improving Care Experiences at CELCIS at the University of Strathclyde, said: “The abolishment of the time bar is the result of many years of successful campaigning by survivors. It is a welcome addition to the package of effective reparation as outlined in the Action Plan on Justice for victims of Historic Abuse of Children in Care.”

For previous articles on the Crown Office, read more here: Scotland’s Crown Office – in Crown detail


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

DECLARE THE CROWN: Secrecy block on Crown Office Register of Interests – after fears info will reveal crooked staff, dodgy business dealings, prosecutors links to judiciary, criminals, drugs dealers and dodgy law firms

COPFS secret register contains links to judges, crime & business. AN INVESTIGATION has revealed Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) are blocking the publication of a staff register of interests – over fears it will reveal close relationships between prosecutors & judges, suspended solicitors, staff with criminal convictions including drugs crimes, and links to organised crime and sectarian behaviour.

The secret COPFS register of interests only received public acknowledgement of its existence – after the Scottish Information Commissioner became involved over refusals by Scotland’s top law officers to publish the information similarly disclosed in other registers of interest held by public bodies – including Police.

The issue came to light when journalists examined discussions between the Crown Office and the Scottish Parliament over a call for the Lord Advocate to submit evidence on Crown Office employees register of interests.

However, the Crown Office bluntly refused to provide any evidence or testimony to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee – who have been investigating proposals to require Scottish judges to declare their interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

Senior figures at COPFS put a secrecy block on publication of their own register of interest after journalists uncovered a host of conflicts of interest by COPFS staff, including links to disgraced solicitors and suspended judges, unrecorded meetings with Ministers and members of the judiciary, business connections and interests of COPFS staff and dumbed down criminal convictions of prosecutors still working for the Crown Office.

And the Crown Office block on publication remains in force today – after over two years of refusal to disclose the information in response to Freedom of Information requests.

When journalists approached the Scottish Information Commissioner for assistance, the SIC made enquiries of the Crown Office to be told “As you have noted, our original response indicated that in our view no application could be made to the Commissioner. COPFS considered that section 48(c) of FOISA applied as the information requested is held by the Lord Advocate as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. You have now asked us for our views on why we consider that to be the case.”

“I can confirm that COPFS holds a Register of Interests which extends to all members of staff. The Register is held on behalf of the Lord Advocate in order to guard against conflict of interest in prosecutorial decision making. The register of interests is designed to ensure that impartiality can be demonstrated in relation to any individual making prosecutorial decisions or involvement in the preparation or presentation of any case. Given the register is held on this basis, we consider that the information is held by the Lord Advocate in his capacity as the Head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland.”

 Scottish information Commissioner files released on discussions with COPFS Register of Interests.

However, the enquiries and media interest prompted the Crown Office to acknowledge publicly for the first time the register of interests existed.

The Crown Office statement to the SIC in a letter dated further revealed: “Coincidentally, this issue has recently been considered by the COPFS Executive Board and a decision has been taken that the register should not published. To provide information about the personal interests of prosecution staff could compromise the security of individual staff members, undermine their ability to do their job and create conflict with our obligations under the Data Protection Act.”

“We intend, however, to provide a public statement of explanation about why we do not publish details of the Register of Interests on our website within the next 6 weeks and I will ensure that you are provided with a link to this when it is published.”

However, tt can now be revealed COPFS feared the register would also reveal close links between Advocate Deputes who prosecute criminals in court – and their spouses and partners who work in the Scottish Courts and some who serve on the judicial benches.

Discussions took place with regard to media enquiries , and fears were raised if the public and persons in court found out of  personal and family links between prosecutors and the judiciary, there could be questions over impartiality.

One such example of a Prosecutor with family in the judiciary is that of Advocate Depute Murdoch MacTaggart – who prosecuted the longest fraud trial in UK history in the case of Edwin & Lorraine McLaren – in connection with their sell your house & rent it back property scheme. MacTaggart was married to a Sheriff – Mhairi McTaggart.

There are a number of other personal relationships between prosecutors, crown office staff, the legal profession and judiciary – some of whom have appeared in and on both sides of the court together during  criminal trials – without any questions being raised on impartiality.

It is very clear COPFS felt the disclosure of personal and family relationships between prosecutors and judges may cause problems in a number of previous and ongoing trials.

The personal relationships between COPFS and others may be of lesser importance than prosecutors & COPFS staff business interests, which are significant and wide ranging, in a similar nature to what has recently been disclosed by Police Scotland, more on which is available here: POLICE REGISTER: ‘First responder’ Police Officers transparency in cops business interests register

However, in the case of COPFS employees & prosecutors business interests, there is significantly more potential for conflicts of interest in court.

And, it can also be disclosed a number of COPFS employees relatives and direct family appear to be working in highly paid positions in other public bodies, the Scottish Government and organisations within the justice system  including the courts – some of whom secured jobs without interview.

Enquiries in relation to the work histories of several Crown Office employees also reveals some Prosecutors and Advocate Deputes may also be exposed to questions over their links to law firms alleged to have committed significant fraud  with legal aid cash and embezzlement of client funds.

In a further investigation linked to the long running McLaren fraud trial, COPFS refused to respond to queries in relation to the status of any proceedings against a suspended lawyer – Karen MacTaggart – who was suspended as a solicitor from April 2014, according to a notice issued in the Gazette.

Karen MacTaggart is the sister of a Crown Office Advocate Depute – Murdoch MacTaggart.

The Crown Office was approached for an explanation on this but refused to respond.

The investigation has also revealed further concerns at the Crown Office – over fears publication of their Register of Interests would expose details of serving employees criminal convictions on everything from common assault, to perverting the course of justice, and dealing of Class A drugs including Cocaine – to COPFS colleagues and members of the public.

A further block on publication of the COPFS register of interests came about after members of IT staff at the Crown Office became embroiled in a scandal involving anti-catholic sectarian behaviour

One COPFS employee was sacked and another quit after an investigation was launched into alleged sectarian comments made on an internal messaging system.

Shocked staff blew the whistle on their colleagues after spotting the anti-catholic remarks & comments on their computer screens, and following an internal probe, the men were found to have breached strict rules on bullying, harassment and discrimination.

As a result, one worker has been sacked and another has resigned, and a third, who had a senior managerial role, was given a final written warning.

The male members of staff who made the comments worked in the IT department of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) in Ballater Street, Glasgow, close to the city’s sheriff court. It is also understood that a second IT manager was moved to another department after the probe was completed.

An investigation was first launched after two Catholic staff members complained that sectarian hate comments had been posted by the three men but the resulting inquiry failed to find evidence to substantiate the claims – even though other members of COPFS saw the actual comments.

None of the COPFS staff involved in the sectarian probe have been named by prosecutors, however the names have now been passed to journalists who are looking further at the case.

Another reason for the Crown Office to refuse publication of it’s own register of interests hit the headlines in March 2016, when the Sunday Mail newspaper reported that the then Lord Advocate’s brother was at the centre of a probe into financial dealings – reported here: Revealed: Lord Advocate’s brother Iain Mulholland at centre of dirty money probe after arranging £550k mortgage for rogue lapdance tycoon

Iain Mulholland, the younger brother of Scotland’s top prosecutor who announced he was standing down last week, helped prepare paperwork that secured businessman Steven MacDonald a huge loan now being probed by the Crown Office.

Prosecutors hunting assets linked to organised crime claim MacDonald conned bank bosses into lending him enough cash to buy his Diamond Dolls strip club.

They claim the businessman lied on a mortgage application to get a £552,000 cash injection from the Bank of Scotland to purchase the property in Glasgow city centre.

Mortgage broker Iain Mulholland arranged MacDonald’s loan application through his First to Mortgage firm.

The 48-year-old fixed the loan that is now the focus of a major investigation by the Civil Recovery Unit (CRU) – investigators at the Crown Office, led by his brother, who seize dirty money, property and other assets linked to organised crime.

In another case referred to within COPFS circles amid media queries on the secret register of interests – concerns were raised after a senior female member of staff was discovered to be involved in a relationship with an underworld figure accused of supplying guns and drugs.

There were fears information was being provided to the crook – which may have impacted on a now collapsed prosecution against several gangsters.

And in another development, information has come to light regarding the status of a Grade 6 Manager at the Crown Office, and the employment of his relative who was later charged with drug dealing.

The COPFS Manager’s step-son – who worked part time in the NHS – and has a direct relative working in the same organisation –  was handed a lucrative Crown Office job with access to sensitive information – without even an interview.

The individual – identified as Mr Peter Murphy –  worked at the Crown Office for around two years and was then arrested, apparently, on a Petition Warrant relating to the supply of Class A drugs.

Murphy’s employment at COPFS included access to sensitive information and systems which contained files relating to drug dealers within the city.

Sources said “It was presumed that given the quantity of drugs involved the case would be prosecuted at the High Court” – however no trace of any trial has been discovered and, allegedly, the Crown Office drug dealer received a community disposal at Sheriff Court level.

COPFS staff suspect the watered down and preferential treatment of the COPFS drug dealer was a result of information provided to the police or the Fiscal reducing the charges.

After the incident, Peter Murphy was allowed to resign from the Crown Office, rather than be sacked.

However, investigations around the case first revealed in the Scottish Sun during 2016 in reports of drug dealing at the Crown Office case – has since established Mr Murphy’s identity as the COPFS employee charged with drug offences.

The Crown Office has refused to answer further questions on this case, however, records show Mr Murphy’s step father – John Tannahill – a Grade 6 Manager – has worked at the Crown Office since October 2002.

John Tannahill currently occupies the positions of Head of COPFS Police Reform Team and Process Review Team and Major Incident Co-ordinator, Chair, Judicial Panel Scottish Football Association – according to Mr Tannahill’s Linkedin page.

Further internal discussions on the publication of the register reveal senior legal figures concerns that their own staff may be identified as members of organisations condemned for associations with the far right and racism if the Crown Office register becomes public.

There are now calls to make the Crown Office Register of Interests a polished document, to enable court users and legal representatives have access to the information in relation to Prosecutors interests.

However, the Crown Office has refused to issue any further comment on the content of their register of interests other than a brief online reference to it’s existence, which was only published after discussions with the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Crown Office Register of Interests

The Civil Service Code, which applies to all civil servants, requires that they should not put themselves in a position where duty and private interests conflict, nor make use of their official position to further those interests.
As a public servant, an employee has a particular duty to ensure that their public position is not, and raises no reasonable suspicion of being, abused in their own personal interest.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service holds a formal Register of Interests which extends to all members of staff.

The Interests are defined as:

Business interests (including directorships) not only of the employee but also  close family members

Shareholdings or other securities/financial interest which the employee or members of their close family hold

Any political interest or interest/membership in an organisation, club or society where there is the potential for a conflict of interest to arise as a result of official position

It is held on behalf of the Lord Advocate in order to guard against conflict of interest in prosecutorial decision making.

It is designed to ensure that impartiality can be demonstrated in relation to any individual making prosecutorial decisions or involvement in the preparation or presentation of any case.

The Register is not published.

To provide information about the personal interests of prosecution staff could compromise the security of individual staff members, undermine their ability to do their job and create conflict with our obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

It is worth noting while the Lord Advocate is determined to withhold the information contained in the COPFS register of interests from public scrutiny, the Crown Office itself believe members of their own staff are not honest in their own declarations and entries in the register.

And, in a number of trials, prosecutors and COPFS staff have been switched around at the last minute after failing to declare interests which could have potentially harmed criminal trials.

While the Crown Office would only issue the above statement online in relation to it’s secret Register of Interests – the evidence now in the public domain in relation to serious conflicts of interest held by prosecutors, personal links to the judiciary, businesses who themselves have contracts within the justice system, and other more serious issues including jobs handed out to family members – make the case for publication much stronger.

For previous articles on the Crown Office, read more here: Scotland’s Crown Office – in Crown detail


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

SILENCERS IN COURT: ‘Guns & Ammo’ rife in Scotland’s legal elite – Police Scotland disclose firearms ownership of judges, sheriffs, lawyers, advocates, QCs & Crown Office prosecutors

Scots legal elite firearms ownership revealed. AN INVESTIGATION into firearms ownership among Scotland’s legal fraternity – has revealed widespread firearms and weapons throughout the ranks of solicitors, advocates, prosecutors and the judiciary who run Scotland’s legal system and the courts.

And, it can be revealed – 295 lawyers, advocates, judges, QCs & prosecutors collectively own more guns in their private collections than even Police Officers – as information now released by Police Scotland reveals 1,079 firearms, shotguns & air weapons in the hands of the legal fraternity – compared to 1,043 firearms and shotguns owned by 327 Police Officers.

The investigation was triggered by a recent case involving firearms offences committed by the Solicitor General For Scotland – Lord Keen of Elie (Richard Keen QC) who was convicted and find £1,000 for breaches of the Firearms Act 1968 after he pleaded guilty by letter to the charge at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 1 March 2017.

Keen, who once headed a failed legal challenge against the Scottish Government over legislation to speed up pay-outs to asbestos sufferers –  was charged after police investigating a break-in at his Edinburgh home found that a 12-bore shotgun had been ‘left outside a secure cabinet’ while Lord Keen and his wife ‘were away on holiday’.

Lord Keen’s conviction for firearms offences, and the widespread ownership of firearms – including handguns – by members of Scotland’s legal fraternity – has drawn interest in the use of guns by Scotland’s wealthy legal establishment – who are known to favour the hunting & shooting set lifestyle with participation at shooting events at home and abroad.

And these are no ordinary weapons owned by Scotland’s legal elite.

Shotguns popular with Scotland’s legal eagles – range from the relatively inexpensive to more costly ‘over & under’ & ‘side by side’ barrelled Browning, Beretta, matched pairs of expensive Purdeys and other expensive brands such as Holland & Holland, Army & Navy, and in the case of the Solicitor General for Scotland – a Stephen Grant 12 bore shotgun – which can sell for over £6,000.

Data seen by journalists also reveal ornate ‘Damascus’ etched barrelled weapons, expensive side-lock action shotguns, semi automatic weapons, and presentation piece quality shotguns, well out of reach of most shooting enthusiasts.

In relation to firearms, the legal establishment is similarly tooled up in numbers and quality of guns – ranging from handguns – and smaller .22 and .243 calibre rifles to high calibre firearms purposely designed for deer stalking.

Among the more lethal stocks of weapons owned by the legal fraternity are – according to firearms insiders – double ‘express’ (two barrelled) rifles – primarily designed for ‘taking down’ much larger beasts such as lions, rhino and even elephants.

And, the ownership of silencers for firearms among Scotland’s legal elite – is much more widespread than originally thought.

However, it can be revealed members of the legal fraternity own only 57 silencers for their ‘registered’ firearms – compared with a staggering 216 silencers owned by Police Officers –  disclosed in part one of the firearms investigation revealing Police gun ownership.

Information obtained during the investigation has now been clarified by Police Scotland, who disclosed some details in response to a Freedom of Information request.

Police Scotland has revealed 8 Sheriffs and 8 Judges hold a selection of firearms, air weapons and shotguns.

Of the 8 certificates held by Sheriffs, 1 is for firearms, 5 are for shotguns and 2 are for air weapons are held by currently serving Sheriffs, totalling 2 firearms and 10 shotguns.

A further 8 senior ranking judges own a similar mixture of firearms, air weapons and shotguns.

In relation to the eight certificate held by judges, 1 is for firearms, 3 are for shotguns, and 3 are for air weapons, totalling 2 firearms and 5 shotguns.

Curiously – while Police Scotland readily disclosed information in relation to members of the judiciary owning firearms – the Judiciary of Scotland said in response to an FOI request that no member of the judiciary has declared any ownership of firearms or shotguns to either the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service (SCTS) or the Judicial Office.

The Judicial Office also refused to answer questions on judges’ membership of any hunting or shooting clubs or associations, participation in hunting trips including deerstalking and other firearms related activities within the UK or overseas.

While the judiciary remained tight-lipped on their stack of firearms & shotguns, Police Scotland has also released details on the firearms ownership of Scotland’s legal profession, where paralegals, solicitors, barristers, advocates, QCs and even prosecutors own over a thousand firearms, shotguns and air weapons.

The SHOGUN firearms database used by Police Scotland revealed the following:

4 paralegal certificate holders – hold 3 shotgun certificates and 2 air weapons certificates, holding a total of 5 shotguns.

6 barrister certificate holders – hold 2 firearms certificates, 4 shotgun certificates and 2 Air weapons certificates – holding between them 9 firearms with a further 3 silencers (sound moderators) and a total of 23 shotguns.

8 QC certificate holders – hold 2 firearms certificates, 8 shotgun certificates and two air weapons certificates – holding 6 firearms along with 2 silencers, and a total of 31 shotguns.

18 Advocate certificate holders – hold 4 firearms certificates, 18 shotgun certificates and 7 air weapons certificates – holding 9 firearms along with 3 silencers, and a total of 26 shotguns.

40 lawyer certificate holders – hold 12 firearms certificates, 25 shotgun certificates and 18 air weapons certificates – holding 55 firearms with 18 silencers and a total of 96 shotguns.

199 solicitor certificate holders – hold 51 firearms certificates, 146 shotgun certificates and 60 air weapons certificates – holding 100 firearms with 31 silencers, and a total of 393 shotguns.

Two court officer certificate holders – hold one firearms certificate and one shotgun certificate. Only one single firearm held is listed in this category.

Police Scotland also disclosed two Crown Office prosecutors of Procurator Fiscal rank hold 2 shotgun certificates, holding three shotguns in total.

It was not possible for Police Scotland to disclose further details of COPFS employees firearms, shotgun or air weapons usage, however it is known COPFS employees ownership of, and involvement with firearms shotguns and other weapons does exist = and to a more significant level than quoted in the Police Scotland FOI response.

Police Scotland also disclosed firearms ownership among Scotland’s political classes at Holyrood.

3 MSP certificate holders – hold 3 firearms certificates, 2 shotgun certificates and 1 air weapon certificates – holding 9 firearms with 3 silencers, and – Police Scotland claim – a total of 24 shotguns according to the FOI disclosure.

One Scottish Government Minister holds 1 shotgun certificate – and is in possession of 3 shotguns.

A further 3 “Members of Parliament” certificate holders – hold 2 shotgun certificates and 1 air weapon certificate, holding a total of 5 shotguns.

And one “Parliamentarian” holds a single shotgun certificate, and is in possession of 8 shotguns.

Police Scotland said it could not provide details of Scottish Government employees due to deficiencies in the SHOGUN database which allows some firearms owners to dodge having their ownership of weapons included in national statistics.

Police Scotland said “SHOGUN does not hold the individual employer details related to an individual certificate holder. The application form 201 requires a work address and contact but work address details are not searchable on the SHOGUN system. Searching occupations which include the word ‘government’ includes local government employees, government inspectors, government officers and investigators. The parameters of the search therefore cannot provide the details required.”

While the figures released by Police Scotland pertain only to numbers of weapons – rather than types and their potency by way of calibre – enquiries by journalists have since established Scotland’s legal elite enjoy generous permissions to hold, and purchase – significant quantities of ammunition for firearms and shotguns – with figures of thousands of rounds kept by certain members of the legal fraternity being commonplace.

Commenting on the information released by Police Scotland, a firearms specialist who did not wish to be named said that while some of the certificate holders may be members of gun clubs and ‘shoot at paper targets’ , it was his understanding most of the weapons held by persons he knew to be members of the legal fraternity – are used for hunting purposes.

There are also claims the figures of firearms and gun ownership among Scotland’s legal establishment may be much higher than stated in the Police Scotland Freedom of Information disclosure – as various weapons such as antique powder propellant type pistols, muskets and rifles are among items thought to be owned by lawyers and others in the legal fraternity – and are often not registered despite some requirements to do so.

The sometimes murky origins of the firearms & shotguns owned by the legal fraternity in Scotland are also drawing curiosity – after a legal source gave an account to journalists in relation to how two expensive shotguns including their leather cases and a set of valuable fishing rods & equipment ended up in the hands of a solicitor after he allegedly took the items from the estate of a deceased client to be valued.

The items were never handed back to the family of the deceased nor were they included in any account of assets of the deceased’s estate.

The Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) could not be reached for a statement on their members ownership and usage of firearms and shotguns.


IN March 2017, Lord Keen of Elie – the UK government’s most senior adviser on Scots law – was fined £1,000 after admitting a firearms offence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

Advocate General for Scotland Richard Keen QC pleaded guilty – by letter – to breaching section two of the Firearms Act 1968 by ‘failing to secure a shotgun’.

Police investigating a ‘break-in’ at one of Mr Keen’s properties – a house in Edinburgh – found that the weapon had been left outside a secure cabinet.

Lord Keen, a former chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, was made a life peer in 2015. He did not appear when the case called at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in March 2017, choosing to plead guilty by letter – thus avoiding a court appearance.

The presiding judge – Sheriff Frank Crowe said: “I do take into account Mr Keen’s previous good record and the fact that he admitted his guilt at the outset.

“Nevertheless to hold a firearms certificate is a privilege and there are very strict conditions which have to be adhered to to prevent such weapons falling into the wrong hands.

“There was a potential risk with the shotgun not in the secure cabinet as laid down by the regulations.”

The court heard the offence came to light when Police Officers were called to a break-in at one of Lord Keen’s properties – an address on Ann Street in Edinburgh – on Hogmanay last year. The court was told Lord Keen and his wife were away on holiday.

Officers searching the property ‘found’ a 12 bore Stephen Grant shotgun in a basement out of its secure cabinet.

Solicitor advocate Simon Catto, representing Lord Keen – told Edinburgh Sheriff Court his client had been out shooting on 27 December.

Mr Catto added on returning home his client had taken the gun to the basement intending to clean it, but had then “forgotten about it through his own carelessness” before leaving on holiday the following day.

Mr Catto said Lord Keen had contacted Police himself on Hogmanay after receiving a mobile phone alert that his alarm system had been triggered.

While the upper floors of the property had been ransacked, the burglars had not entered the basement area, he said.

Mr Catto said: “He’s a keen shot, he shoots approximately 10 times per year.

“He has been a shotgun enthusiast for around 25 years and has held a firearms certificate. He is therefore fully aware of what’s expected and required of him in terms of the certificate.

“He accepts on this occasion he fell below that.”

An investigation of gun ownership in the ranks of Police Officers can be found here: GUNS OF THE LAW: Police Scotland files release details of officers private gun ownership – shotguns, rifles & silencers, Cops also declare recovery of 30 handguns


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

GUNS OF THE LAW: Police Scotland files release details of officers private gun ownership of shotguns, high powered rifles & silencers – Cops also declare recovery of 30 handguns

Scots Cops gun ownership reveals silencers for firearms. AN ONGOING media probe into the background & extent of gun ownership in the Police, legal fraternity and judiciary has revealed Scotland’s law enforcers & legal eagles own thousands of firearms and stockpile huge quantities of ammunition.

In part one of the investigation coveting law enforcement agencies, it can today be revealed Police Scotland have acknowledged their own officers own over a thousand firearms and shotguns, some of which have unusual configurations and which sources claim – have application uses now frowned upon in society.

In response to a Freedom of Information request, Police Scotland disclosed 327 officers hold either shotgun certificates or Firearms Certificates – or both – and own a total of at least 1,043 weapons.

Police Scotland also disclosed officers own at least 216 silencers for firearms – referred to in the FOI documents as “sound moderators”.

The 327 officers holding certificates allows for

• 161 holding firearms certificates

• 285 holding shotgun certificates

The number of firearms held under a firearm certificate is 392, with a further 216 sound moderators. Further breakdown of weapon types is unavailable.

The number of shotguns held is 651.

Comparing figures issued by Police Scotland for July 2017, there had been a slight drop in Police Officers holding firearms or shotguns.

The 333 certificates can be broken down as follows:

• 25 holding firearms certificates alone

• 10 holding both a firearms and a shotgun certificate but not co-terminous

• 167 holding shotgun certificates alone

• 131 holding both a firearms and a shotgun certificate as co-terminous. 

Many of the weapons held are thought to be for hunting purposes, including grouse shooting, deer, and other animals considered as “game”.

However some of the higher calibre rifles are of the variety used to hunt large animals not native to the UK.

In response to a question asking how many officers of Police Scotland currently have or have been granted other permissions (and what kind of permissions) to hold firearms?

Police Scotland admitted two additional permissions have been granted for temporary permits issued under section 7 of the Firearms Act 1968.

Police Scotland were also asked how many applications have been made by officers in the past three years (numbers per year)?

The FOI response stated: The National SHOGUN database (which records such information on firearms & shotgun ownership) came into operation on the 20th of October 2014 so the statistics can only be extracted from this date.

Application numbers provided include those certificate holders who have re-applied for the renewal of their existing certificate as well as those applications which are currently undergoing initial enquiry or have since been refused or withdrawn.

Applications made by officers in the past three years:

• 20th October 2014 – 19th October 2015 = 65

• 20th October 2015 – 19th October 2016 = 95

• 20th October 2016 – 19th June 2017 = 71

While Police Scotland refused to disclose information on the types of weapons being held, there are claims the selection of firearms held by officers includes high calibre rifles, and expensive shotguns normally found among the gentry & landed classes.

Many of the weapons held are thought to be for hunting purposes, including grouse shooting, deer, and other animals considered as “game”.

From types of weapons – particularly rifles – detailed in claims to journalists, some of the higher calibre rifles are clearly of the variety used to hunt large animals not native to the UK.

There are also claims some of those who are licensed to own firearms have permissions to stock “significant quantities of ammunition” as well as permission to purchase higher amounts of ammunition than other firearms applicants may find possible to obtain similar permission for.

Figures of several thousand rounds of ammunition have been mentioned to journalists, but Police Scotland have not clarified any information relating to stocks of bullets held by firearms owners.

Police Scotland were also asked if Police Officers to inform senior offices or the Chief Constable of their intentions to own firearms.

The reply stated: “There is no information contained in regulations or requirements that requires police officers working for Police Scotland to inform their employers of any firearm or shotgun application.”

In response to a further FOI query – Police Scotland also admitted to the recovery of around 30 handguns over a three year period asked for – although the real total is thought to be higher.

Police Scotland admitted it had recently taken in 11 Pistols and 19 Revolvers.

There are claims some of the handguns may have been handed in Police Officers themselves, and that some weapons have been handed in on behalf of criminals – but Police Scotland refused to provide further information relating to how many handguns the force had actually recovered or even the dates of recovery.

Police Scotland cited ‘costs’ reasons against disclosure and claimed there were no procedures in place for accurately recording the handover of such weapons – which carry a mandatory five year jail sentence in Scotland if persons are found to be in possession of a handgun.

Police Scotland said: “I can further advise that weapons surrendered or recovered by Police in this manner are not recorded on SHOGUN, which is the police licensing system, unless they were legally held weapons on the appropriate certificate.”

“The timescales in respect of these weapons cannot be provided as specific information is not available and many weapons recorded in this way may have been historical weapons that were noted as surrendered weapons from legacy forces at the period of migration to the National SHOGUN system.”

In response to further questions put to Police Scotland: Also, to ask how many handguns have been handed in to Police Scotland by Police Officers or retired Police Officers or civilian workers of Police Scotland from (i) personal ownership (ii) undetailed, undisclosed or unknown ownership (iii) in response to any amnesty or amnesty issued by Police Scotland for a specific handing in of a handgun from January 2014 to the date of this FOI request.

And if information is available on types of weapons, calibres in relation to weapons covered by this FOI request.

For the purposes of this FOI request, the term handgun refers to a firearm or a deactivated firearm.

Police Scotland said in response: “I would advise you that, there has been no amnesty issued by Police Scotland within the requested timescale, as such, in terms of Section 17 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, this represents a notice that the information you seek is not held by Police Scotland.”

“To be of assistance I can advise that there was a firearms amnesty during the summer of 2014 which was supported primarily by police forces in England and Wales.”

However, in connection with the Firearms Amnesty in England & Wales of 2014, there are claims a significant number of firearms, including handguns made their way south to English Police Forces, to avoid being handed over in Scotland.

Journalists have also been made aware of claims some of the English Police forces who received these firearms became curious as to the origins of the weapons, and made queries with their Scottish counterparts as to whether any of the guns may have been used in crimes.

In 2015, Police Scotland claimed there were around 277,000 guns in Scotland reported by the Daily Record, here: Police reveal there are 277,000 guns in Scotland as they warn of thriving black market trade in firearms


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

POLICE REGISTER: ‘First responder’ Police Officers transparency in cops business interests register beats ‘last responder’ secretive elite judges still locked in 5 year battle against Holyrood on judicial interest register

Police Officers business interests register beats secrecy on judicial interests. POLICE SCOTLAND has released the latest data on their officers business interests, revealing enterprises from property letting to golf, education, entertainment & consultancies.

The information, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request, follows on from an article in May which revealed 1,512 Police Officers in Scotland have secondary businesses & jobs in addition to their work as Police Officers.

The information relating to business interests of Police Officers is recorded on the Police Scotland HR system (SCOPE).

Police Officers in Scotland  are required to conform to the provisions of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013 which state: “A constable must not have a business interest without the consent of— (a) the Authority, in the case of a senior officer; (b) the chief constable, in the case of any other constable, provided that, in the case of any such constable in whose case the chief constable has an interest otherwise than as chief constable, the chief constable must refer the matter to the Authority for it to consider whether to consent.”

While the details disclosed by Police Scotland does not name actual companies and businesses in which officers are involved, the level of detail gives a flavour of potential cross over between cops second jobs and activities in public authorities, public contracts and particularly relationships with the legal world.

Police Scotland refused to provide an actual breakdown of organisations by name, claiming the cost would be too much to provide this information.

However, there is a significant public interest in the identification of businesses in which Police Officers operate, alongside their occupation as law enforcers, given potential conflicts of interest which can only truly be judged by the public, rather than Police Scotland itself.

The latest figures from Police Scotland reveal that since January 2015 there has been 354 Police Officers and 48 Police Staff who have been granted a business interest which is recorded on their SCOPE record.

However, Police Scotland refused to provide information on the number of Police Officers and Police Staff who have had a business interest refused – citing cost grounds on providing the information.

Police Scotland claimed they would have to “manually check each and every individuals personnel file to see if any individuals have applied and been refused”.

The full disclosure from Police Scotland on Police Officers & civilian staff outside business interests as of July 2017:

Executive: Property Letting.

Chief Superintendent: Education, Entertainment, Property Letting.

Superintendent: Agriculture, Property Letting, Shop or Other Like Business.

Chief Inspector: Coach, Director of Scottish Police Credit Union, Driving, Education, Golf, Photography, Property Letting, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Voluntary Worker

Inspector: Administration, Board of Director, Football Club, Coach, Consultant, Crew member, Dance Class, Driving related, Education, Entertainment, Holiday Letting, Photography, Play in a Band, Property Letting, Referee, Retail Industry, Sales, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Trade, Voluntary Worker:

Sergeant: Account manager, Administration, Agriculture, Childminding, Coastguard Rescue Officer, Construction, Consultancy, Driving, Education, Entertainment, Fitness, Football, Interior design/upholstery business, Gardening related, Health related, Landscape gardening, Musical interest, Office work, Photography, Piper, Play in a Band, Property Letting Retail, self-employed Joiner, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Trade, Voluntary bailiff, Voluntary Worker.

Police Constable: Administration, Agriculture, Army cadet force instruction, beauty therapies, Catering, Cake making, Child-minding, Child nursery, Cleaning services, Coach, Coastguard Rescue Officer, Construction, Consultancy, Crew member, Cricket, Deer stalking, Driving, Education, Electrician, Entertainment, Fitness, Football, Foster carer, Freelance instructor, Gardening related, Ground maintenance worker, Gym attendant, Handicrafts, Handyman, Health related, Home carer, Indent chipping, Joiner, Martial arts, Motorcycle training instructor, Musical interest, Office work, Partner in family own farm, Parent Council, Photography, Piper, Play in a Band, Political, Professional footballer, Property Letting, Referee, Reservist, Retail, RNLI Lifeboat crew, Sales, Search Team Member, Self-defence Instructor, self-employed Joiner, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Sports Therapy/rehabilitation, Spray Painter, Stockman, Tele-marketing, Territorial ARMY, Therapist, Trade, Training, Tutor, Unpaid Garage assistant, Voluntary Worker, Volunteer – Highland hospice, Volunteer – HM Coastguard, Web development and hosting, Writer.

Police staff (Civilian employees): Administration, Agriculture, B&B / Guest House, Beauty Therapies, Bicycle repairs, Caretaker, Cleaning Services, Comedy writer / Performer, Consultant, Consultant trainer, Dance class, Director, Driving, Education, Electrician, Entertainment, General maintenance Person, Handicrafts, Musical interest, Office work, Photography, Play in a Band, Property Letting, Receptionist/Administrator, Relief Support Worker, Reservist, Retail, Sales, Sale and Marketing, Secretary/treasurer, Self-catering holiday accommodation, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Therapist, Trade, Voluntary Worker Wedding planner and car hire.

A Freedom of Information request recently published by Police Scotland on the website whatdotheyknow reveals figures of at least 1,512 Police Officers who have business interests outside their main employment in the Police Service for Scotland.

Regulation 5 of the aforesaid regulations outlines the provisions concerning any ‘business interest’ of a police officer. Police officers may also choose to disclose business interests of spouses or partners.

All police officers business interests are granted by the Chief Constable, which are based on their own particular circumstances and review dates are similarly set (based on individual).

Legislatively, the term ‘business interests’ covers a variety of categories and directorships fall within this. While a member of police staff is not legislatively required to declare business interests/secondary employment, contracts of employment can outline constraints on such activity.

For instance, some senior posts in Police Scotland are restricted; some politically, some commercially, some both.

Furthermore, the Anti-Corruption Policy includes putting in place procedures that support the identification of risks that business interests or secondary employment may pose to the organisation or individual.

An earlier Freedom of Information request to Police Scotland revealed certain business interests of the force’s top cops, :

For Chief Officers, this permission is granted (under Regulation 5 of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013) by the Police Authority. The conditions and circumstances are outlined in this legislation which is available online, therefore section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 applies: information which the applicant can reasonably obtain other than by requesting it under section 1(1) is exempt information.

Information provided by Police Scotland revealed executive members (including the now resigned DCC Neil Richardson) business interests from 1 April 2014-31 March 2015.

Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick: Property letting, Member and Trustee of various Charitable Organisations

Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson: Property letting, Board Member for Scottish Institute of Policy Research Trustee/Vice President of various Police Associations

Journalists then requested further details from Police Scotland in a request for review of the FOI disclosure, requesting the organisations referenced in the initial disclosure be identified.

The subsequent response from Police Scotland revealed:

Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson: Trustee, The Police Treatment Centres charity; Vice President, Police Mutual Board Member; The Scottish Institute for Policing Research.

Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick: Member, Scottish Chief Police Officers Association; Trustee, The Rank Foundation (Charitable Organisation); Trustee, Salle Ossian Community Sports Club (Charitable Organisation); Advisory Panel Member, Dfuse (Charitable Organisation; Patron, Revolving Doors (Charitable Organisation)

In relation to the numbers of properties rented out by senior Police Officers, Police Scotland refused to release details on the numbers of properties.

Police Scotland said in their response to the Freedom of Information request:  “In relation to the number of properties relating to each Deputy Chief Constable, I have decided not to provide this level of information requested by you as it is considered to be exempt in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act).”

“The number of properties which the respective Deputy Chief Constables hold as business interests is classed as personal information and as such Police Scotland believes that the disclosure of this information would cause unwarranted prejudice to the rights and freedoms and legitimate interests of the data subjects. Accordingly, release of this  information into the public domain would breach the requirement to process personal data fairly, as laid down by the first data protection principle in Schedule 1 of the Data  Protection Act 1998. This is an absolute exemption and does not require the application of the public interest test”

Police Scotland also refused to provide any values for the properties rented out by senior Police Officers, claiming the force did not hold the information:

Police Scotland said in their response: “Finally, Police Scotland does not hold details on the value of each property, as there is no requirement to do so under Regulation 5 of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013.”

In comparison to the Police Scotland disclosure – members of Scotland’s 700 plus strong judiciary – who take the ultimate decisions on the results of Police detection of crime – do not share any details on their outside interests save a handful of judges who serve on the ruling Board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS).


Members of Scotland’s judiciary continue to wage a bitter five year campaign against proposals to require members of Scotland’s judiciary to declare their interests, and links to big business.

The salary scales of officers in Police Scotland – where all officers are required to declare their interests – show a Police Scotland constable can expect £24,204 per annum going up to £83,925 for a Chief Superintendent with 3 years experience to Assistant Chief Constables: £115,000, Deputy Chief Constables: £169,600 and the Chief Constable: £212,280

However – Scotland;s judges have no such requirement to declare interests, despite their huge  judicial salaries skyrocketing from Sheriffs on £144,172 a year up to Sheriff Principals on £155,706 a year while judges of the Outer House of the Court of Session earn £179,768 a year, Inner House judges earning £204,695. The Lord Justice Clerk (currently Lady Dorrian) earns £215,695 a year, and the Lord President (currently Lord Carloway, aka Colin Sutherland) earns £222,862 a year.

The proposal to bring greater transparency to Scotland’s judiciary – Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary – first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Herald and Sunday Mail newspapers, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

SECRETS, M’LORD: The QC, the footballer and the Lord Advocate who blocked a rape prosecution – and was later appointed as a judge by Lord President Lord Carloway

Crown Office refuse to release discussions on blocked rape case. A LORD ADVOCATE who aligned himself with rape awareness groups & Scotland’s current top judge to demand politicians remove a miscarriage of justice safeguard from the legal system – blocked the prosecution of a footballer for rape after contact with the accused’s QC.

Former Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland was in charge of the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) as Scotland’s top prosecutor at the time allegations of rape were raised against footballer David Goodwillie by victim Denise Clair in January 2011.

As Lord Advocate, Mulholland held the last say in authorising a prosecution or deciding to block further action.

The Crown Office decided not to prosecute David Goodwillie and his co- accused, David Robertson – a decision which occurred after contact between Paul McBride QC & the Crown Office – and according to sources – Mulholland.

The revelation of contact between Goodwillie’s lawyer – Paul McBride QC and prosecutors – came following a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Mail newspaper, in which the Crown Office confirmed contact took place.

The Sunday Mail featured a report on the Crown’s decision to withhold details of communications between McBride and the Crown Office.

Mystery calls between rapist footballer David Goodwillie’s lawyer and court bosses revealed

The Crown Office said: “We do hold some records of telephone discussion between the late Paul McBride and staff at Crown Office”

However, officials at the £113m a year Crown Office refused to release further details on the conversations with the now deceased Paul McBride, stating to do so “would inhibit legal opinions or advice expressed in future”.

Denise fought a five-year battle for justice which this year saw the Court of Session rule she had been raped by footballers Goodwillie and co-accused David Robertson.

The 30-year-old originally sought £500,000 in compensation, but damages were later agreed at £100,000 in the civil action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

In late January, Lord Armstrong ruled Goodwillie – the former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate David Robertson were rapists.

The judge ordered Goodwillie & Robertson to pay £100,000 damages in what was the first civil rape case of its kind in Scotland – coming after Mulholland blocked all attempts to charge Goodwillie & Robertson who would have had to face a criminal trial if the prosecution had not been blocked by the then Lord Advocate.

As of date of publication of this article, Goodwillie is appealing the ruling.

The mother-of-one maintained she was incapable of giving free agreement to sex because of her alcohol consumption, but Goodwillie, 27, who now plays with Plymouth Argyle, and Robertson claimed the incident had been consensual.

Lord Armstrong, said: “Having carefully examined and scrutinised the whole evidence in the case, I find the evidence of the pursuer (the woman) to be cogent, persuasive and compelling.”

Lord Armstrong said: “In the result, therefore, I find that in the early hours of Sunday 2 January 2011, at the flat in Greig Crescent, Armadale, both defenders (the footballers) took advantage of the pursuer when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol and, because her cognitive functioning and decision-making processes were so impaired, was incapable of giving meaningful consent; and that they each raped her.”

The judge said he found neither Goodwillie – who also played for Aberdeen and Blackburn Rovers – or Robertson to be credible or reliable on the issue of whether they had a reasonable or honest belief that she was consenting.

He rejected evidence relied on by the players that Ms Clair was not particularly affected by alcohol and was no more drunk than anyone else in the company they had been in that night.

Lord Armstrong said that prior to the incident the victim – Ms Clair – had enjoyed life, but her life changed following the decision not to proceed with a prosecution.

Lord Armstrong said: “She found that decision difficult to understand and had felt that she had not been believed.”

The judge added: “She felt that her life had been destroyed by something which had happened although, because of her lack of memory, she was not fully aware of what it was that had caused that effect.”

The Crown Office said it stood by its previous decision not to prosecute the footballers – a decision taken during the tenure of Frank Mulholland as Lord Advocate – which is now subject to calls for a full inquiry.

A Crown Office spokesman who refused to be identified said: “As Lord Armstrong stated in his judgement, the standard of proof to be satisfied was that of the balance of probabilities which is a less onerous requirement than the standard in criminal cases, which is beyond reasonable doubt.

“Further, there is no requirement of corroboration in civil cases unlike in criminal cases.

“This case was looked at very carefully by Crown counsel who concluded that there was insufficient evidence in law to raise criminal proceedings. As a result no proceedings were instructed.”

Lord Mulholland now sits on the bench of the Court of Session after having been made a judge by by anti-corroboration co-campaigner Lord Carloway – Scotland’s current Lord President & Lord Justice General.

Lord Mulholland as he is now known – blocked a prosecution of Goodwillie and his co-accused David Robertson for rape – after he gave evidence at Holyrood in November 2013 – demanding msps on the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee agree to his plans to scrap corroboration – a safeguard against injustice – which Mulholland ironically claimed blocked the prosecution of rape cases.

Video footage of Frank Mulholland’s evidence to MSPs urging they repeal corroboration – to enable him to prosecute rape offenders, can be viewed here:

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland evidence to MSPs on removal of corroboration from Scot’s Law – Scottish Parliament Justice Committee 20 November 2013

Mulholland also blocked criminal charges against the driver of the Glasgow bin lorry which ran out of control in December 2014 killing six people in the centre of Glasgow while injuring 15 others.

Lord Mulholland recently featured in an investigation into judicial use of taxpayers cash to find overseas trips & junkets. Mulholland took a £1,200 trip to the European Court in Luxembourg for three days funded by public cash.

TAX FIDDLE DEAL DEATH – Frank Mulholland’s Crown Office headline appetite for VAT tax carousel case ended in death of top QC:

A case disastrously gone wrong for the headline craving Crown Office under Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland – was a secret deal to bring back alleged tax cheat Imran Hussain from Pakistan.

To this day, Mr Hussain stands accused of a £300million VAT Carousel Fraud.

A media investigation coupled with Freedom of Information probes revealed secret discussions had taken place between Paul McBride QC and Mulholland’s Crown Office – over a move which would have seen the then Lord Advocate grab credit for prosecuting and convicting what is thought to be Scotland’s highest ever value fraud case.

In a Freedom of Information response, the Crown Office admitted to holding one ‘single email’, in which McBride had made contact with Lindsay Miller – who was the then head of the Serious Organised Crime Division in the Crown Office.

It was the same Lindsay Miller who responded to the FOI requests from journalists.

Commenting on Lindsay Miller’s response to the FOI request, a COPFS review undertaken by Gertie Wallace, the head of the Criminal Justice and Disclosure Team at the time said:

“In the reply from Lindsey Miller, Head of Serious and Organised Crime Division on 4 May you were advised that information held by COPFS was contained in one email indicating Mr McBride made contact with the Head of the Serious Organised Crime Division in COPFS on 16 January 2012 regarding a Mr Hussein.”

“The reference to Mr McBride’s contact with Mrs Miller is contained in an email between COPFS and Crown Prosecution Service dated 16 January 2012. There is no further information held by COPFS regarding contact between the late Mr McBride and COPFS regarding his client Mr Hussein.”

“I understand that information held about Mr McBride’s contact with Mrs Miller about Mr Hussein has also been provided to you following your request for information dated 6 June seeking documents and discussions on correspondence between Crown Office and Crown Prosecution Service between Paul McBride and COPFS, to which you have now received a reply dated 14 June from Mrs Miller.”

A Sunday Mail investigation uncovered deal between Crown Office & McBride to bring tax cheat back to Scotland:

DEAL ME IM: £300m tax dodge fugitive launches bid to return to Scotland

Imran “Immy” Hussain, 34, has been on the run from HMRC investigators for eleven years over a VAT scam in which he allegedly stole £300million from UK taxpayers.

It is understood that top QC Paul McBride, 47, met fugitive Hussain during the trip to Pakistan where he died in March 2012.

Prior to McBride flying to Pakistan, he met and discussed the case with Crown Office staff including Mulholland.

However, the secret between the Crown Office, McBride and involvement of the Inland Revenue went wrong – after McBride died of a heart attack while in Pakistan to meet Immy Hussain to discuss a secret deal allegedly involving a trial and what the Crown may ask for on sentencing.

Media reports at the time in 2012 quoted a friend of Mr Hussain, saying “He wants to come home – but not to spend 20 years in a cell.”

“His preferred outcome [believed to have been the deal on the table from COPFS] would be to hand over a large amount of his money and do a light sentence – that way, the authorities could say justice has been done and point to the cash seizure as a success.”

It was also reported at the time – McBride told a friend that he was going to Lahore to meet a wealthy client wanted for a major fraud in the UK.

Legal sources and friends of the lawyer, who was found dead in his room at the Pearl Continental Hotel, believe he met Hussain.

McBride travelled to Pakistan with solicitor Aamer Anwar – who said the lawyers attended a wedding during their stay.

Hussain had been living the high-life in Dubai, where he owned two luxury houses, a fleet of cars and a yacht. He also travelled to Europe by private jet.

He spent fortunes on wild parties and thought nothing of buying Rolex watches for his pals.

But he was forced to leave the desert kingdom when HMRC investigators were sent to track him down.

Hussain, from Newton Mearns, Glasgow, had already been in contact with HMRC about a possible deal.

Sources have described communication between Hussain and HMRC as “very sensitive”.

One legal source said: “Paul was in Pakistan in his professional capacity as an advocate.

“He was there to meet a Scottish Asian who is wanted for VAT fraud and wants to come back to Scotland.

“His contacts at the Crown Office were at the highest level and he operated and negotiated at such a level.”

Another associate of Hussain said: “Things got a lot more difficult for him when he had to leave Dubai. He realised that HMRC weren’t going to give up on him and he has now been in Pakistan for the last couple of years.”

Hussain is suspected of heading a Europe-wide operation who set up hundreds of bogus firms linked to VAT fraud, also known as carousel fraud. Gangs claim back VAT on goods they say were imported and then exported.

But the goods – usually small but high-value items such as computer chips and mobile phones – never existed.

In an astonishing turn of events caused by the death in Pakistan of Paul McBride – while he was there at the behest of the Lord Advocate – Frank Mulholland and many others from the world of politics including First Minister Alex Salmond, and figures from the legal establishment attended Paul McBride’s funeral held at (name the church) in wherever during the year.

Previous articles on the Crown Office and Lord Advocate Mulholland’s exit from COPFS,  can be found here: PASS THE CROWN: As one Lord Advocate exits, another is set to take charge of Scotland’s ‘institutionally corrupt’ Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service

For previous articles on the Crown Office, read more here: Scotland’s Crown Office – in Crown detail


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,