Latest News
JUSTICE MINISTER URGENTLY ASKED TO RESPOND
(July 29, 2008)Mr MacAskill
I refer to my letter emailed on 25 July 2008. I
write to highlight further concerns relating to the "investigation" that may or
may not have happened.
1 Northern Constabulary have now admitted that
after 8 months of a "criminal investigation" they have not interviewed any of
the senior legal figures directly responsible for dozens of documented
irregularities favouring 2 ex-police officers, a Northern Constabulary employee
and one other. The investigating officer, having considered detailed documentary
evidence over a number of months, made it absolutely clear that the individuals
responsible would be interviewed and held accountable for their actions. This
has not happened and is entirely unacceptable and fuels further suspicions of an
investigation that was comprised from the start.
2 The basis for not interviewing the senior
legal figures based at Inverness Sheriff Court, accordingly to the investigating
officer, is legal advice given to him by legal figures based at Inverness
Sheriff Court. This is entirely unacceptable - any legal advice should have come
from sources entirely independent of those individuals and organisations
directly implicated in the allegations.
3 The basis for not interviewing the senior
legal figures based at Highland Council Solicitors Office, accordingly to the
investigating officer, is legal advice given to him by legal figures based at
Highland Council Solicitors Office. This is entirely unacceptable - any legal
advice should have come from sources entirely independent of those individuals
and organisations directly implicated in the allegations.
4 The basis for not interviewing the senior
legal figures based at the Procurator Fiscal's office in Inverness, accordingly
to the investigating officer, is legal advice given to him by a source he would
not identify. The Crown Office view is that they would not interfere in any way
with a criminal investigation.
5 I am being asked to believe that the dozens of
documented irregularities favouring the two ex-police officers, a Northern
Constabulary employee and one other are not linked and happened in isolation of
the each other. In reality there is a clear time line linking the
irregularities providing clear motive as to why an irregular decision may have
been taken.
It would probably worth providing some examples of
the documented irregularities to put the above concerns in a context
:
There are 3 examples of sheriff's / JP's concluding
cases on "evidence" they have made up themselves in private - "evidence" not led
or discussed at any point during trial or proof.
There are 2 examples of the PF with holding
materially relevant evidence that had been specifically requested for trial.
A criminal investigation was clearly sabotaged by a
police officer, who later received counselling relating to his impartiality
regarding another incident. Whilst under investigation himself, the same officer
investigated a further clearly fabricated incident which resulted in a failed
prosecution resulting in a 10 year old being put through a court ordeal for no
reason.
Another criminal case this time prosecuted with no
corroboration and no possibility of success resulted in a conviction which
resulted in a SCCRC referral back to the High Court - the defence solicitor has
already had to pay compensation for his role in how the original appeal came to
be abandoned in grossly improper circumstances - the District Court refused to
co-operate with the Law Society investigation into the same and to date have
never been held accountable for their actions.
A current case is being prosecuted which relies on
the testimony of an ex police officer with a known and documented history of
dishonesty over a number of years. Corroborated charges relating to acts of
violence by the same ex police officer have been dropped by the PF on two
occasions with no rational explanation provided by the PF.
There are various documented examples of sheriffs,
solicitors, and police officers being dishonest to my obvious disadvantage.
Legislation and guidelines have been ignored.
Human Rights legislation has been routinely
breached.
etc etc etc.
6 To date
Northern Constabulary have failed to answer any detailed questions relating to
the "investigation" and refuse to provide a timescale for the release of their
detailed findings despite the "investigation" apparently being
concluded.
7 The Crown Office remain of the view that no
criminal investigation has ever taken place.
Reservations expressed to Northern Constabulary
regarding their ability to carry out a proper investigation appear to be fully
justified. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done and I trust that I
will have your full support in having all of the evidence relating to these
cases examined independently.
Stuart Hunt