Northern Constabulary accused of exercise in deceit(July 30, 2008)
I refer to previous letters emailed on 29 July 2008 and 25 July 2008. I am now writing to express further concern relating to on going correspondence between a Chief Inspector Andrew MacLean of Northern Constabulary and a Mr John Dunn at the Crown Office which requires detailed explanation.
I met with CI MacLean on 21 March 2008. CI MacLean confirmed that he intended to interview Sheriff Principal Sir Stephen Young, Sheriff Derek Pyle and Justice Simon Fraser in relation to a criminal complaint which he concluded was essentially one of corruption. He also confirmed that various solicitors identified in the complaint would be interviewed, which I took to mean Mr Donald Somerville - Area Solicitor for Highland Council / Depute Clerk of the District Court, Mrs Mary Murray - Highland Council Solicitor / Clerk of the District Court, Mr Gary Aitken - Depute Fiscal and Mr Robert MacDonald, Solicitor Advocate in the first instance. Various police officers would also be interviewed which I took to mean Deputy Chief Constable Gary Sutherland, Sergeant David Campbell and PC Karl Falconer. Two ex-police officers, a Mr Stuart Latham and Mr Derek Consterdine, would also be interviewed, along with Mrs Tina Consterdine, a Northern Constabulary employee. A Mrs Shirley Latham would also be interviewed. He had reached this decision having considered detailed documentary evidence over a number of months - his decision also confirmed previous emailed correspondence relating to the complexities of the investigation and his decision to treat the allegations against the various individuals as one investigation.
I was told by Mr Dunn on 4 July 2008 that there had not been any investigation into the justice system by CI MacLean. I was then told by Mr Dunn on 21 July 2008 that CI MacLean had confirmed that he had not been involved in the investigation of anyone other than police officers. He confirmed this for a second time on 29 July 2008.
CI Maclean claims that Mr Dunn has come to his conclusions based on an email he sent him on 17 July 2008 timed at 1553, which is obviously after Mr Dunn had already reached his conclusion on 4 July 2008. In any event, Mr Dunn claims never to have seen the email sent by CI MacLean.
This is an entirely unsatisfactory situation that clearly requires the immediate intervention of investigating authorities that are totally independent of those individuals and organisations identified in this complaint. Whilst it is difficult to know who to believe, I have formed the impression that the current Northern Constabulary investigation is nothing more than an exercise in deceit.
I look forward to your response.