LAWYERS have raised concerns over the independence of Scotland's new single police force amid further claims it could become subject to undue political influence.
Human rights lawyer John Scott, QC, claims having one chief constable, instead of eight, makes it easier for the Government to exert pressure on the force. Former senior prosecutor Jock Thomson, QC, claims the police chief could simply become "the stooge" of First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
They have also raised concerns over the investigation of serious incidents – such as that of PC Rod Gellatly who died after a shooting incident at a Glasgow police station earlier this week – which are normally investigated by separate, independent forces.
Mr Scott said: "I have concerns about a single force, especially given the increased potential for undue political influence when it's a single chief constable.
"If the Government decides that particular issues are priorities, such as sectarianism in football, then a chief constable might very well decide for himself it's a good idea to focus on that, but a phone call from the First Minister's office or the Justice Minister could also put him under pressure to do something.
"With eight forces it is much more difficult to influence all eight chiefs – the different forces are pretty independent and do things very differently from each other.
"The principle of separation of powers is an important one. It's very important that we have an independent police force." Mr Thomson, who has already raised concerns over the Government's relationship with the Crown Office, claims a single police force brings similar worries. He said: "I have for some time been concerned about the demise of our criminal justice system and the incestuous relationship between the executive and law officers has had and will continue to have in bringing this about. The creation of the single police force will raise additional concerns.
"Concerns were expressed ahead of the creation of the single police force that no democratic society should allow it as it could result in the chief constable becoming the stooge of Messrs Salmond and MacAskill – we're getting there."
The lawyers also say there is concern over who would investigate serious incidents or complaints within the force, with both suggesting forces outwith Scotland may have to do it. Mr Thomson said: "On the basis that when a complaint is made against a particular police force it would normally be investigated by a separate independent force. Who, post April 1, will investigate such matters, since by then there will be one unified force, no part of which can be regarded as independent?
"Presumably, it would have to be a body outwith Scotland. Interesting – and worrying – times."
The concerns follow warnings of a turf war over backroom staff between the single force and the body responsible for holding it to account, the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), as revealed in The Herald yesterday. Chief Constable Stephen House is said to be "spitting nails" at an apparent bid by the SPA to take over key services.
Mr Thomson said: "What they're fighting about is who is going to be in operational control of the police. The chief constable? SPA chairman Vic Emery? I think not. But Mr MacAskill will provide the answer –his answer."
Both the Scottish Government and a spokesman for the new force said the chief constable and the force will be held to account by the SPA. They also said any serious incidents or complaints will be dealt with under the new wider remit of the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, who will become the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner from April 1.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The Act sets out clear provisions to ensure separation between ministers and police. The chief constable is directly accountable to the Scottish Police Authority, not Government."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article