A MAN who was abused by his foster father during the 1980s has condemned Police Scotland for hindering his fight for justice after it emerged they dismissed evidence relevant to his case.

Richard Tracey, 48, who has mounted a decades-long campaign to shed light on the violence he suffered in care, has received an apology after the police watchdog uncovered evidence that officers mishandled historic claims that he had been sexually abused.

Police wrongly told Mr Tracey that a witness failed to acknowledge any instances of sexual abuse against him during his period in foster care but were later forced to reverse their position following an investigation by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (Pirc).

They found police had unwittingly misled Mr Tracey by giving in information that was “clearly incorrect”.

Mr Tracey said: “Since 1993 when Kilmarnock Police were made aware of this case, it is I who has been pushing for justice. There has been no real effort to see the sexual abuser who abused me for years, or the care staff who assaulted me, brought to court. Kilmarnock Police have generally made this fight for justice as difficult as they possible can.”

He said that in the light of the ongoing sexual abuse inquiry, his experience suggested survivors of abuse can have very little faith in the ability of police to investigate past cases.

“So much for a new beginning for survivors,” he said.

Social work records from the time note that Mr Tracey raised accusations he had been sexually abused, though his social worker Hugh Quinn failed to investigate the claims.

The Herald reported last year on a Scottish Social Services Council investigation into concerns that Mr Quinn had failed to act over several years when he managed Mr Tracey’s case. This has yet to report its conclusions.

Richard also reported his claims to the police, but inquiries were dropped due to lack of corroborating evidence.

After a foster brother and sister, Alex and Elizabeth Tracey, were later interviewed in 2015, Police Scotland again took no action over the abuse allegations. Officers told Mr Tracey that while their interviews had confirmed he had been beaten by his foster father, George Tracey, who is now dead, neither sibling had any knowledge of the claim that Richard had also been sexually abused.

Officers told Mr Tracey in October 2015 that his foster siblings had been interviewed, writing: “They confirmed that they had knowledge of the physical assaults committed by George Tracey... but they confirmed that at no time did they have any knowledge of sexual abuse”.

But after an investigation by Pirc it has emerged this was not true. Mr Tracey had his own doubts, having spoken to both siblings and said they had told him differently.

At this point, a senior police officer rebuked him, in a letter in June 2016, which insisted: “Whilst I understand your frustration... I can confirm that there is no mention of any sexual abuse within [Elizabeth Tracey’s] statement...

“I can assure you that when police investigate incidents such as this we try our best to obtain the necessary evidence to allow progression of the matter and I am disappointed that you suggest that the police have hidden information from a witness and are questioning the integrity of officers who diligently tried to bring this investigation to a satisfactory conclusion for you.”

Now, however, after retrieving Elizabeth Tracey’s statement and speaking again to her, Pirc has acknowledged that she did indeed discuss her knowledge of Richard’s claims and the identity of the alleged abuser in her original 2015 interview.

Alex’s statement did not refer to Richard being sexually abused, according to Pirc, but he did state that he knew the alleged abuser had been arrested in relation to a sexual offence, when Alex was in his late teens.

The watchdog has now written to Richard, belatedly admitting that while what Police Scotland told him about Alex’s statement was accurate, the claim that Elizabeth had not mentioned sexual abuse was “clearly incorrect”. Pirc apologised for reproducing misinformation in the commission’s own dealings with him and any distress caused.

A police spokesman aid: “As a result of recommendations from Pirc following a previous complaint, Police Scotland officers contacted the complainer in this case and an update was provided. However, a subsequent complaint was then made to Police Scotland which is still under investigation and as such it would be inappropriate to comment.”