ONE of the country’s top human rights lawyers has criticised the Scottish Police Authority for a lack of transparency and its “disturbing” handling of a board member’s resignation.

John Scott QC, who advises the government on policing, said there is a “siege mentality” at the watchdog caused by a fear of “adverse publicity” and leaks.

The SPA was set up as the oversight body of Police Scotland, but its own performance has been under fire. The flashpoint has been the new “governance framework” that was approved by the SPA following a review by chair Andrew Flanagan.

Amongst the most controversial proposals were holding committees in private and only making board papers publicly available on the day of the meeting.

At the December session of the SPA, board member Moi Ali criticised both recommendations and asked for her dissent to be recorded in the minutes. Flanagan then sent her a private letter criticising her public objections and suggesting she no longer attend committees. She resigned within weeks.

The chair was grilled about Ali’s resignation by MSPs recently and he has been called back by Holyrood’s Public Audit and Post-legislative Committee after Ali challenged his initial evidence.

Flanagan also withheld a highly critical letter by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Derek Penman on the secrecy proposals from his own board.

Scott, who chairs the independent advisory group on stop-and-search that led to sweeping changes of the practice, has now entered the debate.

Speaking at the Scottish Police Federation conference last week, he said of the SPA row: “Since my involvement with the stop-and-search review, I have taken a deliberate approach of declining opportunities to comment on many policing matters. This, however, was too important to walk past.”

On the Penman intervention, he said: “Several concerns arise from Derek’s letter. For the SPA to seek to finalise a Governance Framework without sufficient time for input from HMICS seems rash.

“Holding important committee meetings in private seems, as Derek said, ‘at odds with the key principle of transparency’. Failure to formally recognise the valuable input of staff associations suggests an inability or unwillingness to listen to comments or criticism."

On the Ali controversy, he said: “The official SPA reaction to Moi’s resignation, with talk of dissent and collective responsibility, was disturbing.”

The QC also said: “Whatever advice the SPA has been given, I and others have the impression of a siege mentality, bred no doubt of adverse publicity and fear of further publicity. If the idea was to deflect attention, it has had the opposite effect.”

Scottish Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Liam McArthur MSP said: “This is a significant intervention from John Scott. While many of the SPA’s problems can be traced back to the centralised, top-down structures put in place by the SNP, it is certainly not helping itself. If it wants to retain the confidence of the public and its staff then the way to do that is to be more open and engaging, as opposed to stifling situations and retreating behind closed doors.”

A spokesperson for the SPA said: "The changes that the SPA made at the turn of the year to its governance approach aim to strengthen and clarify governance and accountability in policing. In doing so, the board is seeking to balance their ability to develop the right relationships and flows of information they need for informed scrutiny, with the openness and transparency which we agree is critical for a public service like policing.

"We also accept that the debate on transparency is not a black and white issue. At its last meeting, board members themselves debated, in public, different perspectives on striking the right balance between public and private scrutiny work. HMICS has made the point in its own independent reports, for instance on armed policing, of the need for some engagement and scrutiny of policing to take place outside of the public realm."