TAXPAYERS are facing a bill of at least £55,000 in legal costs after Police Scotland refused to reveal how many informants had been recruited by the force.
The taxpayer will foot the bill after a long-running saga that included the single force going to court in a failed bid to challenge a decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC).
Earlier this year, the Sunday Herald asked Police Scotland for the amount paid to covert human intelligence sources (CHIS), copies of policy guidance, as well as how many informants had been hired. Covert policing has been under unprecedented scrutiny in recent years and a Government-funded inspectorate is examining the practice in Scotland.
The force answered the first two questions – CHIS has received nearly £400,000 in two years – but refused to reveal how many informers have been recruited. After an appeal by this newspaper the SIC, which adjudicates on information disputes, ordered disclosure.
In its judgment, the SIC revealed that Police Scotland had claimed that releasing the number of informants could help Serious Organised Crime Groups (SOCG) and potentially deter informants from coming forward.
However, the watchdog dismissed the arguments and described the force’s submissions as speculative, adding that no evidence of harm was provided.
On the view expressed by senior officers that publication would endanger individuals suspected of being informants, the SIC stated: “The Commissioner fails to see how disclosure of the information requested would place anyone at the remotest risk of identification, or provide any SOCG with the remotest indication that it has been infiltrated, as claimed by Police Scotland.”
Despite the emphatic judgment, Police Scotland challenged it in the Court of Session. The civil appeal judges refused the Chief Constable’s appeal and said they were satisfied the SIC gave clear and intelligible reasons for her decision. The force eventually confirmed that 759 CHIS had been recruited between April 2013 and January last year. According to Police Scotland, the force’s external legal costs in relation to the freedom of information request and the court case is £18,194 “to date”. The figure doesn’t include in-house legal costs, as no charge is recorded or made for advice provided by force solicitors.
The cost to the SIC, which is another public body, currently stands at £37,511, which takes the total to £55,705. It is understood the SIC will pay its own costs initially and then make a claim to the force for reimbursement. Police Scotland spent its share of the total sum against a backdrop of huge budgetary pressures.
Scottish Tory shadow justice secretary Liam Kerr said: “Every police service needs informants, it’s plainly how things have to work. The public will not mind one bit that Police Scotland uses this many people to extract vital clues and information. That’s why it’s such a mystery that the force fought so hard to keep these details secret. That battle has now left a cash-strapped force with another unnecessary bill, and caused further damage in reputation.”
Labour MSP Neil Findlay said: “This is extraordinary. Police Scotland seem to be an organisation whose senior management are making repeated wrong calls. Given what we know about the undercover policing scandal they should be much more open and accountable.”
Asked if the force had wasted over £50,000 on a fruitless legal challenge, Police Scotland’s Assistant Chief Constable Steve Johnson said: “No. This money was spent to understand the full implications of this FOI request.” On Friday, Chief Constable Phil Gormley temporarily stepped aside after a further allegation of gross misconduct was made against him. He is being investigated over bullying claims by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel