LAST month the wife of Scotland’s Chief Constable suggested her husband was being picked on as an “outsider” with an English accent.
For some, the claims of Phil Gormley’s partner Claire meant he could never return to work. For others, it came as confirmation Mr Gormley already knew he could never do so.
The Chief Constable had been on special leave – essentially a paid holiday – since it emerged in September one of more than half a dozen complaints against him came from one of his immediate lieutenants.
Mrs Gormley was frustrated by the pace of investigations in her husband’s alleged bullying. Writing in the Daily Mail, she appeared to claim her husband was being picked on because he was English. “It is very easy to attack an outsider,” she said in the tabloid. “Phil doesn’t have a Scottish accent, he was born in Surrey, not Stirling.”
Her words sounded very strange. Nearly half of Mr Gormley’s top team at Police Scotland were English. A Surrey accent in the chief officer’s corridors of Tulliallan, his mock Scots Baronial castle HQ, is no more out of place than a Stirling one.
But Ms Gormley was right that her husband was not proving popular. A slew of misconduct allegations from men and women in his immediate circle. He had, or so the whispers went, lost his temper with his subordinates. Why? Because, said those who did not wish him well, he was not coping.
Mr Gormley has denied all the allegations made against him. His resignation means investigations in four four of them by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (Pirc) will end. Had Pirc deemed these allegations credible, Mr Gormley would have faced misconduct hearings, which could have led to his dismissal.
We will now never know whether the allegations made against him would have been upheld – or whether the whispers of discontent were fair.
Mrs Gormley’s Daily Mail article suggests her husband was not hopeful of prevailing. She told the paper she had little trust in the institutions trying to get to the bottom of claims against her husband, adding that she had “little confidence justice will prevail”.
There are those who believe police regulations should change so that an misconduct investigation or hearing can continue even after an officer quits. New regulations in England and Wales mean proceedings can continue in to an officer after his or her resignation.
Moi Ali, a former member of the Scottish Police Authority, tweeted there was a “loophole” in the regulations. She added: “It should be closed to prevent resignation from putting an end to the investigation of live complaints.”
Police and justice insiders believe it would have been very difficult for Mr Gormley to return to office even if the allegations against him were deemed unfounded by watchdogs.
That is because his wife’s remarks signalled a complete breakdown of his relationships. If Mr Gormley had any bridges left, his wife burned them.
Demands got louder for Mr Gormley to go. Voices urging resignation included this newspaper and our columnist, the former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill. Former Labour MSP and former senior police officer Graeme Pearson said he saw no way back for the chief.
Aamer Anwar, a solicitor and keen watcher of Police Scotland, said Mr Gormley’s appointment had been a “disaster.”
He added: “For Gormley to remain in post would have been farcical and damaging for the reputation of Police Scotland and would have continued to detract from the hard work and professionalism of thousands of officers.
“He had very few options left but I suspect that his wife playing the ‘race card’ was the final straw for many.”
Mr Gormley is widely expected to be replaced by the man he initially pipped to the post, his deputy Iain Livingstone. That’s up to the SPA, under new leadership and eager to establish its credibility.
Mr Aamer added: “Real questions remain over the role of the SPA in his appointment.”
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