A retired detective who had a “neglect of duty” complaint upheld against her is now an advisor to a review into the role of the police during the Miners’ strike.
Kate Thomson, a former Assistant Chief Constable at Police Scotland, was told in 2016 to apologise after failing to maintain contact with the wife of an undercover officer who had raised concerns about her husband’s welfare.
Labour MSP Neil Findlay said: “I commend the Scottish Government for the steps it has taken in initiating this independent review and it has my full support, but previous independent reviews in other areas have been compromised from the outset by some of the appointees. We cannot have this in this inquiry. The Government has to reassure everyone concerned that all panel members were scrutinised ahead of their appointment.”
Justice Secretary Michael Matheson recently announced a review of the impact on “affected communities” of policing during a bitter 1980s strike that pitted striking miners against the then-Conservative Government.
Critics have long-argued that the policing of the dispute was heavy-handed and resulted in miners receiving unjust criminal convictions.
However, defenders of the Tory Government insist the miners were let down by their trade union, which led workers out on strike without a national ballot.
QC John Scott was chosen to head the review and will be assisted by an advisory panel including former MSP Dennis Canavan, Professor Jim Murdoch of Glasgow University and Thomson.
Matheson told MSPs: “This grouping will bring real authority and a balanced insight into the issues raised.”
However, the Government is now under the spotlight over the choice of Thomson to serve on the review team.
As revealed by the Sunday Herald this year, a retired undercover officer – “Peter” – accused the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and Police Scotland of “poor” welfare support when he was in the field.
In 2011, Thomson, at that point a detective superintendent, was contacted by Peter’s then wife about her concerns. She later made a formal complaint about Thomson.
Carole Auld, a chief superintendent in the Professional Standards Department, wrote to the woman in May 2016 about the outcome of the probe. Her letter dealt with the “neglect of duty – failure to communicate” complaint – and quoted the undercover officer’s spouse.
“She [Thomson] said she would help [Peter], support him, welfare him and make sure me and the boys were alright. My expectations at that point was that she would get back in touch with me.”
Auld wrote: “I have subsequently met with Assistant Chief Constable Kate Thomson and outlined your allegation as above. She agrees with your position that you did indeed raise these matters with her in previous role as Detective Superintendent.”
She continued: “Assistant Chief Constable Kate Thomson advises that as a consequence of your personal meeting with her in 2011, she set in motion an action plan for your husband to ensure his welfare was to the fore. Assistant Chief Constable Kate Thomson agrees that in so doing the focus was upon your husband’s action plan and she accepts that she did not follow up contact with you personally.”
The letter concluded: “I therefore uphold this allegation and advise that Assistant Chief Constable Kate Thomson and Police Scotland apologises for its failure to meet your reasonable expectation of maintaining contact with you.”
Thomson was awarded a Queen’s Police Medal months later and is now retired.
Police Scotland Assistant Chief Constable Alan Speirs told this newspaper in March that the force accepted there had been a “failure to communicate with the officer's wife” and added that a written apology had been given.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The Scottish Government is confident that Kate Thomson, who had a long and distinguished career of public service with the police, will make a valuable contribution to this important review which was welcomed across the Scottish Parliament. This complaint was fully and appropriately investigated at the time.”
Thomson could not be reached.
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 here