A SERVING police officer who was wrongly charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice after she investigated an alleged assault with a McFlurry ice cream has been awarded £4,000 in damages.
Gwen Louden, who has more than two decades of police service, was subjected to a "grossly humiliating" ordeal by her fellow officers after a girl who it was claimed had hurled a McDonalds McFlurry at her alleged victim later said the officer had "coached" her to deny the attack.
Despite the alleged assailant being described as not credible even by her own mother, Ms Louden was twice quizzed by officers, Detective Sergeant Nicola McGovern and Detective Inspector Alistair Waghorn, on the same day in June 2010 at a police station in Forfar.
Although strenuously denying that she had acted inappropriately, Ms Louden was detained in custody, formally cautioned and charged, despite the district procurator fiscal previously advising officers that there would not be sufficient evidence to pursue the case if she did not confess.
Ms McGovern's husband had previously been in a relationship with Ms Louden, 53, who at the time was a community liaison officer based in Muirhead, a small village just outside Dundee.
Although the case was later dropped by the procurator fiscal, Ms Louden, who had her DNA and fingerprints taken, went on to develop anxiety, mental trauma and stress.
She was later diagnosed as suffering from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive reaction, which experts said had been brought on by her arrest.
Sheriff Kevin Veal awarded Ms Louden, who lived at home with her 16-year-old son at the time of her detention, £2,500 for wrongful arrest and a further £1,500 as compensation for the mental anguish she had suffered. The defender in the case was the Chief Constable of Police Scotland.
In a damning judgement at Forfar Sheriff Court, the sheriff said: "I can only - regretfully - observe that the effect of proceeding with the arrest and detention of Mrs Louden at that stage [after she had denied coaching the witness] was to belittle and humiliate her.
"In truth, the arrest and detention of Mrs Louden at that stage was based on information which, at its highest, would not be able to even start to secure a conviction."
Sheriff Veal added that Ms McGovern should never have been the investigating officer in the case, given the former relationship between her now-husband and Ms Louden.
"It is to be hoped that, when it may be deemed necessary to investigate the actings of a police officer, the selection process will not permit a similar situation to arise," he added.
Ms Louden was forced to take months off work as a result of the condition that was caused by her arrest, although she has since recovered and returned to work in January 2011.
Peter Watson, senior partner and head of litigation at Levy & McRae, the firm that represented Ms Louden, said: "This is an historic judgement which underlines the principle that nobody should be arrested or detained unless there is good cause.
"There was no good cause in this case and at least in this case Ms Louden was fortunate enough to have the backing of the Scottish Police Federation."
Ms Louden was also awarded costs and interest following the case. She originally sued Police Scotland for £50,000.
Calum Steele, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, said: "We hope the police service learns a very important lesson from this case."
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 hereComments are closed on this article