FRANK Stott thought there was a #2m export deal to be had. There wasn't but he was: had, that is. He had flown down to the Hilton in London with samples in his bag: bit naughty that, carrying them on the aircraft, he quipped. His sales patter was impressive. So was the gusto with which he brandished the kit to demonstrate how effective it was. Sparks flew from the electric current.
His firm had exported models to China a year after the Tianamen Square massacre, he had sold similar kit to the apartheid regime in South Africa. Other sales had been made in the
Middle East. Soon he was to go to South America to sell the equipment in Venezuela, Peru, Columbia. And he made it clear that he didn't ask too many questions about the final destination of the products, nor did he inquire into their use. Which was unfortunate, for him. The Middle East buyer was bogus. Stott, managing director of ICL Technical Plastics, former SAS man, past vice-president of the West of Scotland Rugby Football Club, had been trying to sell electro-shock batons and shields not to potential clients but to a television journalist and an actor. He was duped into a starring role in a Channel 4 documentary about the torture trade. The secret film of meetings in his Glasgow office and the London hotel exposed how easy it is to sell weapons banned in the UK. Stun batons were outlawed by this country in 1988. But, says Amnesty International, the batons are favoured as the tools
of torturers in countries where human rights abuses are endemic.
After the film was broadcast in January 1995, police raided the Maryhill offices of ICL. The Herald handed over documents, including a copy of Stott's letter offering to sell the bogus com-pany batons and shields along with a copy of the specification documents which described the baton in grim detail.
Throughout Herald inquiries, the company insisted it sup-ported Amnesty's concern for human rights and that abuse of such equipment was abhorrent. It denied involvement in the clandestine supply of electric shock batons. The company's main business is in supplying protective equipment such as riot shields, body armour, and batons for police forces in the UK. A director described the ICL employee's attempts to gain an order as part of a feasibility study by someone who was ''off the wall''. The employee was no lowly gofer, though. He was the managing director. Yesterday Stott appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court to admit illegally
possessing three prohibited weapons - two electric stun batons and a shield - without the authority of the Secretary of State. Outlining the case against him, the prosecutor said that Martyn Gregory, who made The Torture Trail film had set up a fictitious company and app-roached Stott at the Covert and Operational Procurement Exhibition in London.
When police later went to
the company's premises Stott handed over the weapons. They had been rendered useless, one sawn up, and the rest put in a tube of glue. The court was told the weapons were not manufactured by Stott but had come from South Africa and America. The 40,000-volt batons could stop a victim's heart. The were deadly if applied for a long time.
Stott's defence counsel said the size of the order, 5000 electric batons and 10,000 shields, led him to think they were for use in riot control, and in prisons. There had been not a whisper of torture and Stott thought he was dealing with people who had a legitimate use for the batons.
It will be next month before Stott learns his fate. Sheriff Iona McDonald deferred sentence for social inquiry and community service reports. He could be fined or jailed for up to six months.
After the case, Stott said he had been ''a proper chump''. If he had suspected the weapons were to be used for torture he would never have entertained the deal: ''I utterly condemn torture, and support Amnesty International's efforts to stop it.'' He accused the programme makers of setting him up: ''They said they wanted to buy the stun weapons for riot control and all I could see was a big deal for my own company.''
Amnesty believes the ICL model of the stun baton was almost certainly used as the blueprint for the Chinese to mass produce their own home-made version. You will recall Stott's boast on film that his plastics firm exported models to China a year after the Tianamen Square massacre.
Amnesty continues to campaign to close the legal loophole on supplying banned weapons open to exploitation by British companies. There are known to be around 100 firms worldwide manufacturing electro-shock systems. The latest state-of-the- art weapons include stun belts which fire 50,000 volts into the victim's kidney for eight seconds, and Taser guns which shoot darts trailing a wire across distances of up to 30ft. These inflict huge electric charges on the recipient.
Amnesty claims torture is endemic in more than 40 countries. It singles out four - China, Turkey, Israel, and Mexico - as having the worst records. The group believes the previous Government was aware of involvement of British companies in the electric batons trade. A report which advises companies where to sell electric shock weapons in the Gulf was part funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. One section, dealing with Qatar advised British businessmen that the special forces there were interested in procuring electric batons.
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