A POLICE officer who was jailed for seven months for wilful neglect of duty has had his conviction quashed by appeal judges.
David Carmichael had originally been sentenced after a court heard claims he deliberately lied to protect a fellow officer from being investigated for allegations of drink driving.
The case sparked an exchange between Police Scotland Chief Constable Sir Stephen House and Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart after the man presiding over the trial, Sheriff Robert Dickson, said there "may be a perceived culture that police officers are willing to prevent the arrest and prosecution of a colleague".
Sir Stephen wrote to Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart saying he believed the comments were "unsubstantiated" but Mr Lockhart responded that he believed Mr Dickson had "ample evidence" to make the inference.
Former Strathclyde police constable Carmichael had been freed on interim liberation pending an appeal against his conviction and the jail sentence imposed on him.
Sheriff Dickson prepared a report for judges at the Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh posing the question whether on the facts found in the case was he entitled to convict.
Lord Drummond Young, sitting with Lady Clark of Calton and Sheriff Principal Ian Abercrombie QC, ruled that the answer was in the negative.
The senior judge said they would give reasons in writing for the decision later.
Carmichael's counsel, Gordon Jackson QC, said: "This appellant was convicted of a common law offence of neglect of his duty as a police officer."
Mr Jackson said the alleged failure fell into three parts - failure to make full and proper inquiry, failure to follow a procedure requiring a person to reveal who was driver of a car and a false report.
The senior counsel said: "That would be a matter of police discipline but would not be neglect of his duty."
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