The force also refused to disclose any non-disclosure agreements which may have been part of any settlement of the case – which ultimately led to the female officer leaving her job,
And, the information has been categorised as so sensitive, Police Scotland refuse to confirm if the files even exist.
The move came in relation to Freedom of Information requests seeking details of information held by Police Scotland on accusations and allegations of sexual assault made by a female Police Officer against current DCC Iain Livingstone during his time in Lothian and Borders Police.
Also sought for disclosure was information contained in any discussions or misconduct hearings in relation to these allegations and information contained in any admissions by Iain Livingstone with regards to these allegations and, any information contained in any non-disclosure agreements, termination of employment, resignation or retirement of any persons or Police Officers making these allegations against Iain Livingstone.
However a statement from Police Scotland in response to the Freedom of Information request refused any form of disclosure or acknowledgement of the status of any files held by Scotland’s single national Police service – who said:
“Police Scotland endeavours to provide information whenever possible. However, under section 18(1) of the Act, a public authority may refuse a request where:
• if the information existed and was held by the authority, it would be exempt from release under any of Sections 28 to 35, 38, 39(1) or 41 of the Act; and
• the authority considers that to reveal whether the information exists, or is held by it, would be contrary to the public interest.
In this instance, it is considered that to reveal whether the information you have requested exists, or is held by Police Scotland, would be both exempt from release under the Act and contrary to the public interest. There is a strong public interest in protecting individuals' privacy, and personal information is exempt from release into the public domain under section 38 of the Act if it would be unfair, unlawful or otherwise breach the Data Protection Act.
For these reasons, Police Scotland must refuse your request under section 18(1) of the Act.
This notice should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or is held.”
Issues surrounding the allegations of sexual assault made by a female Police Officer against Iain Livingstone while he served at Lothian & Borders Police in 2003 resurfaced during recent scrutiny of Police Scotland over the past year.
Livingstone was however, cleared of the allegations by a hearing chaired by another senior Police officer - John McLean, Strathclyde assistant chief constable. The Police led hearing on allegations against Police Superintendent Livingstone established there had been no sexual impropriety or intent on Mr Livingstone's part.
However, interest in the 2003 case and details surrounding it has resurfaced – after the single Police service – created by the Scottish Government in 2013 - was hit by several scandals including numerous suspensions of senior officers, allegations of Ministerial meddling with ultimately led to the ousting of Chief Constable Phil Gormley, and the ongoing probe into senior officers use of a surveillance unit within Police Scotland to illegally spy on journalists & cops.
At the time of the sexual assault allegations in 2003, Iain Livingstone, 37, was working as an aide to Scotland's most senior police officer, Sir Roy Cameron, at Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, when he was suspended in February 2003 over the claims - which arose from a drunken party at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan.
It was reported at the time that Iain Livingstone - previously a solicitor and member of the Law Society of Scotland - had been suspended for 17 months after the WPC claimed she had been sexually assaulted during the party.
Five allegations of serious sexual assault made by the female Police officer against Livingstone were dismissed - but, at an internal misconduct hearing, Mr Livingstone admitted less serious allegations, including being in the woman's room overnight after falling asleep.
A qualified lawyer and member of the Law society of Scotland, Mr Livingstone switched careers in 1992, joining Lothian and Borders Police. In just 10 years, he reached the rank of superintendent.
Livingstone was ultimately demoted from superintendent to constable following the disciplinary hearing, although is now in the position of caretaker Chief Constable of Police Scotland, while the Scottish Government attempt to find another ‘suitable’ candidate to fill the Chief Constable post vacated by Phil Gormley.
However, recent interest in the case surfaced after it emerged DCC Iain Livingston was being promoted to fill the Chief Constable slot vacated by Gormley – who had effectively been ousted from his job after Justice Secretary Michael Matheson intervened in a decision taken by the Scottish Police Authority to allow Mr Gormley to return to work
And, it later emerged that during evidence given by Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee, neither Livingstone or the Justice Sub Committee Convener John Finnie declared they knew each other, after papers revealed Mr Finnie had represented Mr Livingstone when he was cleared of the sexual misconduct claims in 2003.
In a further refusal to disclose information on the current top cop in Scotland, Police Scotland refused to reveal any information in relation to additional complaints made against Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone.
And, again, Police Scotland refused even to confirm if such information was held – this despite information already available in the public arena including discussions on social media platforms relating to additional complaints made against DCC Livingstone by Police Officers.
A request for information relating to numbers of complaints, subject of complaints, and identities (not name, but by rank, status as Police Officer, civilian employee, member of the public or other) - who have made complaints (and the numbers of complaints) against current DCC Iain Livingstone from 1 April 2013 to the date of this FOI request and the status, and outcomes of these complaints – resulted in the following response from Police Scotland, with a refusal to disclose:
“Police Scotland endeavours to provide information whenever possible. However, under section 18(1) of the Act, a public authority may refuse a request where:
• if the information existed and was held by the authority, it would be exempt from release under any of Sections 28 to 35, 38, 39(1) or 41 of the Act; and
• the authority considers that to reveal whether the information exists, or is held by it, would be contrary to the public interest.
In this instance, it is considered that to reveal whether the information you have requested exists, or is held by Police Scotland, would be both exempt from release under the Act and contrary to the public interest. There is a strong public interest in protecting individuals' privacy, and personal information is exempt from release into the public domain under section 38 of the Act if it would be unfair, unlawful or otherwise breach the Data Protection Act.
For these reasons, Police Scotland must refuse your request under section 18(1) of the Act.
This notice should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or is held.”
And, it emerged in February of this year that during evidence given by Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee, neither Livingstone or the Justice Sub Committee Convener John Finnie declared any previous links to each other while Livingstone testified before MSPs.
A report in the Sunday Mail newspaper in February revealed Mr Finnie – previously a serving Police Officer and representative for the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) - had represented Mr Livingstone when he was cleared of the sexual misconduct claims in 2003.
The issue was reported by the Sunday Mail newspaper here:
John Finnie failed to tell MSPs he represented the acting chief constable when he was cleared of sexual misconduct.
ByMark Aitken 18 FEB 2018
John Finnie failed to tell MSPs he represented Iain Livingstone
A Green MSP is facing questions over his connection with Scotland’s acting chief constable.
Former police officer John Finnie failed to tell fellow MSPs he had represented Iain Livingstone when he was cleared of sexual misconduct.
He failed to declare the link at a meeting of Holyrood’s justice committee when Livingstone was being questioned.
Finnie spent 14 years as an official for the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) – the organisation who represent police officers up to the rank of chief inspector.
Livingstone, the frontrunner to replace Phil Gormley as Scotland’s chief constable, was acccused in 2004 of sexually assaulting a female police officer.
Livingstone admitted falling asleep in the woman’s room at the Scottish Police College in Tulliallan, Fife, after a drunken party in 2000.
Iain Livingstone was accused of sexually assaulting a female police officer in 2004
At an internal hearing, more serious allegations were dropped.
Livingstone, who was then a superintendent, was demoted to constable but won his job back on appeal. Livingstone’s appeal was backed by the SPF.
Finnie said at the time that the case had highlighted “the ease with which the system can be abused and the punitive consequences which affect not only the officer but their family”.
At Holyrood’s justice committee in January, Finnie quizzed Livingstone about staffing levels and said losing chief officers was one of the benefits of creating a single police force.
Scottish Labour justice spokesman Daniel Johnson said: “John is a valued colleague on the justice committee but I am alarmed that he did not see fit to declare this link with the acting chief constable.
“Police Scotland are in desperate need of scrutiny – and the public will expect such scrutiny to be conducted professionally.
“I would urge him to correct the record and to ensure he declares interests fully and promptly in future.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives added: “He also owes parliament an explanation as to why he neglected to mention this very important link.”
Finnie began his career with Lothian and Borders Police in 1976 and moved to Northern Constabulary three years later.
He served as a full-time officer with the SPF from 1992 to 2006.
Finnie was elected as an SNP MSP in 2011 but quit the party the following year in protest at the decision to end their long-standing opposition to Nato membership.
Finnie and the Greens failed to respond to the Sunday Mail’s calls.
It has since come to light there are a number of non disclosure agreements in force which relate to Police Officers and others connected to Policing in Scotland, a matter now being probed by the media for further reporting.
Staggering
ReplyDeleteThis stinks to high heaven. Its not surprising given that lawyers and the Police are a law unto themselves, and allowed to continue 'business as usual' by the what is increasingly being seen to be a pointless quango - namely the Scottish Parliament.
ReplyDeleteIs it not strange that "Livingstone was ultimately demoted from superintendent to constable following the disciplinary hearing" when he allegedly had done nothing wrong?
ReplyDelete