Ex Lord Advocate conflict of interest in inquiry role. A FORMER Lord Advocate who has links to lawyers and a suspended judge who represent the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) and cops facing complaints – has been appointed to review how complaints are handled against cops.
However, details released of the review fail to mention that Dame Elish Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) – hired Levy and Mcrae - who have been paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by Police Scotland & the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) – to get cops off the hook from complaints - including probes into deaths.
One of the lawyers linked to ex Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini – is suspended Sheriff Peter Watson.
Watson, who was suspended from the judicial bench by Lord Brian Gill in 2015, after being named in a £28m writ linked to bust hedge fund Heather Capital - represents Police officers facing complaints and investigations by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.
Meanwhile Watson and his now former law firm Levy and Mcrae - also scoop up public cash for representing cops who are being investigated over complaints.
A recent report in the Scottish Sun found Police paid £187,000 to Peter Watson’s law firm PBW law for legal fees for representing cop clients facing complaints and other ‘issues’.
The newspaper also reported Police Scotland also paid £364,830 in charges over three years to Watson’s former law firm Levy & McRae – who are also linked to Angiolini.
Records also show Peter Watson represents Police Officers on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation – who assign Watson to officers facing difficult complaints investigations.
One of the high profile cases where Watson represents cops being investigated over complaints - includes the three year investigation of Police Officers involved in the death of Sheku Bayoh.
Sheku, 31, died after being restrained by nine officers responding to reports of a man carrying the knife in the street in Kirkcaldy. Officers used CS spray, pepper spray and batons, after it was claimed Sheku struck Short. Dad-of-two Sheku lost consciousness and died in hospital shortly afterwards.
The Daily Record reported that Days after Sheku’s death in Police custody, the very same lawyer linked to Angiolini – Peter Watson - who now has his own law firm PBW Law - issued a statement on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation and the officers involved.
He claimed Sheku “punched, kicked and stamped on” a female officer. However, none of this has been proved and a probe into the death is still underway.
The paper also reported Watson threatened the family of the deceased Mr Bayoh, in relation to a facebook posting, claiming the contents were a ‘breach of criminal law’.
A recent report in the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed PC Alan Paton, 44, has been paid about £75,000 to remain at home while the inquiry into the death of Mr Bayoh in Police custody, continues – three years after the events occurred.
A second officer involved in the investigation, PC Nicole Short, is also being paid similar amounts while off duty since Sheku’s death in 2015.
Now, an investigation by journalists into Elish Angiolini’s lucrative inquiry jobbing has revealed the former Lord Advocate has scooped well over half a million pounds of public cash - writing reports on policy areas which in reality have seen little change over the years, and are mainly used by ministers for PR purposes.
Details of large amounts of public cash payments to Elish Angiolini obtained by journalists using Freedom of Information legislation reveal Angiolini has received at least £603,985.41 for a handful of reports.
Payments of public cash from the City of Edinburgh Council to Elish Angiolini reveal the former Lord Advocate received large payments of public cash totalling £123,450 broken down to £40,350.00 in 2013-2014 and £83,100.00 in 2014-2015 - for the Mortonhall Crematorium Investigation and report.
However, the City of Edinburgh Council bitterly resisted releasing details of the payments, and the figures were only eventually disclosed after the intervention of the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Details obtained from the Scottish Government – who also resisted initial disclosure of what are listed as separate payments to Angiolini for a report into National Investigation into Infant Cremation Practices reveal Angiolini received even larger sums of public cash from the Scottish Government totalling at least £240,000 - broken down to £60,000 in 2014/15, £120,000 in 2015/16, and £60,000 in 2016/17
Expenses paid to Angiolini for the exact same report - which were claimed to involve meals for ‘other team members’ totalled £437.13 in 2014/2015, £621.18 in 2015/2016, and £292.05 2016/2017
A response from the UK Home Office disclosed the total amount paid to Dame Elish for work done on the review of Independent Review of Serious Incidents and Deaths in Police Custody was £116,667.
The Metropolitan Police, who paid Angiolini for a Report of the Independent Review into The Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London – initially refused to release details of their huge payments to Angiolini,.
It then took over five months before the figures were released, and only after the matter had been reported to the Information Commissioner who began an investigation into the Metropolitan Police handling of the FOI request.
The response from the Metropolitan Police, received earlier this week stated: I can confirm the amount paid to Dame Elish Angiolini was £122,518.05 - £120,715.30 for the review and report; and £1802.75 for travel and hotel expenses.
Angiolini, who was Lord Advocate from 2006 to 2011, was appointed ten days ago by the now ousted Justice Secretary Michael Matheson - to look at how complaints are handled against the very same cops her own former lawyer now represents.
However, Angiolini had a chequered career as Lord Advocate, and was once accused of deliberately undermining the judiciary by Scotland’s top judge, the well respected Lord Hamilton.
In a letter released to the media, Lord Hamilton hit out at Elish Angiolini’s use of her Ministerial rank to tell a story of different sorts to the Scottish Parliament, for the collapse of the World’s End murder trial in 2007.
In her address to MSPs in 2007, Lord Advocate Angiolini attempted to blame the court for failures in the collapse of the high profile murder trial, failures which were clearly of her own Crown Office.
Taking issue with Angiolini’s statement in Holyrood’s main chamber, Lord Hamilton said in his letter to Angiolini at the time: I am of the clear opinion that the evidence that was made available to the court was sufficient to put before the jury to allow it the opportunity to decide on the case against Angus Sinclair. Let me set out the Crown case presented to the court."
You then set out, in a detailed and carefully crafted narrative, the evidence apparently adduced by the Crown and conclude at column 1769 -
"It was the Crown's position that the evidence in this case allowed ... an inference [of guilt] to be drawn."
It is clear that you were, as Lord Advocate, stating to the Parliament that in your "clear" opinion there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury. The plain implication from that statement was that you were publicly asserting that the decision of the trial judge was wrong.
Although I have read the whole of your statement to Parliament and the statement which the trial judge issued giving detailed reasons for his decision, I have formed no view as to whether or not that decision was sound in law. I am, however, concerned that you have thought it appropriate to challenge, in a public and political forum and in the way which you have, a final decision of the court (whether that decision be right or wrong).
Section 1(1) of the Judiciary (Scotland) Bill provides that certain office holders, including the Lord Advocate, must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. That section, I believe, reflects an existing recognition that the Lord Advocate, among others, has such a duty. The independence of the judiciary depends, in my view, not only on freedom of individual judges from prior interference with decisions they have to take but a preparedness by the Lord Advocate and others to recognise, in all public pronouncements, that final decisions made by judges, whether on points of law or on applications of the law to particular facts or to particular evidence, reflect the law as it stands and must be respected as such. If such respect is not afforded, the independence of the judiciary as the final arbiter of legal issues is put at risk. An open challenge to the correctness of a final decision does not afford the requisite respect. Rather, it tends to undermine for the future the confidence which judges, faced with difficult decisions in controversial cases, can reasonably expect to have that their decisions will not be openly criticised by other organs of government.
The public prosecutor may of course entertain private views as to the soundness of legal decisions. In the light of experience steps may be taken to amend the law or in a legal forum to challenge the soundness of an earlier decision. But public criticism in a political forum of particular decisions, especially in controversial and sensitive areas, is in my view inappropriate.
My concern is not restricted to this case. The same situation might well arise in any case in which a trial judge sustained a submission under section 97. It might also arise where, on an appeal against conviction, the court held that there had been insufficient evidence in law to warrant it. While such events commonly occur without public interest, they may well occur in controversial cases. It would be most unfortunate were the Lord Advocate to adopt a practice of publicly criticising such decisions.
I can readily understand that, given the issue which had arisen as to whether the Advocate depute had properly exercised his discretion as to what evidence he should lead (or not lead), you would find it appropriate publicly to support him. But such support could have been afforded without public criticism of the judge. In particular, respect for what was treated as being a final decision of the High Court of Justiciary might have been expressly afforded.
I have discussed this letter with the Lord Justice Clerk. He agrees with its terms. He also agrees with my view that the letter should be made public.
The review of PIRC News comes after the PIRC Commissioner Kate Frame spoke out on the subject of who should investigate the Police in a recent Sunday Post article, here: So who should police the police? In her first interview in four years, Police Scotland watchdog breaks her silence
In the interview, Kate Frame called on MSPs to review who probes misconduct claims against officers and said whistleblowers should be able to turn to investigators outside the force.
Ms Frame said: “There is a discussion to be had about whether the police should investigate themselves.
“I think that from the public’s position, they would feel an independent investigation which has not been undertaken by the police would be preferable.”
In an earlier article it was revealed Police Complaints watchdog Kate Frame had accused Scottish Ministers of interfering in her functions as Scotland’s independent Police watchdog, reported by the Sunday Post here: Emails reveal police commissioner accused Scottish government of interfering after Justice Secretary’s aide asks her to delay scathing report
In the article,the Sunday post reported “the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner had to warn one of Justice Secretary Michael Matheson’s senior civil servants to back off after he attempted to persuade her to delay the publication of a damning report.”
“Ms Frame responded to the civil servant’s suggestion that her report might be delayed by writing: “My perception of your remarks is governmental interference with my independence.”
In the wake of the recently announced review to be conducted by the former Lord Advocate, legal insiders view the Scottish Government inquiry run by Angiolini move as an attempt to intimidate further outspoken views against Scottish Ministers interference in the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and Police Scotland – which has been hit by multiple scandals used by senior officers & ministers in government to set their own agenda for Scotland’s single national Police force.
Angiolini’s glowing fanpage on Wikipedia records she was also working at the Crown Office as Solicitor General during the time in which prosecutors refused to look into 5 allegations of serious sexual assault against Scotland’s now current top cop, Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone.
A report on the allegations of sexual assault against Iain Livingstone by a female Police Officer, allegations which were dismissed by a tribunal headed by male Police Officer colleagues of Livingstone was reported earlier by DOI here: TOP COP SECRETS: Transparency lacking at Police Scotland as spy scandal cops refuse to disclose files on complaints & historical sexual assault case details involving Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone
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.
The Crown Office has refused to disclose any material in connection with their consideration of allegations of sexual assault again Iain Livingstone - and this would include material during the time which Elish Angiolini was Solicitor General.
Among the raft of appointments to write reports & reviews, including the position of Principal of St. Hugh's College of the University of Oxford - where she wrote a glowing appraisal of Aung San Suu Kyi, Angiolini is also listed as an Honorary Professor of The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Angiolini’s biography on the Honk Kong university site claims “As Lord Advocate she is seen as a moderniser, immediately announcing plans to speed-up justice and clear court congestion, including a scheme to quickly fine minor offenders and require them to pay compensation to victims.” - but makes no mention of significant failures during her time as Lord Advocate, including the episode where she was accused of undermining Scotland’s judiciary.
Michael Matheson’s announcement of Angiolini’s appointment by the Scottish Government was made in the Scottish Parliament:
The written transcript of Michael Matheson’s statement:
Cabinet Secretary for Justice – Parliamentary Statement on review of complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to Policing.
19 JUNE 2018
Thank you Presiding Officer.
When I addressed the Chamber in November, on the leadership and performance of policing, I set out my intention to reflect on the operation of police complaints and conduct with key partners. As I said then, I am open to considering whether there is scope for further improvement.
It is of the utmost importance to me and the public that parliamentary confidence in the police is high – and independently justifiably so – but equally that our systems provide suitable protection for the vast majority of police officers and staff who work hard to keep us safe.
Over recent months, I have listened to a range of different perspectives from those directly involved. It is clear to me that complex issues have emerged in relation to the existing framework, operational responsibilities and procedures that need to be looked at afresh.
Five years on from the creation of Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, the time is right to look at how the structures and processes are working.
To do that effectively will require an independent and authoritative assessment and that is why I, together with the Lord Advocate, have commissioned Dame Elish Angiolini QC to take this work forward.
I am delighted that Dame Elish has agreed to lead that Review. As members will be aware, she is exceptionally well qualified to scrutinise these issues, as a former Procurator Fiscal, Solicitor General and Lord Advocate.
Her outstanding record of public service in Scotland is well known, having chaired the Commission on Women Offenders, as well as the Mortonhall Crematorium Investigation for the City of Edinburgh Council and National Cremations Investigation for the Scottish Government.
More recently, she led the independent Review into Serious Incidents and Deaths in Police Custody in England and Wales for the UK Government.
Under Dame Elish’s leadership, the Review of Complaints Handling, Investigations and Misconduct Issues in Relation to Policing will bring independent scrutiny to the framework and processes for handling complaints against the police and investigating serious incidents and alleged misconduct.
As well as assessing the current framework, the Review will report on the effectiveness of structures, operational responsibilities and processes. It will also make recommendations for improvements to ensure the system is fair, transparent, accountable and proportionate, in order to strengthen public confidence in policing in Scotland.
The Review will consist of two phases:
The first phase will include a consideration of current procedures and guidance to identify areas for immediate improvement;
The second phase will include a wider assessment of the frameworks and practice in relation to complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues. It will cover the work of the Police and Investigations Review Commissioner, the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland.
The Review will take evidence from a broad range of stakeholders, including the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, the Scottish Chief Police Officers Staff Association, Unison, Unite, as well as the PIRC, SPA, Police Scotland and the Crown Office. Dame Elish may also wish to speak with those who have had experience of the current system to hear their views and understand where further improvement could be made.
Recommendations in the final report should take into account human rights considerations, as well as seeking to identify longer term improvements.
Presiding Officer, I am aware that the Justice Committee has invited evidence as part of its post-legislative scrutiny of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012. I welcome this scrutiny of the landmark legislation that enabled the creation of single police and fire services.
I am also aware that evidence has been submitted on the provisions within the Act that underpin our current system of police conduct, complaints and investigations. Those provisions were intended to strengthen the governance, accountability and scrutiny arrangements for policing and created a clear statutory framework for independent review and investigation.
It is only right that the Committee considers this evidence as part of its broader scrutiny of the Act and I look forward to seeing the outcomes of that process.
However, as the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for the overall framework for dealing with police complaints and conduct issues in Scotland, which includes other primary and secondary legislation, I have a duty to ensure that the whole system is working well. And the Lord Advocate has an independent interest, as head of the system for the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland.
The arrangements for complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing, have seen a period of intense parliamentary, media and public scrutiny.
It is a framework that must ultimately build public confidence in policing and the events of recent months have raised questions about the way the system works and whether it could be improved.
It is only right that I listen to those questions and act decisively to address them, which is why the Lord Advocate and I have commissioned this Review.
The key outcomes of the Review will be to ensure that:
roles and responsibilities at all levels are clear;
there are agreed protocols that balance transparency with an appropriate level of confidentiality; and
the framework and processes are fair, transparent, accountable and proportionate, upholding fundamental human rights.
Fairness. Transparency. Accountability. Proportionality. These are the guiding principles of the Review and go to the very heart of what any system, which holds public services to account, should deliver.
The commitment to upholding fundamental human rights is embedded in police training, in the oath taken by officers and is central to Police Scotland’s Professional Ethics and Values. This is to ensure that policing operations respect the human rights of all people and officers, who in turn should have their rights respected. This must also be central to the process for handling police complaints, conduct issues and investigations.
It is vital that the police are held to account when things go wrong. Policing by consent depends upon that accountability. And it is essential that lessons are learned and improvements made to prevent mistakes, bad practice - and criminality - recurring in the future.
In order to do that effectively, our systems must treat all parties fairly and justly if they are to earn the trust and respect of those involved and of the wider public.
Let me also be clear about what the Review will not do. It will not consider the role of the Lord Advocate in investigating criminal complaints against the police. Nor will it look at the role of HMICS in scrutinising the state, effectiveness and efficiency of Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority.
It is also important to emphasise that the Review will not re-examine specific cases or review specific decisions, although they may provide evidence for an overall assessment of the efficacy of current systems and processes.
There are a number of high profile criminal investigations relating to serious incidents involving the police, currently underway. Those investigations are a matter for the Lord Advocate and it would be wrong to suggest that this Review should examine those cases – or pre-empt the investigation process.
Presiding Officer, I am confident that this Review, under the authoritative leadership of Dame Elish Angiolini will bring fresh scrutiny to the framework and structures we established 5 years ago, to ensure they are robust and true to the principles that I have outlined.
It is essential that our systems for complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing are fair, transparent, and accountable, respecting the rights of all those involved. Systems that police officers, staff and the public can have confidence in.
Let me finish, by putting on record my thanks and appreciation for the work of Police Scotland, the SPA, the PIRC, HMICS and the Crown Office, commending all those who work to keep our communities safe.
The Scottish Government’s announcement of Angiolini’s appointment makes no mention of her involvement with lawyers who also represent Police Officers facing complaints – including probes into deaths in custody: Police conduct review; Former Lord Advocate to consider investigation processes.
Former Lord Advocate Rt Hon Dame Elish Angiolini QC is to review the processes for handling complaints against the police and investigating serious incidents and alleged misconduct.
The independent review, jointly commissioned by Justice Secretary Michael Matheson and Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, will assess the current framework and report on the effectiveness of structures, operational responsibilities and processes.
It will also make recommendations for improvements to ensure the system is fair, transparent, accountable and proportionate, in order to strengthen public confidence in policing in Scotland.
Mr Matheson said: “Most of us recognise and welcome the diligent, expert and often courageous work of the many thousands of police officers and staff who help keep Scotland’s communities safe. That public confidence is also sustained by knowing that when things go wrong, the police are held to account, lessons are learned and improvements made.
“Given some of the questions raised in recent times about the processes for police complaints-handling, investigations and misconduct issues, and whether they could be improved, the time is right for this independent review, which will be ably led by Dame Elish.
“The review will seek to ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear, agreed protocols will balance transparency with appropriate levels of confidentiality, and that the processes are fair, transparent, accountable and proportionate, upholding fundamental human rights.”
Dame Elish said: “I am pleased to be invited to undertake this important independent review. It is vital that systems for handling complaints, investigating serious incidents and alleged misconduct in relation to the police is both robust and fair, and trusted by all those involved.
“I look forward to engaging with those with direct involvement and experience of the current system – from all perspectives – to understand how it is working in practice and to identify areas for improvement.”
The independent review will formally begin in the autumn.
The Right Honourable Dame Elish Angiolini QC served as both Solicitor General for Scotland and, in 2006 was appointed Lord Advocate, the first to serve two different Scottish Government administrations. She was appointed Dame Commander of the British Empire in 2011 for services to the administration of Justice. In 2012, Dame Elish was elected Principal of St Hugh's College, Oxford, and is both visiting Professor at the University of Strathclyde and Chancellor of the University of the West of Scotland.
Dame Elish has chaired a number of ground-breaking reviews in the fields of law and criminal justice, as well as public health. In June 2011 she was appointed as Chair of the Commission set up to examine the issue of how female offenders are dealt with in the Criminal Justice System in Scotland. She led the Independent Review into the Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London, which reported in 2015 and also chaired the Mortonhall Review for Edinburgh Council and the National Cremation Investigation for the Scottish Government, which reported in June 2016. Dame Elish’s report into deaths in police custody in England and Wales, commissioned by the UK Home Secretary, was published in October 2017.
Previous article in relation to Police Scotland can be found here: Police Scotland - Previous articles