A POLICE Scotland commander yesterday pinned the blame for a “spying scandal” the force became embroiled in on a leading member of its anti-corruption and surveillance unit who he said had “misinterpreted” guidelines about what was allowed.
Giving evidence to Holyrood’s justice committee, Assistant Chief Constable Ruaraidh Nicolson said the senior officer who authorised the operation “recklessly” approved the surveillance despite warnings it could breach them.
The claim was met with incredulity from MSPs who suggested the other officers involved in the probe – who have been forbidden from attending the committee – may reveal it was “a conscious decision” to spy on the journalists.
But Nicolson stressed this was not the case and defended the decision to withhold the four officers from the inquiry in order to protect their identities and avoid prejudicing a separate forthcoming inquiry.
The Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (IOCCO) last month concluded a investigation into concerns officers had been “illegally spying on journalists”.
Commissioner Sir Stanley Burton ruled Police Scotland had contravened the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice on five occasions, all said to be linked to the investigation into the murder of sex worker Emma Caldwell.
It emerged a police operation to intercept a journalist’s police contacts took place after an article about the investigation into her death in 2005.
The body of the 27-year-old sex worker was found in woods in South Lanarkshire, but no one was convicted of the crime.
On April 5 last year, the 10th anniversary of the murder, the Sunday Mail ran a story highlighting flaws in the inquiry and naming a man who had been one of her regular clients.
He admitted driving her to the spot where her body was found but was never charged in connection with the case. However, instead of using the claims to try to solve the case, officers in Police Scotland’s Counter Corruption Unit pursued a mole-hunt for officers they believed were talking to journalists.
YESTERDAY, Nicolson, Police Scotland’s lead on organised crime and counter terrorism, said: “I am aware that the SRO (senior responsible officer) did provide advice that these kind of applications, potentially, could breach the code. It’s not as straightforward as: the SRO provides advice and the officer has advice but dismisses that completely.
“The DP (designated person) that signed this off knew that the codes were in place, considered them, misinterpreted what the code meant and authorised it.”
He added: “This individual is highly-trained with huge integrity.
“Unfortunately, one of the best officers in this area of business in the whole country – and I don’t just mean Scotland, I mean the whole of the United Kingdom – has misinterpreted this. The actual release from IOCCO suggests to us it was reckless but wasn’t wilful.”
MSP John Finnie, a former policeman and member of the Scottish Greens, who sits on the justice committee told Nicolson: “One of the challenges we have is the growing perception that the reason you are sitting there, rather than other officers sitting there, is because chief officers in Police Scotland want to frustrate the presence of officers here.
“Because they will come and tell us rather than some ‘misinterpretation’ this was a conscious decision and it reflects very poorly on the CCU (Counter Corruption Unit) and chief officers.”
Nicolson said: “That is not the case.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here