Joined: 01 Mar 2009
|Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:47 am Post subject:
|5.7 Criticism of the SPSA
5.7.1 The ruling, at paragraph 9, could be interpreted as making a number of criticisms of the performance of the police and the SPSA in this case. These can, as far as relevant to the SPSA, be summarised as follows.
a. Ms Colley was put under pressure by the police to word her evidence in a particular manner.
b. The pressure applied by the police was subsequently supported by
managers within the SPSA.
c. As a result of the pressure Ms Colley issued a report setting out
conclusions which she would not otherwise have given and which violated
d. Ms Colley did not, in evidence before the Court, support the conclusions
set out in the report.
The judge ruled that the evidence in relation to the discharge residue was
inadmissible. In doing so he made comments which could be construed as
criticising the performance of the SPSA. In particular he commented on what he considered to be:
a. The failure of the SPSA to comply with its own procedures; and
b. The inappropriate role of police officers in influencing the content of
reports produced by the SPSA.
How can they put this down to -
|The judge’s criticisms appear to have arisen as a result of a
number of statements in evidence which, taken together, provided an
unintended and misleading impression of what had been done.
well and truly swept under the carpet