In a recent article by Pete Bevington, published in the Shetland News Online, “Police evidence thrown out of court”, it was reported that the defendant’s statement was a “more accurate version of events than that of the arresting officer.”  When questioned in court, the police officer, PC Andrew Card, admitted the version being presented in court was vastly different to the statement he had provided at the time. It was also noted by Sheriff Graeme Napier that while the officer claimed to have stopped the accused for a suspected traffic offence, this clearly was not true because at no time did the officer ask to see his driving license, but instead, since the accused’s  hands were shaking, he was detained under the Misuse of Drugs Act.  This, of course, is just not allowed. Police officers cannot simply stop drivers at random, in the hope that they might catch them “up to something,” and then later claim that a “suspected traffic offence” was the reason for stopping them in the first place. It was claimed by PC Card that he had stopped the accused because he suspected he did not have a full driving licence. If that were indeed the case, why did he not then ask to see it?

Clearly the procedures used in this arrest had, at the very least, been lax, the result being that following PC Andrew Card’s evidence in court, Duncan Mackenzie, Procurator Fiscal Depute,  did not want to pursue the case any further.

However, while the title ‘Procurator Fiscal Depute’ is at the lowest end of the scale in terms of those entrusted with the Lord Advocates responsibilities, he is nonetheless expected to conduct himself accordingly. Those responsibilities are: to protect the public interest, to prosecute in the public interest, and to protect against malicious, vindictive and unjustified prosecution. When the initial report in this case was sent to the ‘procurator fiscal’, (as the procurator fiscal depute is more commonly referred to by the media) he would have had access to all of the information used by defence council Iain McGregor to demonstrate the flaws in the officer’s account. Indeed it is likely that the PF had more than was even disclosed to the accused’s defence agent.

You have to wonder, therefore,  since all of this information was available to Procurator Fiscal Depute Duncan Mackenzie prior to the court hearing, was it actually in the public interest to bring the matter to court in the first place?

Surely,  in terms of the protecting the public interest,  it is more important to address the conduct of the officer in question - his testimony in court is at the very least cause for an investigation into perverting the course of justice, which is hardly the conduct public’s interests  is best served by. The nature of the prosecution against this accused person is, in my opinion, more fitting with the PF’s responsibilities to protect against malicious, vindictive and unjustified prosecution and as such should never have seen a court room, far less the expense involved in bringing it into one.