Police Scotland Told To Pay Journalist $13,000 Over Illegal Intercepts (theguardian.com) 44
Reader Bruce66423 writes: A former police officer turned journalist whose privacy was criminally breached by Scotland's finest is due to receive 10,000 Pound ($13,000) for the damage their actions caused. Other victims didn't seek compensation. It is not clear whether criminal proceedings against the officers responsible for ignoring clear rules against their behaviour will follow.From the report: The investigatory powers tribunal ruled the force had breached the human rights of Gerard Gallacher, a former police officer turned freelance journalist, who had spent 18 months investigating a cold murder case in which a prime suspect had been released without charge. Gallacher said he suffered "invasion of privacy, familial strife, personal stress and strain and loss of long-standing friendships" after detectives accessed 32 days of his communications data, ignoring clear court rulings to protect journalists and their sources. Police Scotland had been braced for an adverse ruling after Sir Stanley Burnton, the communications interception commissioner, ruled last November that the force had been reckless in its repeated abuse of its powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is worse? The Corrupted or the Corrupter?
Trump it just trying to cut the middle man.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Nope (Score:1)
Option four) The investigators have been paid to find nothing and the whole thing is for show.
Etc...
Re: (Score:1)
Seems like a less than ideal outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the Scotland Police do something bad, and the penalty is paid by the Scottish taxpayers rather than the police officers who did the bad thing?
Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....
Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome (Score:4, Informative)
So, the Scotland Police do something bad, and the penalty is paid by the Scottish taxpayers rather than the police officers who did the bad thing?
Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....
Care to direct me to the country in the world that operates any differently in this type of scenario?
This IS the inherent problem with trying to nail government officials to the wall when they fuck up; the taxpayer ends up being the one punished, which tends to raise the question as to whether or not you should be swinging a hammer in the first place, even when it's blatant.
Worst catch-22 ever.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is personal liability and criminal charges when it is proven that the cop(s) in question violated clear guidance.
Re: Seems like a less than ideal outcome (Score:1)
Posted anonymously by fumble.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. The cost of their legal representation, the time wasted by officers having to attend court... Taxpayers always have to fund defences for corrupt coppers, because they make sure that the police force itself takes on the case.
It's also pretty damning evidence of how the new Snooper's Charter powers will inevitably be abused.
Re: (Score:3)
So, the Scotland Police do something bad, and the penalty is paid by the Scottish taxpayers rather than the police officers who did the bad thing?
Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....
The article doesn't make it clear where the money will come from. If it comes from the Police budget without a commensurate increase, it isolates the public somewhat, although since the police provide a public service, theoretically a decrease in police budget could hurt the public. I agree it should be levied against the officers directly.
Re: Seems like a less than ideal outcome (Score:1)
Agreed. How do we make that happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....
But there is. This is huge black mark on their careers, no?
Compensation v Punishment (Score:2)
The £10,000 is compensation from the state to the victim for the behaviour of the police. This is always coming from the taxpayer. The more problematic situation is when police forces get fined in the criminal courts for doing something illegal - it does happen in England - and taxpayers pay the money to government. The only virtue of this is that it is embarrassing to the force.
On a good day the reprobates who actually committed the offences whilst they were police officers get sacked from the force
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The money comes from the public into the general budget (through taxation) then to the police, then back to the general budget (through the fine).
One would hope there are personal consequences of some sort for whoever made the decision, but not for the people who had little choice but to obey.
Re: (Score:3)
Police Scotland never had the name "Scotland Yard", that is the name given to the Metropolitan Police headquarters in London, derived from the original location. They've since moved but "Scotland Yard" had become so synonymous with the police in London that the new HQ is officially "New Scotland Yard" even though nobody actually uses the "New".
Worst possible punishment: paid time off (Score:3, Insightful)
Lucky he's not Black (Score:2)
And dealing with American cops. Or they might misunderstand that '10,000 pounds' payback.
Hold rights violators PERSONALLY responsible! (Score:5, Interesting)
Editor Slashdot Wrote Grammatically Strange Title (Score:2)
Uhh... (Score:1)
It must be nice to be shielded from consequences. They're told to pay but the taxpayer pays. Awesome.
"Oooh, make 'us' pay some more. Ouch" the commissioner commented after the heating.
Absolute power... (Score:2)
When those in power abuse their power in a criminal way, they should be punished and made examples of. In this case, the officers should have their faces ripped off and nailed to the wall of the station as a warning to the rest of the force.