Scottish prison service and Allan Marshals death

wow, there are so many questions to ask that I'm sure I must really be missing something! Would be good to hear an explanation from someone in the know

I can say that the situation of remand prisoners in Scottish prisons is dire. Read this https://howardleague.scot/news/2021/may/scandal-remand-scotland-report-howard-league-scotland-%E2%80%93-may-2021

It's a bit of a cop out, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act tends to have bite when prosecuting private companies, in significant wins, they've bankrupted the companies to effectively stop them trading with the fine, and banned the directors, not sure what they can do to the Scottish Prison Service, bar give them yet another negative report, any fine will come out of the public purse, same with disqualifications, it's not a company as such, so just as toothless.

I would like to understand why immunity was offered in this particular case.

The CEO of the SPS, Teresa Medhurst, and the Justice Secretary, Keith Brown, are ultimately accountable for the SPS, its performance and management.

I would like to understand why immunity was offered in this particular case.

If you prosecute the individual they won't do it again. If you orovide an open opportunity for discourse you can maybe learn how to make it not happen again.

IF you ultimately want to seek the truth you kinda don't want 13 people covering their own or other peoples arses

If you prosecute the individual they won’t do it again. If you orovide an open opportunity for discourse you can maybe learn how to make it not happen again.

IF you ultimately want to seek the truth you kinda don’t want 13 people covering their own or other peoples arses

Bit of a problem if it turns out that the reason it happened is because 13 people murdered a guy.

The lesson they learned on how to stop it happening again in this case was not to give the suspects immunity before you ask them what happened.

I agree with Josh - but the flip side is the 13 must tell the truth or we still don't actually know what failures led to this

I agree with Josh – but the flip side is the 13 must tell the truth or we still don’t actually know what failures led to this

Pretty sure they were stated as being untruthful with their statements, if i read it correctly.

Just checked, yes, the Sheriff who did the review called them 'mutually dishonest', so they got immunity and still didn't tell the truth!

Pretty sure they were stated as being untruthful with their statements, if i read it correctly.

Given immunity. Still lied about it. Can't be touched because of the irreversible immunity agreement. And they are free to do the same thing again.

It is a failure on every conceivable level.

For anyone interested the full FAI report is at

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=5b356ca7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Bit of a problem if it turns out that the reason it happened is because 13 people murdered a guy.

The lesson they learned on how to stop it happening again in this case was not to give the suspects immunity before you ask them what happened.

Sorry I wasn't particularly saying it's fantastic. Just that I believe that is the general gist if these things. Clearly it's flawed. Not sure how I would decide these things.

The officers were given immunity from prosecution when they gave evidence at a fatal accident inquiry.

Dorothy Bain KC has also told the family she cannot prosecute the officers for perjury because their immunity is so far-reaching.

It's already been touched on above but I'm struggling to understand how immunity can be offered unless the truth is given in return?

A very different thing (and country) but I seem to remember witnesses being offered immunity in the Lance Armstrong case but being told that if they lied they'd face prison.

If you prosecute the individual they won’t do it again. If you orovide an open opportunity for discourse you can maybe learn how to make it not happen again.

Different hearings have different purposes. There is a reason why criminal prosecutions are important. The prospect of prison can be quite a strong incentive to snitch on co-accused... especially if you really haven't done anything wrong or especially if you're a screw. You can have an open opportunity for discourse after criminal prosecutions are finished.

But I don't know the legal mechanism for offering immunity here and I haven't seen why there was a decision to use it in this case.

Seems the immunity offer was a one off. This was the only FAI out of 135 where an immunity from prosecution was given.

https://justiceforallanmarshall.com/2021/06/15/allans-is-the-only-case-where-officers-had-immunity-from-prosecution/

The prospect of prison can be quite a strong incentive to snitch on co-accused… especially if you really haven’t done anything wrong or especially if you’re a screw.

I think you missed the point. I'm not claiming this in this case but in lots of situations I imagine it's not the good guys and the bad but lots of failings. Snitches might get you the guy who had did the kicking. But for a fatal accident enquiry to make sure you understand the whole thing you need all the details. You want to know that people ignored complaints about the offender at every level, the people saw things and didn't report them through fear of reprisal, the people chose to not be somewhere as a favour etc, they guy who was always late.

You aren't going to get that detail if you dangle prosecution.

Once again I'm not saying this example isn't a cluster **** but things don't generally improve with a blame hunt. They improve by changing lots of little things.

Prosecutions are a blame hunt - and that's okay when people behave so badly there is a criminal penalty for what they did. People only really pay attention to things when people like them get banged up or lose their houses or jobs.

For anyone interested the full FAI report is at

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=5b356ca7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
/blockquote>

I do apologise - I scrolled straight past this, and I should read it before coming back to the thread again.

 

 I’m struggling to understand how immunity can be offered unless the truth is given in return?

How do you know what 'the truth' is though? If someone is required to give evidence  to establish the truth the presumption is you don't know what the truth is and only the can tell you. It's hard to establish that someone has told you something that is 'untrue' in that circumstance, only whether you're satisfied with what they've told you.

How do you know what ‘the truth’ is though? If someone is required to give evidence to establish the truth the presumption is you don’t know what the truth is and only the can tell you. It’s hard to establish that someone has told you something that is ‘untrue’ in that circumstance, only whether you’re satisfied with what they’ve told you.

I'd say having 13 people offering testimony and their accounts not adding up, or clear rehearsal of responses, then a Sheriff with experience would notice this and not make the statement he did if he wasn't sure the responses were dishonest.

Accident inquiries are intended to establish facts not allocate blame, so I can see why some level of immunity can be useful, but it seems to be incredibly wide ranging, even preventing their prosecution for perjury in the inquire. I would have expected the immunity to be limited to prosecution on the basis of evidence given to the inquiry, ie, can still be prosecuted on the basis of other evidence.

Accident inquiries are intended to establish facts not allocate blame

But they tend to be done by HSE Investigators and/or Coroners, not a High Court Sheriff, and they are also there to establish whether there is a case to answer for, SPS have a few Crown Censures already via HSE, and have had coroners inquests before i believe.