Police Scotland Told To Pay Journalist $13,000 Over Illegal Intercepts (theguardian.com)

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.

Comments

Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[CrimsonAvenger]

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

[geekmux]

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:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[almitydave]

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

[Coisiche]

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

[DatbeDank]

The cops in question will most likely be forced to take an "administrative leave" where they will continue to get full pay. £10k is a f*cking pittance for harassment and privacy breaching.

Hold rights violators PERSONALLY responsible!

[Locke2005]

So, are the people that broke the law paying the 10,000 pounds, or is their department? I wish they would have civil penalties for violating rights here in the US as well, our way of dealing with it is to just throw out all evidence obtained via unlawful searches... which only rewards criminals, and does nothing for innocent people whose rights were violated!