Police discretion can mean political oppression

It was interesting to read the section of Lallands Peat Worrier's recent post (primarily concerning political process) on prosecutorial discretion, in which he mentions "vague, broadly-drafted criminal legislation" brought forward in Holyrood (presumably alluding in particular to measures intended to target organised crime) and also the recent cause célèbre regarding what might be termed fiscal selectivity - in a cynical or more positive sense, depending on taste - namely the Tommy Sheridan case.

That was neatly juxtaposed with a recent post from another Nationalist blogger, namely Mark MacLachlan of The Universality of Cheese fame/infamy. It should be recalled that Mark's dismissal from the employ of Mike Russell led to an exchange of email correspondence in the course of which the former suggested to the latter that it might be politically expedient for the education secretary to find his former aide another job. Which certainly paraphrases what he said, and may also euphemise it, but only just. In any case, it surely didn't merit a subsequent charge of breach of the peace, even ignoring the initial ludicrous talk of blackmail.

However, it seems that the procurator fiscal has decided not to proceed with the breach of the peace charge brought by police, which seems eminently sensible for an issue surely more appropriate for an industrial tribunal.

However, the issue perhaps demonstrates how police and prosecution discretion could be used as a tool of low-level political oppression (or high-level, as Tommy Sheridan and his supporters would no doubt argue): irrespective of how likely an eventual prosecution and conviction was, the months elapsing between the charge and eventual decision not to proceed will certainly have made for an uncomfortable year or so for Mark. Indeed, the decision was actually taken almost six months ago, but it seems that no one had the decency to communicate this to Mark, notwithstanding that numerous people who would have known about the decision must surely have been aware that he was being kept in the dark about it. And no sign of any press interest now either.

I've chuntered on about the invidious aspects of this kind of discretion before, not just in relation to the episode perhaps not dissimilar to Mark's when Dundee's Lord Provost had riot police sent to the front door of an elderly constituent for the indignity of describing the LP as an "embarrassment" in an email, but also regarding the perhaps more important issue of the discretion afforded to police in relation to low-level crime - for example drunk and disorderly behaviour - in what's colloquially termed 'turning a blind eye' and which perhaps depends to a large extent on the social position of the victim.

Thus to an extent it's all to do with social or political status. Of course, most people operating in the online environment will have suffered a lot worse than either the education secretary or Dundee's LP did - if they haven't in the real, offline world - but for the vast majority it's just a case of grin and bear it, and the wrongdoer gets of Scot free, and there's certainly no punishment as per Mark MacLachlan or the Dundee citizen (de facto punishment or otherwise).

Indeed, the last time I complained to a police officer - in the street about someone acting in an abusive and threatening manner - they (in fact there were two of them) completely blanked me.

Of course, if I had been a politician or councillor then no doubt it would have been a case of "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir", sort of thing.

Equally, if they'd known I was the author of an esteemed and highly influential political blog then the outcome might have been different. On the other hand, perhaps it just underlined that Planet Politics is neither esteemed nor influential after all!!