Man to continue legal action against 'malicious' Police Scotland officers over stalking allegations

A judge has given the go ahead to a legal action brought by a man against Police Scotland over claims officers acted maliciously against him over stalking allegations.

Brian MacGregor is suing the Chief Constable of the force over how constables made a report to the Procurator Fiscal about him in 2014.

The report concerned his alleged behaviour with regards to a woman he had a relationship with the previous year.

The Court of Session heard how MacGregor loaned the woman thousands of pounds of money and let her “use a laptop”.

However, a judgment published by judge Lord Clark on Friday laid out that the relationship ended when MacGregor says he “challenged her over advertising her services as a prostitute”.

The judgement tells of how MacGregor sought repayment of the £6,500 loan and asked for the laptop to be returned to him.

He then contacted Police Scotland on September 18, 2014 when the cash and the computer wasn’t returned.

The judgment tells of how at the end of an interview with the police in October 2014, MacGregor was charged with stalking.

Eventually, the case against MacGregor did not proceed – he denies any wrongdoing and he has instructed lawyers to go to Scotland’s highest civil court to seek a remedy to what he claims was the force’s wrongdoing.

Lawyers for MacGregor say the report police made to prosecutors was “deliberately false and misleading.”

MacGregor’s legal team say that officers responsible for the report failed to properly investigate matters, failed to have proper regard to his defence, suppressed exculpatory evidence and acted with malice.

The pursuer claims that no report should have been submitted to prosecutors and that these allegedly unlawful actions on the part of the police meant the Crown were unable to “properly exercise their duties.”

Writing about the claims made by MacGregor, Lord Clark said: “The pursuer refers inter alia to the terms of the SPR, said to reveal that one of the police officers involved was driven by his perception of the pursuer as disparaging and arrogant and his comments about the pursuer (including ‘obsessive’, ‘vindictive’, ‘pig-headedness’ and ‘downright despicable’) reveal malice towards him.

“Such comments are said to demonstrate that the police officers who compiled the report were not acting in discharge of their public duty but from an illegitimate motive, namely antipathy towards the pursuer.”

At a recent hearing of the Court of Session, lawyers for the police asked for the case to be dismissed. They told judge Lord Clark that the pursuer’s case was irrelevant.

They also argued that the report met legal standards and that decisions to prosecute were made independently by the Crown.

However, Lord Clark did not uphold the submissions presented to him by the police. In the judgment, he wrote that the matter should be allowed to continue.

He wrote: “There are substantial obstacles and challenges for a pursuer in an action of this kind and on several aspects of the case the test he will require to meet is a high one.

“But, where sufficient averments are made the pursuer must have the opportunity to seek to meet the tests.

“It is accepted for the defender that malice is a matter for proof and it is clear from the authorities that, on relevant averments, the subjective and objective elements of reasonable and probable cause will also require evidence.

“Indeed, as is made clear, the evidence on malice may have a bearing on those elements.

“For the reasons stated, I do not conclude that the pursuer’s case is bound to fail.

“I shall repel the defender’s third plea-in-law and quoad ultra allow a proof before answer.”

The case will next call in court sometime in the near future.