| ‘Too costly’ for CPS to detail G8 prosecutions | |||
|
By Dave Lord DETAILS SURROUNDING the number of prosecutions after violent clashes at last summer’s G8 Summit are being withheld by the Crown Prosecution Service. Politicians reacted with fury as numerous cases were dropped in the wake of the meeting of world leaders at Gleneagles in Perthshire. However access to statistics demanded by The Courier under Freedom of Information laws has been denied. Roseanna Cunningham MSP— whose Perth constituency includes Gleneagles—had said it looked suspiciously as if the Crown Office had made a “policy decision” to drop G8 cases “en masse.” Although denying this charge, officials have refused to divulge further details, claiming it is not in the public interest. The Courier had asked how many people were charged in Scotland with offences relating to the G8; how many were ongoing, what the outcomes were of those cases prosecuted, and on what grounds cases were dropped. However the CPS deemed such requests “inappropriate.” An unprecedented multi-million pound policing operation swung into action for the duration of the July summit, causing major disruption in the normally peaceful Perthshire town of Auchterarder. Violent protests marred an otherwise peaceful march on the first day of the summit. Masked protesters and anarchists from all over Europe, and even further afield, also went on the rampage in Edinburgh and Stirling. Despite all the offences and numerous arrests, many politicians were alarmed at the low number of cases that actually made it to court. Five cases were dropped on one day at Perth Sheriff Court last September, leading Mid Scotland and Fife MSP Murdo Fraser to claim that the CPS was “sending out the wrong impression.” “Dropping these cases will only give protesters and anarchists the belief they can undertake illegal and dangerous activities and get away with it,” he said. The Sunday Post lodged its application for information in late February, but has now been told it will not be provided. Sara Evans of the Crown Office’s policy group said providing answers would have been too expensive. “We do try to provide information wherever possible, but the information you have requested is...not held in a readily accessible format,” she said. “Your request for information about the number of people charged with offences relating to the G8 summit is information which is not held by this department. “The remaining matters you have requested information about concern how many prosecutions were brought following people being charged with G8-related offences, and the progress and outcome of these cases. “In order to extract the kind of information you have requested, it is necessary to search our case management database using specific charge codes. “In terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, while we are under an obligation to provide information if we hold it in a readily accessible format, we are not obliged to make a search for it. “If we do not hold information in a readily accessible format and would essentially have to create it, we are not required to provide the information.” Ms Evans went on, “I have considered whether it would be appropriate to conduct an analysis of all of the cases reported within a fixed time period to identify G8-related cases and note their progress or outcome, with a view to creating the information which you request. “However, the cost of extracting the relevant data from the case papers would exceed £600. “I have also considered whether it would be in the public interest to carry out an analysis of the case papers for the purpose of creating this information. “I do not consider that in this case there is a benefit to the public interest which would justify the commitment of resources of this department in conducting such an analysis.” Ms Evans denied some politicians’ claims that G8 cases had been dropped as a matter of policy. “You inquire whether or not a wholesale decision was taken to drop G8-related cases and, if so, when this policy took effect,” she said. “I can confirm that no such policy has been introduced.” |
|||