police organization and protocol

[bryan maycock]

Greetings from Nova Scotia.

This is a first time post for me so I hope that my question is clear and that somebody can shed light on an issue concerning the police forces in Dundee & St Andrews in 1880.

I have been following a court case in Dundee that concerns a Dundee bank theft. The charge was against a bank employee who lived in St Andrews.

When the case went to court, the inspector who seemed to be in charge of the investigation and who gave evidence was based in St Andrews. As far as I can tell, the two towns were served by different police forces.

Given that the bank would have reported the theft to Dundee police, I am wondering why it was that a St Andrews detective seemed to take the case over.

Can somebody offer anecdotal or sourced information on how police forces operated at the time?

Perhaps I am being overly suspicious of what might have been the level of cooperation.

Any thoughts on the case or ideas where I could direct the enquiry would be much appreciated. The Scottish Policing History site that appears to have had a relationship with the University of Dundee appears to be dormant. Where else to turn??

Thank you

[Falkyrn]

You state that the theft occurred in Dundee although the Bank Employee lived in St Andrews In 1880 that would have been quite a commute.
It is more likely that although the bank's main office was Dundee based, the branch where the St Andrews employee worked was actually a local one (to him) in St Andrews.

If this was the scenario and presuming that the theft/embezzlement occurred at his place of employment this meant that the Crime took place in St Andrews and that is why an Inspector from St Andrews was involved.

The Force charged with the investigation of a crime is the one where the crime took place not where it was reported

[Elwyn 1]

I am not an expert on Scottish law, but I have some experience of prosecutions in various parts of the UK.

Where a crime is/was committed and crossed police jurisdictions, there was/is usually a discussion about who should lead the investigation. Sometimes legislation dictates where the investigation is to be based. Sometimes it has to be where the crime was committed. In other cases it can be wherever a suspect is encountered. It’s then a matter of common sense based on where the evidence was found. I saw a recent case where a container of smuggled drugs was intercepted at Dover, Kent but the suspected organiser lived in Northern Ireland. So do you base the investigation at Dover or in Northern Ireland? Do you charge the accused in Dover, or in Northern Ireland? (The law allows for either, in certain circumstances).

Police forces (and other law enforcement bodies) ask each other to undertake enquiries in other parts of the country all the time. It often saves resources, and sometimes there are other softer benefits in terms of local knowledge etc.

In this case, if the investigating officer and the accused were both in St Andrews, I suspect that there was some aspect of the crime that pointed to the investigation being based there. Perhaps the stolen money was retrieved in St Andrews, and the suspect and some witnesses were interviewed there. In such a situation the Dundee police might be happy for the St Andrews force (Fife Constabulary I assume) to take the lead. However because the theft took place in Dundee, then that would be the place to bring the case to court, and so the accused and the police Inspector would need to travel there, rather than attend a court in Fife.

[bryan maycock]

Thanks for the speedy reply and your thoughts.

There is no doubt that the facts are as I wrote: theft in Dundee but detective and suspect both in St Andrews -

That is why I am puzzled by the way things unfolded.

The Newspaper accounts of the trial are detailed as is the chapter and verse of the detectives career when he retired from the Fifeshire force. He was posted from Cupar to St Andrews in May. The theft took place in Dundee in early July. He was brought in late in July and was testifying in court in late August.

The suspect lived but never worked in St Andrews. The detective was never part of the Dundee force.

Hence my question.

[bryan maycock]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

What you suggest makes sense to me too. Perhaps what was missing from the accounts I read was when and how the investigation was turned over to the St Andrews (Fife) detective. Perhaps that information didn't make it to the court - or the reporter didn't consider it to be of interest.

While the alleged stolen money was, indeed, 'retrieved' in St Andrews, it appears only have been after a Dundee Justice had issued a search warrant.

The outcome was that the jury returned a verdict of Not Proven. So I assume that if any money that was seized - there is no record of money being recovered - would have been returned to the accused after the trial.

So really, if you think that the Dundee force would have been happy to have turned the case over to Fife, I have my answer. Unless I hear evidence to the contrary, I will go with your theory.

Thanks again

[Falkyrn]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

So really, if you think that the Dundee force would have been happy to have turned the case over to Fife, I have my answer. Unless I hear evidence to the contrary, I will go with your theory.

Thanks again

There would certainly have been discussion between the Forces concerning the investigation and more importantly the PF's for the respective areas. I was involved in a number of such discussions and either took over an investigation or handed my work over for another Force to complete. (The PF or Procurator Fiscal is the senior law officer for the area charged with the investigation and prosecution of all crimes in their area - the Police in Scotland are considered agents of the PF in carrying out investigations)
The criteria generally involved the main crime, the timing of the events and often a dash of local politics. (One I was quite happy to hand over involved Blackmail and extortion involving two families in Scotland but where the threats were made from Belfast - in others I have had to request assistance from other parts of the UK and have locals charged but in terms of Scots Law)

In the limited scenario you have provided I would doubt very much that the investigation would be handed over from one Force to another on the basis that the proceeds of the Crime were found in another area

One possibility that springs to mind is that if this is a post retirement piece the role of the Inspector in the investigation may have been glamourised and made to be more prominent than was actually the case. (in 1880 an Inspector was quite a senior figure in many Forces)

[bryan maycock]

This is all very helpful in that it offers insight into parallel situations.

The Inspector in question was a relatively new appointment from sergeant in Cupar to Inspector in St Andrews three months before the theft at the Dundee bank. He was 40 years of age when promoted and, according to the record of his retirement in 1903, he appears to have made a fairly rapid rise through the ranks. If Dundee wasn't such a relatively big place with, I assume, a relatively larger force, I may be tempted to imagine that he was coopted because he arrived in the area with a reputation for success: hence the 'invitation' to take over.

As I mentioned earlier, what is missing for me is the fact that, once the theft (£100) was discovered, it is unclear how much involvement the Dundee police would have had. Initially, and once it was identified as an 'inside job', everybody at the bank must have been suspect. So, St. Andrews must not have been the only possible place for an investigation. Indeed, most bank employees ( I have been checking the 1881 census) were from Dundee. So, in theory, there were more local suspects than any out-of-towners.

The fact that you are able to write knowledgably about procedure and intra-force cooperation, persuades me that it wouldn't have been unusual for one force suspecting a resident in another force's area of juristriction, to turn over the investigation. Who knows, at the time, it may even have included the Dundee force being overextended by existing investigations?

Thanks again, for your help.

[Elwyn 1]

A Not Proven might not necessarily lead to any seized funds being returned. The bank might have also made a civil application for their return (on which the evidence would be on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt). Or the suspect may have voluntarily agreed to the return. (“Not Proven” is often informally interpreted as meaning “go away and don’t do it again.”)

Regarding search warrants, again I have to admit to not being expert in Scottish law, but my general experience is that a search warrant has to be issued within the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Court where the suspect lives, or where the premises are located. Not sure that a warrant issued in Dundee would be valid in St Andrews. But happy to be corrected on that by someone more familiar with Scots law.

[bryan maycock]

This is proving to be a very informative forum!

I need to try and check where the search warrant originated.

Because of what else was going on, I think I assumed Dundee rather than St. Andrews.

I didn't get the impression from the account of the trial that the accused opted for the Not Proven verdict. Rather that the defense was able to introduce sufficient doubt in the mind of the jury. That said, such information would probably not have been available to reporters.

When I first found the detailed account of the trial, and the manner in which the accused carried himself at the age of 17, it put into perspective much of his character and actions as an adult. Based on his adult conduct, my feeling is that he probably got off lightly in 1880.

Thanks again for keeping me alert to alternative interpretations of the documentation.

[Elwyn 1]

I didn't get the impression from the account of the trial that the accused opted for the Not Proven verdict. Rather that the defense was able to introduce sufficient doubt in the mind of the jury. That said, such information would probably not have been available to reporters.
.

The accused can only plead guilty or not guilty. It's for the jury to decide which, and not proven is an option open only to them. In layman's terms it means the jury thinks the prosecution had a reasonable or indeed good case, but not one that met the criminal standard, of "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is up around 95% in terms of certainty. So "Not Proven" means no conviction or criminal record for the accused, but also "we know you probably did it." A very sound Scottish solution, in my opinion.