CONFIDENTIAL
9
344
(H) FINDINGS
1.
My task in conducting the examination of the police procedures adopted in the arrest of the late Inspector John Richard MacLennan and the subsequent investigation of his death was centered on three riders raised by the jury to the Coroner, which were:-
2.
(a) Obviously methods of charging police officers should
be looked into with a view to avoiding what has happened in this particular case from recurring again,
(b) Officers in charge of investigations should have a
check list to guarantee a thorough investigation, and
(c) Officers in charge of investigations should not assume
that their subordinates have the imagination to carry out their duties properly. In this case, we are referring to the police fingerprinter and the photographer.
Although the Coroner had rejected items (b) and (c), nevertheless I examined the matters contained therein.
3.
My examination covered all the procedures involved in this case; as a result of this, I have noted matters in addition to those brought out by the jury.
4.
Arrest Procedure
The procedure adopted to arrest Inspector J. R. MacLennan was not in conflict with any law or police instruction. The procedure requiring him to report to his formation commander is considered to have been the best option. However, a decision as to whether or not to inform him of the reasons for presenting himself should have been taken by his formation commander, and such decision being based on:-
(a) that it would not be detrimental to the process of
the investigation, and if so decided,
(b) then normal command, management and welfare considerations should have determined the extent of the reasons given to him.
In determining the extent of the discretion in regard to (a) above, the formation commander should have sought the advice of the officer- in-charge of the case.
/Immediate Police Action