SCOTLAND’S chief constable has been urged to consider the position of one of his lieutenants who is accused of cheating.
Labour’s justice spokesman, Graeme Pearson, said allegations of gross misconduct against Wayne Mawson made it very difficult for the officer to continue in his highly sensitive role while the case is hanging over him.
Assistant chief constable Wayne Mawson, an ally of Chief Constable Sir Stephen House, was this summer accused of passing a subordinate’s work off as his own on a course.
Mr Pearson, a former senior officer himself, said: “An allegation such as this makes it very difficult for a senior officer.
“How can he make the big decisions expected of an assistant chief constable when (these) questions have been raised.
“I believe the chief constable must decide now whether it is appropriate to have Mr Mawson continue in his current duties in the interests of all concerned.
“I think Mr Mawson should also consider what is in the best interests of the officers who serve under him.”
Mr Pearson, pictured above, believes cases are taking far too long for officers and staff of all ranks.
Background: Discontent in Scottish policing's unreformed disciplinary system
Pirc, led by Commmissioner Kate Frame, pictured below, issued a statement reflecting the complexity and gravity of the investigation and any subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
It said: "The Commissioner has assessed that the conduct which is the subject of the allegation would, if proved, amount to gross misconduct
"Once the investigation is complete, the Commissioner must determine whether, in the investigator's opinion, the senior officer has a case to answer in relation to the misconduct allegation.
"The Commissioner must submit a report to the SPA containing a summary of the evidence and the investigator's opinion on whether the allegation should be referred to a misconduct hearing.
"Where the Authority determines that there is a case to answer in respect of either misconduct or gross misconduct, it must refer the misconduct allegation to a misconduct hearing."
There is no formal indication of how long the process has to run.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel