The Crown Office has stated that it will not communicate with the Firm or its Editor in response to the email correspondence reproduced below, addressed to the Crown Office’s Director of Operations, and copied to Holyrood‘s Justice Spokespersons and selected committee MSPs.


Email to Director of Operations Scott Pattison and the Lord Advocate of 8 April 2010

Hi Scott,

So here is the problem. Comms staff consistently refuse to answer any and all questions put to them ever. Instead, a pre-prepared statement is issued and repeated, and this is considered to be a sufficient response in connection with all matters related to the original inquiry. I do not take this personally, nor do I consider The Firm to be singled out, as this appears to be a matter of policy applied universally. However, it is not acceptable, and runs counter to the personal assurances you gave to me previously, that you have thus far avoided placing into the FOI-able domain.

This is not satisfactory or indeed efficacious, and is not “communications”. It is entirely one sided and operates entirely against the spirit of dialogue, cooperation and accountability. Some might call such information management "propaganda". What we both know is that this policy is not only ineffective, it is counterproductive and in the past has almost brought the Lord Advocate to Court, when instead a simple straight answer and a basic degree of engagement would have avoided any problems and prevented any breakdown of communications. I do not propose to continue going about my business in this way. I have honoured my part of our agreement. Thus far, Crown Office have not.

When we spoke personally you undertook to take certain steps to resolve these problems, although to date I am not perceiving any degree of progress or change. You personally are not above culpability in this area: I note I have received neither acknowledgement, response or result from my inquiry to you of 1430hrs yesterday, for example.

I would therefore like to invite you to meet with me -once again- and discuss how relations with “comms” may be improved from your end. If it is appropriate that I meet with others, then please ensure that they attend. It is my objective to secure constructive working relations with Crown Office and its personnel. You and I both understand that part of my job is to probe, inquire, assess, evaluate and where necesssary, expose. This need not put us at either personal or professional opposition, if both parties respect one another's position and function professionally. I have been forced to make too many complaints for there to be any shred of credibilty left in the pretence that Crown Office have operated in this spirit. I aim to rectify this, and I stand ready to do my part.

I hope you will note and appreciate that I continue to engage with you positively, despite the consistent failure of Comms to reciprocate. The Firm could be a useful working partner for the Crown Office, and provide an outlet for many of the constructive aspects of the administration of justice that feature heavily in the magazine. Your staff's antagonistic stance operates, in my view, greatly to the detriment of your organisation and its personnel, and in particular the Law Officers, whose reputations are carried for good or ill by your frontline functionaries. I do not consider this satisfactory, and hope you will agree and work with me to correct it.

To be clear, I would like to hear from you in acknowledgement, response, and with your proposals for engagement within a reasonable time.

Steven


Email sent to Scott Pattison on 18 April, no reply having been received.


Hi Scott,

I sent this to you on 8 April, specifically requesting "your proposals for engagement within a reasonable time," after a consistent series of well documented failures on the part of COPFS operations and comms to undertake their professional responsibilities over an unreasonably long timeframe.

It has long been clear to me that you and your staff do not welcome the scrutiny of The Firm, and I have accepted this as a professional hazard. Nevertheless, you have once again failed to engage with my efforts at securing a workable relationship with you and the Crown Office. Please do not even attempt to justify your failure to engage with me as some misinterpretation on my part as to what constitutes a "reasonable time". You have had reasonable time, and I have had silence. This is not good enough.

I will not tolerate your continued frustration of my efforts at communications engagement. I have cc'd in the Justice Minister and Parliamentary Justice shadows, as well as MSP members of the media and culture committee; I believe this falls within that group's remit. I now invite them and Messrs Baker, Aitken and MacAskill and Ms Peattie to assist me in securing a workable method of communicating with the Crown Office. I do not ask for heads to roll or want explanations for failure. I need results. That is all. Professionalism has failed to secure them. Patience has failed. Persistence has failed. Courtesy has failed. Complaints have failed. Further complaints have failed. Face to face meetings have failed. Directness has failed. Bluntness has failed.

You have failed. The matter must now go into the wider, FOI-able domain, despite your preference to keep your commitments to me away from the public record.

I remind you that you and your staff carry the public reputation of the Law Officers and the COPFS with you in your failure. I will not allow your failure to undermine my own goodwill and professionalism, nor defeat my professional objectives. I will secure cooperation from your organisation, over your head and against your will if I have to. COPFS is not yours to play with. The media has an essential, valuable role to play, and the readers who stand behind me rely on me to undertake that responsibility. You owe my readers - professionals, citizens and voters one and all- information and accountability. I aim to get it.

Mr Aitken, Mr Baker, Mr MacAskill and Ms Peattie, I'd be grateful to hear from you in comment, action and response.

Scott, I'd be happy to hear from you in resolution, if you are prepared to aim for it.

Steven