A WPC who was injured by a pineapple thrown during the police action to close Govanhill baths has been awarded £3000 in damages for her injury, from a total of £837,000 claimed.

The Court of Session upheld her claim that the divisional commander had not protected police officers on the scene, who had been ordered to hold back a crowd of demonstrators without body armour. A strict no arrest policy was also in effect.

However WPC Ormsby was found to have lied about the extent of her injury, in which she claimed that it triggred post traumatic stress disorder, bullying and contributed to her social isolation, break up of relationships and loss of her career.  However Lord Malcolm found " very significant issues concerning the credibility and reliability of the pursuer", and awarded her only £3000 of the amount claimed in acknowledgement that there had been a lack of protection from the chain of command.

"Officers wearing full public order equipment were not deployed in Scotland until the G8 summit," he said.

"Chief Superintendent Gray was aware of the possibility that bricks, stones, bolts, etc could be used as missiles. In his evidence he made it clear that he knew that officers would be exposed to the risk of injury. For the reasons given by Chief Superintendent Gray no effective action was taken to protect officers. The remaining option of simply requiring officers to hold their position and take whatever came their way was consistent with any duty of care owed to them.

"Thus at Govanhill requiring officers to stand "for hours on end" and take the punishment was "no longer an acceptable tactic".

However Lord Malcolm was less tahn sympathetic, finding that the pursuer's allegations of long term injury and additional distress were not borne out by evidence led at proof.

"In summary my review of the evidence indicates that there are very significant issues concerning the credibility and reliability of the pursuer, not least her lack of candour in reporting and the disparity between much of the evidence and her claimed level of functioning," he said.

Th full judgement can be read here : http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008CSOH143.html