FIFE police compounded mistakes in the inquiry into the death of Colin Marr by later mishandling complaints from his family.
Years after the 23-year-old’s mysterious stabbing in July 2007 his family were again let down, this time by the top brass, an investigation by Scotland’s police watchdog has found.
The findings of the Deputy Chief Constable of Fife into complaints by Colin’s family have now been over-ruled by Police Investigations and Review Commissioner John McNeill.
Colin, originally from Inverkeithing, died from stabbing in his home following a row with his fiancee, Candice Bonar. The police investigation was badly flawed with officers believing it was a suicide, although this has never been confirmed.
Of the 30 complaints considered, it was found that 18 were dealt with to a reasonable standard while 12 were not. There were 13 recommendations made by the commissioner, including several apologies to be made by Police Scotland, successor to the now defunct Fife Constabulary.
A string of complaints made by Colin’s mum and step-dad, Margaret and Graham Stuart (above), of Inverkeithing, were rejected by Fife’s Deputy Chief Constable but have now been upheld, Mrs Stuart told the Press, “It has been excruciating to read the lies and misrepresentation of Colin’s life by the people who we are meant to trust. Colin died in tragic circumstances. He did not deserve to be treated with such disdain.
“It’s with great sadness, mixed with anger and frustration, that we have to relive this tragic event every time we have to continuously fight to get to the truth.
“The police have forced us down a very public avenue that we would not have wished for. We would like to grieve for Colin in a private way but the authorities do not react unless there is public pressure.
“Colin was a truly wonderful young man, loved by many. He deserved better.” From 2008 onwards, a number of internal and external investigations have taken place into the death involving, among others, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Strathclyde Police and Tayside Police.
A Fatal Accident Inquiry was also held in early 2011. Two inquiries have also been carried out by Fife Constabulary in respect of complaints raised by Colin’s family.
The first complaint inquiry, carried out between April 2009 and November 2011, concluded that there had been a number of individual and procedural failings on the part of Fife Constabulary, that the level of service fell far short of what should reasonably have been expected and that the officer in charge of the investigation of the death appeared to have had a “total disregard” for the family.
The couple complained that an officer – known in the PIRC report as Detective Inspector K – had commented to a third party, Mr T, that the family had been obstructing the police investigation.
The report states, “In the commissioner’s view, the evidence indicates that Detective Inspector K either suggested or stated directly that Mr A’s family had been obstructive during the inquiry.” This complaint had been upheld by the Deputy Chief Constable but he had omitted to include an apology and it is recommended this is now done by Police Scotland.
On a complaint about “police liaison with pathologists” the commissioner considered that “it would have been appropriate to ask the forensic pathologists involved whether they felt that officers had attempted to unduly influence their decision-making” and he did not consider that sufficient enquiries were carried out into the complaint.
The commissioner further ruled that a complaint of a misrepresentation of statement by a Detective Inspector at the FAI relating to Colin’s drug use should have been upheld.
When giving evidence to the FAI, Detective Inspector K “stated as fact” that Candice did not have a mobile telephone in her possession when she requested the assistance of neighbours shortly after the stabbing when four witnesses had spoken to seeing her with a phone in her hand.
The report states, “In the commissioner’s view, the eyewitness evidence suggests strongly that Ms B was in possession of a mobile telephone when she attended her neighbours’ homes to seek assistance.” However, “the Deputy Chief Constable stated simply that there was no evidence to dispute Ms B’s position that she did not have her mobile telephone in her possession at the point in question.
“The eyewitness accounts of the neighbours demonstrates that this aspect of the Deputy Chief Constable’s response is incorrect.
“As the Deputy Chief Constable’s response does not reflect the available evidence, the commissioner does not consider that this complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard.
“The commissioner recommends that Police Scotland records this complaint as upheld and issues an apology to Mr and Mrs X in respect of the error in Detective Inspector K’s evidence to the FAI.” Another complaint from Colin’s mother relating to why she and her husband were not contacted by police until after his funeral was upheld.
Also now upheld is a complaint about Fife Constabulary failing to instigate an internal inquiry in February 2008 and an apology is again recommended.
The complaint was that as it was obvious that failings would have been recognised by the police in early 2008 in respect of its handling of Colin’s death, an internal investigation ought to have taken place.
The commissioner’s view was “as the Deputy Chief Constable’s response is not supported by the evidence, this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard”, that the complaint should be upheld and an apology again issued.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel