25/07/2012 Newsnight Scotland

will leave is it there thank you very much. The Government says yes

to same-sex campaigners and earns the support of campaigners and its

political opponents north and south of the border. Many religious

organisations remain opposed. Is the Government right to press

ahead? Why did it ignore the results of its own consultation on

the issue? A detective who lied to convict two innocent men is jailed

for five years. Police say they have cleaned up their act, but have

they? The Scottish government has finally announced that tin tends to

legislate to introduce same-sex marriage. It insist there is is no

possibility that unwilling priests or ministers will be forced to

conduct the ceremonies. That may need changes to UK law, but even if

that happens religious organisations remain deeply opposed.

Today, they published the results of a consultation on the issue.

There were 7 7,000 500 responses and the question of same-sex

marriage. 1% came from within Scotland. The only area of

consensus is that 93% of all responses agreed that conducting

same-sex marriage should not be compulsory for any religious

organisation. The Government say that if you look at so-called

standard responses, that is excluding postcards and petitions,

and responses from outward Scotland, 65% favoured same-sex marriage

against 35% against. If you look at all the responses, including

petitions on postcards, the numbers are reversed, 67% against with 32%

for. The UK Government has responded postively so far to the

SNP's initiative. The Home Office The move is contentious in Scottish

society, but supported by most MSPs and MPs. Labour's Scottish leader

welcomed the move and spoke of wanting to see real marriage

equality. The Scottish Liberal Democrat leader offered support to

achieve any necessary additional legislation. Opponents of the plan

remain implaquable. We made it clear the other day, when we had a

meeting with Nicola Sturgeon, if that -- that if the Government go

awhaed this, the Muslim, -- clergy will instruct their audiences not

to vote for any politician who goes for this. Who is for this change in

the law. Our concern is with the wider redefinition and the impact

it will have on society. For teachers and social workers and

registrars and anyone in public employment who doesn't feel

comfortable with same-sex marriage, what protection will they have.

What protection will a teacher have in a classroom if he or she doesn't

want to read a same-sex book in a classroom to children. A bill

should be published before the end of the year. The Deputy First

Minister came to the BBC in Glasgow. She said that UK equality laws will

need to be changed to permit the new Scottish law. I asked her,

first of all, what the problem is with the existing law? Well, let me

try to explain it simply. We said all along that no church and no

religious organisation will be expelled to conduct same-sex

marriages. The Equality Act gives that protection. What we consider

is the case though is that we need amend the Equality Act to give

protection to individuals who feel same-sex marriage runs contrary to

their faith, but whose church has decided they do approve of

conducting same-sex marriages. It's a fairly simple amendment that is

required to the qup equality Act. We are having discussions with the

UK Government on matter. We don't consider that it requires...

amendment would say that, feign you are a member of a church that

approves of gay marriage, and you are against it, you have the right

not to conduct ceremonies? Absolutely. Your legal advice is

that such an amendment would guarantee, is it, that they could

never be prosecuted? We are confident that protection can be

given under existing law to churches and with an amendment

along the lines to the Equality Act we are confident that protection

can be avoided to individuals as well. That is important protection.

The role of the state is to regulate the civil contract of

marriage. The the role of the state should not be to tell churches who

they can or can't or should or shouldn't marry. The Home Office is

sympathetic to this. If, anything can happen, for some reason it's

not possible to change British law, in order for your new bill to come

into force, is it it your intention to go-ahead on it? I will not

speculate. I don't think it will arise. That amendment required to

the Equality Act is a simple amendment. It can be done by

secondary legislation. The response from the Home Office is

constructive and positive. I see no reason why we would find yourselves

that h in that position. These things happen? I don't envisage it

will happen. I think it's very important at this stage that, as

the Government, we balance two things. We balance -- balance the

very important need for equality, we have made an announcement today

that we think is right to allow loving couples to commit to each

other in marriage. We also think it is incredibly important to

guarantee the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

That is the balance we are rightly seeking to strike. You won't go-

ahead unless you get a change to the law? We can have this exchange

for some time. I don't think it would be productive. I don't

envisage that is the position we will find yourselves in. From the

public comment I don't get the impression they think we will find

yourselves in. David Cameron is hoping to legalise same-sex

marriage in registry offices, not churches. Why did you reject that?

We looked at all arguments. We considered that it would not be the

right position to say, as same-sex couple can get marriedied. If they

have a church and an individual who wants to conduct that marriage our

position should be to say no to that. What we are firm about is

that it's not the role of government to compel churches to

conduct same-sex marriages. If they want to conduct such a ceremony it

isn't the job of Government to say they can't. Gordon Wilson, one of

your former party leaders, and his fellow campaigners, have said if

you press ahead with this it will cost you "yes" votes on your

referendum on independence. Is he wrong? I don't agree with him on

that point. I have the greatest of respect for Gordon. He is a valued

colleague and a respected former leader of the SNP. I agree with him

on many, many things. I don't believe this is a party political

issue. If you look at the position in the Scottish Parliament, the

leader of every one of the other parties has come out strongly in

favour of same-sex marriage. I don't believe it's right to preempt

any legislative process. All the indications are there is a

parliamentary majority in favour of this. I don't consider it to be a

party political issue or one that is relevant in the context of the

independence debate. I'm sure if Gordon Wilson was sitting here,

what he would point out to you, in your consult the majority were

against same-sex marriage and you choose to ignore them? I don't

accept that characterisation. The consultation has strengthened our

resolve that, by proceeding with same-sex marriage it's important

that we ensure protections for religious freedom, freedom of

speech. As any Government would have to do, we take account of a

range of factors, the consultation, other indications such as public

opinion. The fact that I said that every other party leader in the

Parliament is in favour of same-sex marriage. Of course, the

parliamentary arithmetic. Our own views of what is the right thing to

do. We weighed up all the factors, we came to the decision we

announced today. We think it's the right thing to do. We think it's

right to ensure important protections. Nobody's rights will

be trampled on here. It is not the job of Government to dictate to

churches. This Government won't do that. You will apply the same

criteria to your consultation on a referendum on on independence?

us wait and see. To be clear, we won't expect to hear the SNP saying

we need a two point referendum when your consultation tells us we

have... That is a nice try. It's a reasonable point to make. I may

describe it as a nice try. The results on the consultation of the

referendum are not yet published. People in Scotland will kpwet get

the opportunity to decide the question of independence as is

appropriate on matters of consultation. I will not get drawn

on a consultation that hasn't been published. You established an

important principle - Governments take into account a range of

factors - You didn't pay any attention - I will do a deal with

you. I will come back on and talk about the independence referendum

consultation when the results of that are published. You want

another consultation on this issue. You seem to be worried that

teachers and parents could be open to prosecution? I'm not worried.

What is the problem? I'm not worried about that. I think it's

right we listen to concerns expressed. We do our level best to

address those concerns. What are the concerns? Other people are

concerned that, for example, a teacher that didn't agree with

same-sex marriage might find themselves in a difficult position

or parents views will not be taking into account in terms of the

curriculum. We want to assure people that is not the case. Is the

worry, for example, even though you will continue to give the Catholic

Church the determining rights on what faith teaching is in Catholic

schools, if a teacher in a Catholic school were to teach against gay

marriage, after the bill goes through, they could be open to

prosecution? I'm certain that will not happen. I do recognise the

responsibility to do what ever we can to assure other people. The

Catholic education point is a good one. What would need to be changed?

If you let me finishish. The faith content of the curriculum in

Catholic schools is determined by the Catholic education service.

What may required to be cleared is Today, the Shadow Home Secretary

described it deeply wrong, shocking and distressing, the comments of

the new Archbishop, due concurred that the comments were deeply

wrong? I did not see the comments of the Shadow Home Secretary, so I

will put them in my own words. In his tenure of Archbishop of Glasgow,

there are many things that I would disagree with imam, on this issue,

I profoundly disagree that the comments he made in terms of the

specifics, but the tragic death of David Cairns, but in the generality

in making a link between ill-health and homosexuality, I profoundly

disagree with these statements. Now, a former police detective has

been jailed for five years for corruptly withholding evidence in a

murder investigation which he led for Fife Constabulary. Two innocent

men served 10 years in prison as a result of his actions. Today's

sentencing followed a lengthy investigation by Lothian and

Borders Police. It's believed to be the first time in British history

that a police officer has been convicted in this way in a

miscarriage of justice case. And now the Crown Office has ordered a

review of the evidence relating to the original murder. Our

investigations correspondent Mark Daly reports.

Mr Munro! Mr Munro! I am a McAlea from the BBC. I would like to ask

you some questions about hear conduct in the and Riverside murder

investigation? -- the Andrew Forsyth murder investigation. I

tracked down the police man but he refused to answer my questions on

that day. His correct path was now coming back to want him. In 1995,

he was put in charge of his first murder case, but often from a man,

Andrew Forsyth. Two suspects emerged, local drinkers and pity

criminals Stephen Johnston and Billy alyssum. They had a fight

with Andrew Forsyth. They claimed to have left him alive and well but

the police claimed he was left to be done to death. His body was

found six days later. The date of the murder was the Vicky, and

Detective Munro would already decided to us guilty. Of the Crown

planned their case on him having been a murdered on third November

1995. They went to a jury on that very point and told the jury that

if they thought the deceased was alive after that date, they had to

acquit the two accused. If Andrew Forsyth was alive after the third,

then Billy Ellison and Stephen Johnson were not guilty? Exact fate.

But it emerged this crucial evidence was suppressed and hidden

from the Crown and the defence by Richard Munro. At least a dozen

with ses said they had seen him alive around Dunfermline between

the third aren't ninth November which meant that if true, the two

men could not be guilty. A Richard Munro, the investigating officer in

this case, he deliberately withheld witness statements of people of

good character that said that Andrew Forsyth was still alive. It

through the theory at the windows. They decided very quickly that this

debt to pay six days earlier and anything that came to question this

theory was had no weight. -- this death took place six days earlier.

This led to them being acquitted on appeal in 2006. The borders police

were instructed to investigate Richard Munro. Two people were sent

to jail for rape murder they did not commit. Some people say you

should go to prison for this. How do you respond? To Nat, this is

what he is facing. The Stephen Johnston a struggle to put his life

back on track since he was sent to prison. Why let us first arrested

and interviewed by Richard Munro, he informed me after that that he

would make sure that it was one of the easiest cases Edinburgh High

Court would ever see. A tonight he will spend his first night in

prison. Does that even it up for you? Is that how you look at it?

Not at all. So some people might find that surprising. Some people

might want him punished severely. Yes. I want him punished severely,

but it does not give me any, I am not overjoyed by it. It will not

change my life overnight. The damage has been done. It is not

going to repair itself overnight by a police man being convicted of a

crime. Including Richard Munro, six officers were criticised for their

conduct and accused of dishonesty by the Appeal Court. Some of them

are still working at Fife Constabulary. A spokesman said

fundamental changes to policing practices 1995 means the key match

rub disclosure of documents raised in this case could no longer a

prize in a modern inquiry. The police force will consider the full

judgment of the court in detail what is available. The Crown Office

told the BBC that the case of Andrew Forsyth is to be reviewed,

but for now, the murder remains unsolved and Andrew's killer or

killers are still walking free. I'm joined now from Edinburgh by

Lothian & Borders Assistant Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, who's

currently working with ACPOS on plans for the single police force.

I am curious, you were involved in the investigation of this case, of

what was the motivation here? Was that it was just this chap that

wanted to get this case solved or was there an institutional pressure

on him to get results that he perhaps had come to? We will not

know what his motivation wires. As the judge said today, he let

himself down and he let the criminal-justice system down and

the police service down. His actions, such as they were, did

mean have that there wasn't a fair trial for Stephen Johnston and

Billy alyssum. He has been held to account and the rule of law has

ultimately prevailed, but we do not know what the motivation choirs for

him. It is clearly the actions of this individual rather than a

systemic failure. It is strange that he is the first British police

man ever to have been convicted in a case like this. I presume you

will not argue it has never happened before, so why have these

things are so rare? That is my understanding as well. My

reflection on this, that in many ways, it is a credit to the

criminal justice system of Scotland, that Richard Munro has been held to

account for his actions. There was a thorough investigation carried

out by police officers. Even in Scotland, it is an extraordinarily

unusual situation. Yes, these cases are very atypical. The point is,

nothing has happened before, no police person has been done for out.

USAir this they have happened before, in fact the number of

missed carriages are very rare in Scotland. -- miscarriages. Where

everyone, nobody is above the law and the police service will prevail,

has instructed by the Crown, and they will act very rigorously and

professionally and old people to account, regardless of who they are,

if they do not adhere to the law. You come as a neighbouring force,

were asked to investigate his behaviour and you came up with

evidence to lead to his conviction. If there is a single police force

with no neighbouring police force, what would happen in this

situation? Parliament has anticipated this, and in the bill

that has been enacted to create a single force, and investigations

and review commissioner were created and the staff will

investigate serious allegations of criminality like this. A well, they

do this themselves or would they recruit officers to do this? That

has been formulated. They are looking across the justice system

and they can act supervise or her conduct an investigation themselves.

At times, they will need to access specialist investigated resources

within the Scottish police service, just as existed here. Critically

and crucially, it will be under the direction of the crowd. What makes

the Scottish criminal justice system unique is the investigators

primacy back to the Crown has, and the fact that the police services

in a secondary position into the crowd. We act under the Lord

Advocate, and we took instructions from the crowd and we acted on

their behalf. That will continue when the review commissioner is

established. That commissioner will also act to the crown for these

matches. As you must know, policemen are famously reluctant to

investigate their home. That does not sound like a strong safeguard

against this. I would disagree. This is in our urban myth that

exists in the media. That is not the case at all. We have very high

standards within the Scottish Police Service, very high standards