ADDICT TURNED LAW ON OFFICERS

ADDICT Gerald Rae, the nasty piece of work at the centre of the Strathclyde
drugs squad perjury trial, wasn't around to see its conclusion.

He was found dead in his car in Yoker last month, the victim of a heroin
overdose, although he at least survived long enough to give his evidence at
the High Court in Edinburgh.

His story was similar to the one he had recounted nearly two years earlier
to Lord Marnoch when he sued the Chief Constable of Strathclyde in the
Court of Session.

He claimed that seven members of Strathclyde drugs squad burst into his
flat in Cartside Street, Langside, Glasgow, on November 30, 1990, and beat
him with baseball bats and pickaxe handles. That was the allegation that
led to the criminal prosecution for perjury of seven drugs squad members
and, although the jury at the trial knew that the civil case had taken
place, they were kept in the dark about the result and Lord Marnoch's
comments.

They might well have worked out that Rae must have been successful,
otherwise the criminal prosecution would never have reached court. In fact,
Rae was awarded damages of UKP3000.

Given the medical evidence in Rae's favour, it was surprising that the
chief constable decided not to settle the civil case out of court. Even
then, the perjury trial might never have happened had it been a jury rather
than a senior Senator of the College of Justice who found in Rae's favour.

Lord Marnoch is one of Scotland's most experienced judges who would not
lightly brand serving police officers as liars. He made it crystal clear
that he took no pleasure in deciding that no less than seven drugs squad
members had lied in the witness box.

"It goes without saying that because of the possible effect on the careers
of these officers and, worse still, on public confidence in the police
within the Strathclyde area, I do not make that finding lightly.

"It is essential to our whole system of justice - and the court thus
expects - that all witnesses will speak with absolute probity when giving
evidence from the witness box. Police officers, more than anyone else, must
be aware of this."

If Gerald Rae had stood alone, the case would never have got off the
ground. With his unenviable list of serious convictions, including eight
years for heroin dealing and an appalling assault and robbery on an elderly
couple, Rae was not a man readily associated with truth, honesty and decency.

A crucial witness in the civil case was Rae's downstairs neighbour
Alexander Thomson, who recalled how the screams of pain coming form the
upstairs flat led him to think someone was being murdered.

He said he had opened his front door to see what he thought was 10 or more
men running upstairs with baseball bats, pickaxe handles, and perhaps two
sledgehammers. In a panic he dialled 999, not realising the police in the
shape of the drugs squad were already on the scene.

Lord Marnoch stated: "Mr Thomson was, as well as being a credible witness,
also a careful witness who did not try to overstate his evidence in any way."

Perhaps even more influential for Lord Marnoch's decision in Rae's favour
was the medical evidence, including the testimony of police surgeon Dr
James Hay.

Lord Marnoch summarised their evidence in this way: "In the end all three
medical witnesses thought that, looked at in isolation, one or more of the
bruises found on Rae had most likely been caused by a weapon such as a
pickaxe handle.

"All three witnesses were of the opinion that all of the bruising on Mr
Rae's lower body and legs were entirely consistent with an assault by
weapons. Taken overall, the medical evidence would strongly favour Mr Rae.

"In my opinion, there was no doubt on the medical evidence but that Mr
Rae's injuries were severe and that the force required to inflict them was
manifestly in excess of what would have been required simply to restrain
him even, accepting as I do, that he struggled violently to resist arrest.

"Nothing Mr Rae is said to to have done that evening could possibly have
justified the infliction on him of the injuries he sustained, let alone by
the use of weapons such as pickaxe handles or baseball bats."

However, when it came to the High Court and a criminal prosecution, guilt
has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt - a far higher standard of proof
than the civil balance of probabilities.