Dunblane duo sue over police search

A case which touched on the rights of the citizen and power exercised by police dominated proceedings of Stirling Sheriff Court in March 1949.

Dunblane men Hugh Stewart, High Street, and Robert McMillan, George Street, sued Inspector Harold Roach, a member of the War Department Constabulary and based at the Forthside military depot, Stirling.

Mr Stewart and Mr McMillan, who worked at the depot, sought compensation for the damage to the reputation caused by a police search of their homes.

Inspector Roach had told how on October 30, 1947, his attention was drawn to an anonymous letter claiming items belonging to the Government were being `plundered’ from the depot.

It claimed Mr Stewart, Mr McMillan and a third man had removed property from the depot and sold it and it was alleged `stolen stuff ’ could be found in the homes of the Dunblane pair.

Inspector Roach forwarded the information to civilian CID who searched their homes of the two men but found nothing incriminating.

Both men were allowed to return to their jobs at the depot but they claimed they were subject to a `great deal of talk’ when people saw them being escorted by police to their homes during the search operation.

Mr McMillan said about the time the search took place he resigned his position as church officer of Leighton Church, Dunblane. Some people had assumed, wrongly, that his decision to step down was due to the police action prompted by Inspector Roach, the court was told.

Counsel for the two men, Mr JOM

Hunter spoke of the “sanctity of a man’s home” and said the police had to have adequate evidence before invading it.

Mr Hunter said use of a valid search warrant was the only thing which separated totalitarian states from countries in which police must justify their action in “invading another man’s house and his personal liberty”.

Giving his judgment, Sheriff Murray said some of the claims made by the Dunblane men had been exaggerated and he thought it right that Inspector Roach had passed the anonymous letter on to the civilian police.

He was, however, of the view that the two men had suffered a `legal wrong’, and civil police had no power in common law to search the houses of the two men without a valid warrant.

The sheriff felt the warrant which was issued was not valid as the two men had not been apprehended and charged with an offence. It was not competent to grant a search warrant in the absence of a charge being preferred.

Sheriff Murray said the two men had “undoubtedly” proved they had suffered injury to their feelings and reputation as a result of the action of the police. They were entitled to damages.

The men each sued the inspector for £100 (almost £2300 in today’s money) but were each awarded damages of £30 plus expenses by the sheriff.