Events in the life of Thomas Hamilton

---

4.24   On a number of occasions Thomas Hamilton organised summer camps which were aimed at catering for boys. Some of them took place on Loch Lomond where he had a small speedboat and later, as I mentioned before, a cabin cruiser, until it caught fire and sank in the early 1980s. He organised a camp on Inchmoan Island for several weeks as from 3 July 1988. He claimed later that this was his 55th summer camp for boys but there is no way in which this can be confirmed. Depending on the arrangements made with the individual parents, boys of about 9 years of age came for one or two weeks at a time. It appears that for much of the time Thomas Hamilton was running the camp with no additional adult help. After one boy arrived home unhappy about the camp the complaints of several families came to the attention of Strathclyde Police, in whose area the island was situated. At the request of Chief Inspector Hay of Dumbarton CID, PC George Gunn and PC Donna Duncan visited the Island on 20 July.

4.25   They found the site was generally messy, the tables strewn with dirty dishes. The sleeping bags in the tents were damp to the touch. The food was not very wholesome. There was no sign of fresh food and the only source of nutrition was tinned and powdered food. The boys were 13 in number and appeared to be cold and inadequately dressed for the weather conditions. Some were playing unsupervised in and around the water about 30 yards from the camp dressed in swimming trunks, some with tee-shirts. They had scratches on their legs. These were explained as being due to their going through bracken on the island. Thomas Hamilton would not allow them to wear trousers, saying that legs dried more easily than trousers. When questioned, 3 boys said unreservedly that they were enjoying themselves; the others were generally somewhat homesick, complaining of the food and the fact that they were not allowed to send postcards home or to contact their parents by telephone when they made a trip to Luss on the shore of the loch. The means of reaching the shore was a rowing boat with an inadequate number of lifejackets. However, none of the boys was sufficiently upset to accept PC Gunn's offer to take them home. Thomas Hamilton was pleasant in his manner but PC Gunn was uneasy about him in a vague and indefinable way. He did not consider that the children were in any particular danger but regarded the camp as very basic and badly run. Thomas Hamilton was alleged to have slapped one or two boys. He did not deny doing so but maintained that they had been disruptive, bullying and cheeky.

4.26   PC Gunn submitted a report to Dumbarton Police Office. Thomas Hamilton was not charged with any offence. The parents were contacted by the police. In due course six of them came to Dumbarton Police Office where the boys and Thomas Hamilton had been taken after they had been found on a trip to Alexandria. Some of the boys felt homesick and were taken home, but none of the boys or the parents on that occasion made any complaint against Thomas Hamilton. Some indeed praised him.

4.27   DS Ian McBain submitted a report on the investigation dated 30 August 1988 to the Procurator Fiscal at Dumbarton, Mr James Cardle. Mr Cardle decided that some of the witnesses from whom statements had been obtained should be precognosced before he reached a decision. His purpose in doing so was to obtain full information about the alleged assaults and to see if some of the discrepancies between the accounts given by the boys could be reconciled. Virtually all the boys spoke to being struck by Thomas Hamilton and/or seeing other boys being struck. In a number of statements some of the boys were unable to name the boys they had seen being struck. Some boys described events happening to other boys which these boys did not refer to themselves. After precognition Mr Cardle, according to his recollection, found that the discrepancies between some of the boys' accounts were even greater than they had been. Assaults were either not corroborated or there were discrepancies between accounts. Thus boy A would speak to boy B being slapped in his presence but boy B would not recall this - and vice versa. Not all the boys spoke up to the police statements and some of the accounts at precognition were vague. He also recollected that while after precognition there may have been one or two incidents for which there was corroborated evidence there were many others where accounts were vague or inconsistent. He did not consider it appropriate to select from the whole picture one or two incidents where there was on paper an apparent sufficiency of evidence. In any event his recollection was that the one or two incidents for which there was corroborative and consistent evidence were very minor indeed and did not merit criminal prosecution. Having considered the papers he reached the decision that he would not institute criminal proceedings against Thomas Hamilton. As he remained concerned at the situation which had been revealed in the papers he indicated to the police that they should take these matters up with the social work department, the Reporter to the Children's Panel and also the education authorities involved in the letting of the school premises for the clubs. His recollection was that he was informed that these other agencies were already aware of these matters. In this context the role of the Reporter is, of course, not concerned with initiating proceedings against an adult.

4.28   Miss Laura Dunlop submitted at the close of the Inquiry that the Procurator Fiscal could have taken steps to prosecute Thomas Hamilton in regard to assaulting two of the boys and for a breach of section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937. In response Mr Bonomy pointed out that the Inquiry did not have available to it the precognitions which had been obtained by Mr Cardle. Furthermore there was no evidence that the children had sustained any injury. Any striking of them was exclusively in connection with Thomas Hamilton's attempts to maintain discipline. There was no question of the children being in physical or moral danger. The attitude of the parents towards Thomas Hamilton was far from uniform. For the reasons which I set out in Appendix 3 to this report I am not concerned with reviewing decisions taken by a Procurator Fiscal. If Mr Cardle's decision had hinged on whether or not there was enough evidence as a matter of law on which to frame a charge or charges there might be some point in my considering the question whether there was enough evidence on which charges could have been based. However, it is clear from the account of Mr Cardle's actions that his decision was based upon an assessment of the quality and significance of the evidence. In these circumstances I see no point on which I can properly express any view on the decision taken by him.

4.29   Meanwhile Thomas Hamilton made an informal complaint against PC Gunn, claiming that he was incompetent and untruthful in making his report. He sent a series of letters to his superior officer, Inspector Michael Mill, and other officers of Central Scotland Police. These were widely circulated through Dunblane and reached his local MP. In August Thomas Hamilton called at Balfron Police Office intending to discuss PC Gunn's report with him. PC Gunn refused to do so and had great difficulty in getting Thomas Hamilton to leave, even having to resort to the threat of having him arrested. It was clear that the incident had become an obsession as far as he was concerned. His initial complaint was that police officers were not qualified to make a proper judgment. He sent letters to Inspector Mill indicating the type of activity which took place at the camp and enclosing receipts to show the kind of food that he had bought. His complaint was thoroughly investigated and rejected in a letter written on behalf of the Chief Constable dated 19 October 1988. Initially Thomas Hamilton appeared to accept what had been said. However, almost immediately he changed his mind and wrote to the Chief Constable objecting to the fact that PC Gunn had been appointed to investigate his camp "in view of a long resentment shown to our group by many adult members of the Dunblane Scouts". He claimed, incorrectly, that PC Gunn was a Scout leader. This was a demonstration of a fixation on the part of Thomas Hamilton that there was a "brotherhood" conspiracy between the police and the Scouts in Dunblane. This fixation was pursued in a stream of letters to the police, his MP, The Scottish Office, his local newspaper and circulars to parents of boys and to the public.

4.30   On 30 November 1988 Thomas Hamilton made his complaint official. It was then formally investigated on behalf of the Deputy Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police, Douglas McMurdo, who appointed Inspector (now Supt) James Keenan to investigate. The charges made by Thomas Hamilton were that PC Gunn had made a false and misleading statement to Strathclyde Police, and that he had made an unlawful and unnecessary exercise of his authority in the investigation of the Inchmoan camp. A barrage of letters from Thomas Hamilton continued, becoming personalised and critical of the competence and professionalism of the police officers. Inspector Keenan carried out a thorough investigation of Thomas Hamilton's complaint, having taken a formal statement of it from him. Thomas Hamilton took some 3 hours to deliver it. Inspector Keenan's investigations included the taking of additional statements from witnesses in regard to allegations of a similar type to those investigated by PC Gunn. He also interviewed a number of persons who had camped in the same area as Thomas Hamilton and spoke highly of his organisation and capabilities as a leader, and the food and equipment provided by him. On 22 May 1989 Inspector Keenan submitted his report in which he exonerated PC Gunn and PC Duncan. Thomas Hamilton subsequently complained that this investigation was a whitewash and that he had not got to the truth. PC Gunn expressed the view in his evidence that Thomas Hamilton was untrustworthy, vindictive, wholly unreasonable, malicious and obsessive. He had considered suing him for defamation but decided that there would be little point in doing so.

4.31   In his report Inspector Keenan suggested to DCC McMurdo that numerous points which had been elicited might be worthy of consideration by Strathclyde Police. The Deputy Chief Constable submitted the report to the Deputy Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, and on his behalf it was passed on 16 June 1989 to the Chief Superintendent responsible for disciplinary matters asking that a senior officer take the report to the Procurator Fiscal at Dumbarton and have any further enquiry necessary carried out. However, when the report reached Mr Cardle he realised at once that it concerned a complaint against police officers which was a matter which could not be dealt with by him but only by the Regional Procurator Fiscal at Paisley. Accordingly he forwarded the report to him. It should be understood that as a matter of long standing practice which has had the approval of the High Court of Justiciary (MacLeod v Tiffney 1994 SCCR 169) information which is elicited in the course of the investigation of a complaint against a police officer remains confidential to the Regional Procurator Fiscal and is not disclosed to the Procurator Fiscal or his staff who may be considering a report against the person making the complaint. This applies, of course, to matters arising out of the same incident. Accordingly I see no ground whatever for imputing any criticism to the Procurator Fiscal at Dumbarton. The Regional Procurator Fiscal having considered the report of Inspector Keenan reached the view that it disclosed nothing of a criminal nature so far as the conduct of the police was concerned and marked the papers "no proceedings". He confirmed his decision in a letter to the discipline branch dated 10 October 1989.

Linlithgow Boys' Club

4.32   In April 1988 Thomas Hamilton registered the Linlithgow Boys Club with Lothian Regional Council. Registration depended on whether the applicant organisation was to be run for the benefit of young people and details of the members of the organisation required to be provided. Registration qualified the organisation for reduced rates. An application was normally investigated. However, due to an oversight no check was made in this case. Accordingly a follow-up check was made by Mr D G Jeffrey, a senior youth educational worker, who had responsibility for youth and children's work development. On his visit to the club, which met at Linlithgow Academy, he saw nothing to give him cause for concern. He found about 30 boys aged between 8 and 11 in PE kit in the school gym doing football training. He was also concerned with a complaint from a parent who had withdrawn her son from the summer camp and had complained of being intimidated by Thomas Hamilton who was seeking payment of money due for the booking. The Inquiry also heard evidence that a parent had been against her son going to his camp as she had heard that Thomas Hamilton stood at the entrance to the showers at Linlithgow Academy on the pretext that this was to stop any trouble there.

4.33   Mr Jeffrey took the opportunity to discuss the summer camps, the programme and nature of the activities and contact points with parents. The information which Thomas Hamilton gave him caused him some concern. He felt uneasy about such young boys being on an island in Loch Lomond with the only access to parents being a telephone link. He felt ill at ease during this meeting. Thomas Hamilton was immediately on the defensive when he was asked about the club and wanted to know who had made complaints against him. When he was questioned about whether there was a club committee and/or parental involvement in the club, he said he intended to form a parents' committee after a trial period (in fact he never did so). Later in the same week Mr Jeffrey made enquiries about Thomas Hamilton with the Scout Association, the Scottish Association of Boys Clubs and Mr G Baxter, Head of the Woodmill Centre, Dunfermline. From all these sources came the same impression, a feeling of uneasiness and concern which was difficult to define. He was concerned as to why Thomas Hamilton refused to have his clubs affiliated to a larger organisation such as the Scottish Association of Boys Clubs. There was no tangible evidence that something was amiss but the general recommendation was that it was better to have nothing to do with him. He was also concerned at learning that it was unlikely that Thomas Hamilton would receive any help in running the club at Linlithgow or at Dunfermline. Shortly after his visit he received a very detailed letter from Thomas Hamilton which sought to justify his activities, along with copies of letters to public figures including his appeal to the Ombudsman to which I have referred already. Mr Jeffrey felt that Thomas Hamilton was attempting to deter him from further investigation. However, he was aware of "innuendo and unhappiness" rather than objective details.