30
Oct
12

Questions raised over re-appointment of wildlife crime fiscal Tom Dysart

Well, well, well. It seems we’re not the only ones to raise an eyebrow about the re-appointment of fiscal Tom Dysart as one of three new specialist wildlife crime prosecutors.

You may remember we blogged about Mr Dysart’s new role at COPFS earlier this month (see here). What interested us was that these three new wildlife crime fiscal positions were announced in February 2011, when Mr Dysart led on wildlife crime for COPFS (see here). Later in 2011, COPFS announced that only two of the three available positions had been filled by August 2011 (see here), both managed by COPFS wildlife crime lead, Tom Dysart. In October last year, we blogged about these new appointments and noted that the third position was still vacant (see here). What’s interesting is that Mr Dysart took ‘early retirement’ in March 2012, and has now re-appeared and taken on that third wildlife fiscal role.

Yesterday, the Daily Record picked up on this story and wrote an article under the headline:

Prosecutor who retired with six-figure pay off takes on new fiscal position in old department“.

The article claims that Mr Dysart’s re-appointment “has caused a fair bit of resentment” because “there are plenty of able fiscals who were in for one of these much sought after posts [as a specialist wildlife crime fiscal]. An un-named source is quoted as saying:

The retirement dosh is tucked away and he’s laughing all the way to the bank. He trousered well into six figures“.

The Crown Office is reported to have said: “Mr Dysart was not involved in the selection process for his own appointment“.

That’s an interesting statement. Why was this third position not filled in 2011, and remained vacant until October 2012? How many other fiscals applied for this third specialist position back in 2011 when they were first announced? Why were they not offered the role? Was Tom Dysart involved in the selection process for those positions in 2011? According to the Daily Record article, Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary Lewis MacDonald will be “seeking assurances about the process that was gone through“. That’s very good to hear.

We understand Mr Dysart reads this blog and he’s not a fan. We can’t say we’re admirers of his work, either.

Daily Record article here

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Questions raised over re-appointment of wildlife crime fiscal Tom Dysart”


  1. 1 Chris Roberts
    October 30, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    He should certainly give up his 6 figure, so called, ‘retirement’ settlement, as he obviously hasn’t retired.

  2. 2 nirofo
    October 30, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Strikes me this was all done and dusted long before he took his huge retirement handout, old boys act, it stinks all the way to the top. It’s about time they started using stronger deoderant if they want to come out smelling of roses !!!

  3. 3 Dougie
    October 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    This retirement with a lucrative settlement then almost immediate re-employment is not at all uncommon in the public sector. I have no doubt that it is not unlawfull, but it is morally repugnant to say the least.
    Interesting to note that Mr. Dysart is not a fan of this blog. Could that be because it often carries criticism of the criminal justice system and it’s thoroughly ineffective handling of the wildlife criminals brought before the courts.
    I have no idea what Mr. Dysart thinks about wildlife crime, but if he thinks that having cases endlessly delayed, deferred, dropped and the few criminals that are convicted given insignificant sentences then is remotely acceptable then perhaps it would be better if he remained in retirement.

  4. 4 Lesley
    October 30, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    So if he has taken early retirement, on what basis has he been ‘re-employed’ and what are the cost implications for COPFS?

  5. 6 Pip
    October 31, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Snouts in the trough, boys! Don’t you just love these people……………….

    Pip

  6. 7 Robin Edwards
    November 1, 2012 at 10:19 am

    the alleged benefits of free masonary – different rules apply to plebs don’t they?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 3,337,247 hits

Archives

Our recent blog visitors