BOSSES at Scotland’s police watchdog sought legal advice in a failed bid to withhold some of the £100,000 pay-off given to the body’s former head.

Scottish Police Authority (SPA) chiefs have come under fire over “eye-watering” payments and expenses – including the exit package for former chief executive John Foley.

Mr Foley, who also secured a six figure early retirement deal in his previous job at a council construction firm, stepped down in October last year.

Now a written submission to a Holyrood committee reveals the SPA halted a £56,000 payment to Mr Foley in December following concerns raised by MSPs.

But after seeking independent legal advice, the watchdog said it was left with “no option in law but to honour its contract with Mr Foley”.

It is now paying him the full amount alongside a previous early retirement sum of £43,470, insisting that if it continued to withhold the money “any subsequent legal challenge could result in the SPA being required to also pay legal costs arising from the action as well as the original full sum agreed”.

The written submission added: “The interim chief officer has now instructed the sum to be paid.”

Mr Foley and former SPA chair Andrew Flanagan were previously asked to answer “serious questions” about "extraordinarily shocking" financial mismanagement at the body.

As well as Mr Foley’s pay-off, Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick was handed £67,000 in relocation expenses and £53,000 to foot her tax bill.

Jackie Baillie, then-acting convener of Holyrood's Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee, said the mismanagement was the “most shocking” she had ever seen.

Financial watchdog Audit Scotland recently highlighted a series of governance failings and poor use of public money at the SPA, which faces a budget shortfall of £47.4 million this year.

Jenny Marra MSP, convenor of the Public Audit Committee, said: “We note that the SPA took legal advice on whether it could withhold any of the exit payment made to the former SPA chief executive John Foley.

"We recognise that legally this money can’t now be clawed back, but this begs the question of why this payment was authorised in the first place.”