Uilleam

Here is a first take from The Times The Report seems to be at pains to stress equivalence betwwen clubs; ie one serious assault, here, is the same as several dozen/score, there. I don't think that holds water. Scottish football clubs must offer compensation to victims of historic sexual abuse Marc Horne Thursday February 11 2021, 12.00pm, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-football-clubs-must-offer-compensation-to-victims-of-historic-sexual-abuse-p6v7gbzp7 Scottish football clubs, including Celtic, Rangers and Hibernian (Hibs), must offer compensation and a “clear, unreserved and public” apology to victims of sexual abuse that blighted the national sport, an official report has said. The Scottish FA’s Independent Review of Sexual Abuse in Scottish Football, ordered in 2016, has today finally published its devastating findings. Dozens of survivors who endured “incalculable” suffering came forward to give evidence against paedophiles who preyed on vulnerable young players over three decades. The review authors were shocked at how easy it was for these men to use their status and “good standing” to infiltrate Scottish football and gain unfettered access to children, who received little or no support from those tasked with protecting them. “The price they have paid has often been lifelong, frequently serious and sometimes catastrophic,” the report said. “The collateral damage caused to their relationships, their employment, their physical and mental health and their social wellbeing is incalculable.” The review also found that: * Former senior figures at Celtic FC were likely to have been aware of the historic abuse taking place with its feeder club but the authorities were not alerted. * No evidence could be found to corroborate Rangers FC’s claim that they contacted the police after sacking a paedophile youth coach in 1991. * The Scottish FA turned its back on a man who confided that he had been raped as a boy by a top-flight assistant referee and sought help in seeking justice. * Known paedophiles worked together to groom boys and trafficked them over UK and international borders for abuse. * An abuser took boys to a hostel in England where they were forced to barricade themselves in a room after being presented to a group of naked men. The review stressed it was not able to attribute culpability or liability — saying that was a matter for the courts — but insisted those who failed to protect the young should now be held accountable. It said: “Although we are clear that the direct responsibility for the alleged abuse of these young people and the consequent harm lies with the men who perpetrated or are said to have perpetrated these acts, we are also very aware of the accountability which lies with clubs and organisations in football since these shared a duty of care to the young people in their charge.” It called for all clubs and organisations involved to make a “clear, unreserved and public acknowledgment and apology” to the survivors of sexual abuse. “This apology should be on behalf of the club/organisation itself as well as the wider football family,” it said. “Furthermore, clubs and organisations concerned should openly acknowledge the impact of these events on those affected and the enduring effect this has had on them (and their families) into their adult lives.” “Acknowledgement and apology do not eradicate the harmful events or the pain that has resulted. “But for many this will be a starting point for reconciliation and for healing and this is of vital importance.” However, it concluded that simply saying sorry was insufficient and that a “more concrete response”, involving financial compensation, is required. It said: “To support people who have experienced sexual abuse in Scottish football is an emphatic and constructive testimonial to their experiences and a tangible way of making reparation. “The Review concludes therefore that Scottish football should consider how this can best be done, including consideration of the creation of a fund which might underwrite support and assistance for those who have been personally affected by sexual abuse in Scottish football and indeed those in Scottish football who are experiencing other mental health challenges and issues.” The authors suggested that commercial donors or sponsors might also be “contributed to or underwritten by commercial donation and sponsorship”. The findings will put further pressure on Celtic and Rangers, as well as other senior clubs — named in the report — including Hibernian, Motherwell and Partick Thistle, to accept responsibility for historic sexual abuse. While expressing “regret and sorrow” for the victims, Celtic FC has insisted it is not legally culpable for abuse at Celtic Boys Club, insisting it was an “entirely separate organisation” with which it had historic connections. However, the review concluded that senior clubs could not distance themselves from past abuse at “inextricably” linked feeder clubs. It states: “In those days the ties between those community-based youth football clubs and the senior professional club were clear and strong. “The relationship was strongly established to the point that officials of both clubs often knew each other well and interacted; officials of the senior club were often involved in the activities and profile of the community football club; the senior club would allow the youth football club to freely use its premises and facilities; branding, badging, colours and strips were often similar or identical. “The Review is of the view that, if the relationship and history between the youth football club and the senior club was so shared, so close, and so inextricable, then when sexual abuse of young players formed part of the history of one then it too formed part of the history of the other. “A shared heritage is not confined to trophies, victories and celebration; it also extends to defeats, failures, and deficiencies.” A number of men who held senior roles with the boys club have been convicted for sexually abusing children and teenagers. Among them are Jim Torbett, who founded Celtic Boys Club in 1966, who has twice been imprisoned for attacking young boys between 1967 and 1994. Testimony from his victims appears in the report. Torbett had two stints at the club, the first from 1966 and 1974 and the second from 1978 to 1996. Hugh Birt, a former boys club chairman gave evidence at Torbett’s first trial in 1998 that he was kicked out by Jock Stein, Celtic FC’s manager, after allegations of abuse emerged. The report records it concern about the circumstances, stating: “The Review concludes, from the accounts received that it is possible that a number of people in Scottish football may have had some suspicion regarding (Torbett’s) alleged activities at the time including former managers at Celtic Boys Club; a former senior manager and a former board member at Celtic FC at the time; and a group of young players at Celtic Boys Club.” The authors said they had been unable to confirm whether the police had been informed, adding: “The Review finds it concerning that (Torbett) was permitted to return to Celtic Boys Club in another capacity after only a few years. The report also makes it clear that clubs should not attempt to use changes of commercial ownership or status to evade responsibility. In 2018 an alleged victim of paedophile Gordon Neely, who worked as head of youth development at Rangers’ ground, Ibrox, between 1986 and 1991, was told he should pursue his complaint with liquidators. The former youth footballer was told by lawyers that Rangers were owned by a different company when the abuse took place and that duty of care was not with the current owners. An email sent to his solicitors said: “The company which owned Rangers Football Club . . . which you refer to as owing duties of care to your client will have been the company then called The Rangers Football Club PLC and now called RFC 2012 Limited.” The review challenges this type of stance, stating: “The Independent Review considers it inadequate for clubs or organisations to avoid this issue because, in the intervening years, they have changed their governance, their name or their company status or ownership. “The ethical obligations remain and are uninterrupted irrespective of intervening administrative, constitutional or commercial changes.” Although the review panel possesses no legal authority to enforce its findings, clubs will find its conclusions difficult to dismiss. The report notes that Neely, who died of cancer in 2014, was immediately dismissed by Rangers in 2011 after a parent complained after he pulled down his son’s underwear and pulled him over his knee. Rangers have repeatedly insisted they also informed the police, but investigators were “unable to confirm” whether this was the case. Two other former Rangers youth players came forward to state they were sexually abused by Neely at Ibrox, but did not tell anyone at the time. The report also contains testimony from a man who was raped by Neely at Hibernian’s stadium and training ground. It said parents had raised concerns about his conduct but there was no evidence that any action was taken, or warnings issued, before he went on to join Rangers. The report criticised the Scottish FA for failing to do more to help Pete Haynes when he came forward to report that he had been sexually abused by Hugh Stevenson, a former youth coach and assistant referee, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Mr Haynes, who waived his right to anonymity, asked for assistance in getting justice for the abuse that blighted his teenage years and later life, but little was done. The report backed him and concluded the Scottish FA’s actions “fell short of the appropriate action that could have ensued from such a report or concern being raised”. The report also contains allegations that Jim McCafferty, a former Celtic FC kit man and boys club coach, who is now serving a lengthy jail sentence, smeared toothpaste and boot polish on to the genitals of a naked boy as part of an “initiation ceremony” during a trip to Austria with the junior club Fauldhouse Juveniles. The review confirmed it had received reports that abuse was carried out by paedophiles who worked together to abuse and traffick boys. “The contributors provided information concerning possible organised sexual abuse and sexual exploitation,” it said. “This included allegations concerning the introduction of young players between adult men for sexual purposes across borders under the guise of football activity.” It added: “The Review heard accounts from more than one contributor of a team visit to England where the boys stayed, with a coach, in a hostel. The boys were taken to a swimming pool where a number of adult men were present and who were walking about naked. “Later, when these boys had returned to their sleeping accommodation, some of these adult men attempted to enter their room and the boys, all young teenagers, were forced to barricade themselves in to protect themselves. “This was a very frightening and disturbing event and can also be seen as part of a process of desensitisation of these young men. “ The review noted that it was aware of circumstances where “adults involved or alleged to have been involved, knew other adults who were subsequently charged and/or convicted or named in allegations concerning sexual abuse in football both in Scotland and England.” It concluded by calling for the introduction of “consistent and continuous measures to improve the protection of young people and the reduction of risk”, adding: “These accounts alone should be enough to inspire and motivate change without question or inertia.” Rangers have strenuously denied any wrongdoing. The club previously issued a statement which said: “It is understood the individual was dismissed immediately and that the police were informed. “All employees adhered to the strictest codes of conduct.” Celtic FC and Rangers FC have been approached for comment.

Well, it's out, although I thought that it was being held back due to pending court cases. Maybe it's been bowdlerised instead. Perish the very thought!! I'll try to find an Executive Summary, if there is one (which I doubt.) https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/7516/independent-review-of-sexual-abuse-in-scottish-football-final-report.pdf

Well, it's out, although I thought that it was being held back due to pending court cases. Maybe it's been bowdlerised instead. Perish the very thought!! I'll try to find an Executive Summary, if there is one (which I doubt.) https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/7516/independent-review-of-sexual-abuse-in-scottish-football-final-report.pdf

I'm not sure that this piece, below, from The Times adds anything. However, the Lord Advocate, should there ever be a full public Enquiry, does not rule out an "independent" chair; then again, he does not rule it in. “I entirely agree the judge appointed would have to be demonstrably independent . . . and it may well be appropriate to appoint a judge from outwith Scotland. However it would be premature at this time to conclude that when the time comes to establish the inquiry there is no Scottish judge that can satisfy that requirement.” On a happier note, surely Mr Craig Whyte must be roundly pissed off that he was actually prosecuted and found not guilty, and that the massive public compen pail accessed by the other involved gentlemen is beyond the reach of even his capacious, rapacious, snout? Outside judge could lead Rangers sale inquiry Greig Cameron Thursday February 11 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/outside-judge-could-lead-rangers-sale-inquiry-5c2js92jw Scotland’s most senior prosecutor has not ruled out bringing in a judge from another part of the UK to head an inquiry into the “malicious” prosecution of the former Rangers FC administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse. James Wolffe, QC, the lord advocate, said the Crown Office would support an inquiry into why they were indicted in a fraud investigation but only after all related legal proceedings had ended. His comments came as questions were asked at Holyrood about the role of his predecessor, Frank Mulholland, now a judge, in the attempt to prosecute Clark and Whitehouse. Raising the issue in a debate, Murdo Fraser, the Conservative MSP, said the men, who worked for Rangers’ administrators Duff and Phelps, believed they had been treated like “terrorists”. Wolffe, who became lord advocate in 2016, has accepted there was a “very serious failure in the system of prosecution” with the men later each being awarded £10.5 million in damages. Their detention in 2014 was deemed to have breached the European Convention on Human Rights, Fraser said, adding: “The experience . . . has had a major psychological impact on them both.” After the charges against them were dropped or dismissed, Clark and Whitehouse launched civil proceedings against the Crown. Craig Whyte, who bought the Ibrox club for £1 from Sir David Murray in 2011, was also eventually brought to court on two charges. He was cleared on both after a trial in 2017. Charles Green, the former Rangers chief executive, and Imran Ahmad, a former club director, are also thought to have received a written apology from the lord advocate and are believed to be negotiating compensation payments. David Grier, a financier who worked at Duff and Phelps, also continues to pursue a claim. With other cases pending, Fraser said the total cost to the taxpayer could reach £100 million. But he added: “We are still no closer to an explanation how and why these individuals were victims of a malicious prosecution.” Fellow Conservative Adam Tomkins, the Glasgow MSP, said: “When he was lord advocate Frank Mulholland went out of his way to see to it that two innocent men were hounded by the state.” With the Tories pressing for a full independent public inquiry the lord advocate accepted that there had been a “serious failure in the system of criminal prosecution”. Wolffe said: “I have committed myself and the Crown to supporting the process of an inquiry once related legal proceedings have concluded.” He added: “I entirely agree the judge appointed would have to be demonstrably independent . . . and it may well be appropriate to appoint a judge from outwith Scotland. However it would be premature at this time to conclude that when the time comes to establish the inquiry there is no Scottish judge that can satisfy that requirement.”

The important point is that the current LA admitted liability. It does seem to me that it will be difficult for him to cry, now, 'No blame attaches', or, even, as is most certainly the case, 'A big boy did it and ran away', (in this instance to some higher legal calling, which seems akin to that strange phenomenon, the disciplinary promotion). Apart from which, the plaintiff, Whitehouse, has had his lawyers approach Court, for permission to make all available evidence available to a future Enquiry. Last Friday, The Times reported (posted on Page 5, here) "A former administrator who sued prosecutors over a “malicious” Rangers fraud investigation has urged judges to let him pass key documents on to any future investigation." That would seem to put him several miles away from an NDA. Meanwhile, other gentlemen pursue compensation, and there are no settlements to date. I am not sure that these fellows will be able to demonstrate as clearly, and, apparently, easily, as Whitehouse and Clarke, financial losses. For that reason, I doubt that they will be on a similar, eye-watering scale. Doubtless, however, there will settlements, again at the expense of the Public Pound. The LA has committed to returning to Parliament, to make a further, and full, confession, I take it when the outstanding cases are resolved: "I cannot, at this time, disclose in detail the basis upon which liability was admitted, but, when it is free to do so, the Crown will disclose the basis for those admissions in full—including to this Parliament." I, cynically, suspect that the LA hopes to preclude a full, independent, public Enquiry, by issuing a report, and by statements in Holyrood. Not good enough, for me.

And so the capaign to establish equivalence begins: we were all as bad as rasellik, which is of course, a bona fide excuse not to consider any sanctions against Pederasty Central If, as said, Rangers advised the police about Neely on his dismissal in 1991, then those who were instrumental in his sacking, and in subsequent action, should surely be able to give a formal, sworn, deposition to this effect. A very disappointing headline from The Times, which manages to be sensationalist and, well, erroneous, in describing a multi-club predator. The long awaited SFA Report will be published later today, I believe. We may learn as much from its tone and tenor, as from its content. Rangers paedophile raised funds for children Marc Horne Thursday February 11 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rangers-paedophile-raised-funds-for-children-kvwpgzjgf Gordon Neely, a youth coach, was dismissed from Rangers for indecently assaulting a 14-year-old boy in 1991 A prolific paedophile continued to abuse children and reinvented himself as a champion of vulnerable youngsters after being sacked by Rangers FC. The Glasgow club has repeatedly insisted the police were informed after they dismissed Gordon Neely, a youth coach, for indecently assaulting a 14-year-old boy in 1991. His victim denies this, while those investigating abuse in Scottish football found no evidence that the authorities were alerted. Neely, who also coached at Hibernian, Dundee United and Edinburgh youth side Hutchison Vale, faced accusations but was never convicted before he died of cancer in 2014, aged 62. However, evidence has emerged that suggests he was a serial abuser who worked with other paedophiles. The Times understands that a number of Neely’s victims gave evidence to the independent review into sexual abuse in Scottish football, whose final report is due to be published tomorrow. Neely was dismissed from his position as a youth officer with Hibernian after abuse allegations emerged in 1986. The police were never alerted and Neely was able to take a similar role with Rangers — which ended five years later when he admitted pulling a boy’s pants down. After Neely was sacked an article appeared in the club newspaper, saying he was leaving to go into business. He was later hailed in a newspaper for doing a sponsored walk for deprived children at Edinburgh’s North Merchiston club. A source close to survivors of his abuse questioned why he had been allowed to continue molesting boy after boy between 1980 and 1998. A newspaper article from 1986 confirms that Neely established links with Celtic Boys Club — where dozens of youngsters were abused. One victim claimed he took him and other Hutchison Vale players to a tournament in Greater Manchester in the Eighties, where they were introduced to naked men at a pool. Hibernian issued an apology for not telling the police. Rangers have denied any wrongdoing. The club previously said: “It is understood the individual was dismissed immediately and that the police were informed.” Martin Henry, who led the review into child abuse in football, told the BBC his team had been “unable to confirm” whether a formal report had been made to police in 1986. Rangers did not respond to a request for comment. The long awaited report of the Independent Review of Sexual Abuse in Scottish Football, which was due to be released in 2018, comes out tomorrow. Martin Henry, its chairman, handed over the finalised report to the SFA, which commissioned it, last August. He was assured that it would be made public in September. In November Holyrood’s cross-party group on childhood sexual abuse called on the SFA to publish it in full. The final report is expected to recommend that the SFA and a number of clubs, including Celtic, Hibernian and Rangers, acknowledge failing to protect vulnerable young people and issue a public apology.

AND TO NO ONE'S SURPRISE: Fast Track Notice of Complaint | Kemar Roofe, Player, Rangers FC Wednesday 10 February 2021Player: Kemar Roofe, Rangers FC Match: Rangers FC v St Johnstone FC Date: Wednesday 3 February 2021Competition: Scottish PremiershipDisciplinary Rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 200: Where any one of the sending off offences of (A1) serious foul play, (A2) violent conduct, and (A3) spitting at an opponent or any other person is committed by a player at a match, but that sending off offence was not seen by any of the match officials at the time that it was committed, the mandatory suspension for that sending off offence as provided for in Annex C of the Judicial Panel Protocol shall be applied to the player.Any Fast Track Notice of Complaint alleging a breach of this Rule shall be Determined by a Fast Track Tribunal subject to the provisions of Section 13.Fast Track Tribunal Hearing: Wednesday 10 February 2021Outcome: Proved. 2 match mandatory suspension, effective immediately to the player's Recognised Team's next 2 SPFL Premiership matches. (A1 Serious Foul Play).

I don't think it matters: there seems to be a legal position on the definition of malicious prosecution, beyond malevolent, and involves pursuit without just cause, no matter the motive. Actually, that may well be worse.

What the LA said was: "The approach that has been taken in settling cases was to make a reasonable estimate of the actual loss that individuals could demonstrate." One would like to think that this did not go through on the nod, and that some form of financial scrutiny was undertaken, to ensure that the settlements had some basis in reality. Leaving aside our personal opinions, we have to realise that the Crown dropped the cases against them and 'fessed up to malicious prosecution. Hence Whitehouse and Clarke were -are- innocent before the law. They lost business, thus earnings, and had their reputations traduced. The fact that their claims were the result of this prosecution will have made it difficult for the Crown Office in negotiations, and that may be reflected in the settlements.

He may well be the most unctuous, pettifogging, lawyerly, son of a bitch in Scotland, but, as far as I can determine, a "malicious prosecution" may not require spitefulness, or vindictiveness, but merely (!) its pursuance without just or provable cause

I think that he is being legalistic, separating personal, or other, animus, hatred, or ill-feeling, as a motive, from pursuing a defendant without just cause.

OK Youse asked for it. In the interests of, ahem, "clarification", below is what I understand the current Lord Advocate said today at the bletherhoose. It's rather a long statement, and there are a few questions and responses, too. Perseverance will, however, reward. Malicious Prosecutions – in the Scottish Parliament on 9th February 2021 https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2021-02-09.7.0&p=14071 Lewis Macdonald Labour The next item of business is a statement by the Lord Advocate, on malicious prosecutions. The Lord Advocate will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe): Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity—[ Inaudible .] I am sorry about that sound issue, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement following the disposal last week of the actions that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark brought against me. Those actions concerned events that predated my appointment as Lord Advocate, but it was and is my responsibility, as the current incumbent, to account for them. The on-going proceedings that relate to the matter constrain what I can say today, but I welcome the fact that I am now free to begin the process of public and parliamentary accountability and to reiterate the commitment that the Crown has given to that process. The prosecutions that gave rise to the cases arose from police investigations into the purchase of Rangers Football Club by Craig Whyte in 2011 and into the administration of the club and its sale to Charles Green in 2012. The investigations were large and complex. Ultimately, seven individuals were prosecuted. This statement concerns only the position of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. On 14 November 2014, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse were detained and brought to Glasgow. They were held in custody before appearing in court on 17 November on a petition that contained charges that related to Mr Whyte’s purchase of Rangers. That started the clock for a statutory time bar that, unless extended, required the Crown to serve an indictment in respect of the charges by 16 September 2015. In High Court cases, after an accused has appeared on petition, the Crown undertakes a process of investigation and analysis that is called precognition. When it is completed, the precognition contains a detailed narrative of the evidence and an analysis of whether the evidence is sufficient to support criminal charges. The precognition is submitted to Crown counsel for a decision on whether to issue an indictment. Precognition is not a statutory requirement, but it is a long-standing, routine and essential feature of Crown practice in relation to High Court cases. It provides assurance that there is a proper evidential basis for the indictment and, along with Crown counsel’s instruction, it provides a record of the basis for the decision. This case was exceptional in its scale and complexity. By early September 2015, with the expiry of the time bar approaching, the precognition process was incomplete and essential investigations were still on-going. On 3 September, the Crown applied to the court for a nine-month extension of the time bar; the sheriff granted a three-month extension. An appeal by Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse against that extension was refused. In the meantime, on 2 and 3 September, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse appeared in court again on a second petition that contained new and separate charges that related to the second matter that the police had been investigating—the administration of Rangers and its sale to Charles Green in 2012. On 16 September 2015, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse, with five other accused, were indicted. The charges against them derived from the November 2014 and September 2015 petitions. At that time, the precognition process in relation to the November 2014 petition was still incomplete and there was, demonstrably, no precognition in relation to the September 2015 petition, which had only just been initiated. Essential investigations were still on-going in respect of the charges that derived from the November 2014 petition, and there was evidence available that was—objectively—obviously inconsistent with the charges against these two accused that derived from the September 2015 petition. On 2 December 2015, a second indictment was served that superseded the first. At a preliminary hearing in February 2016, following legal argument, Crown counsel withdrew certain of the charges. On 22 February, the judge dismissed the remaining charges against Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. Crown counsel advised the court that consideration would be given to a further indictment against them. A Crown Office press statement that was issued that day indicated that a fresh indictment would be brought, but that was corrected by a further statement the following day. On 25 May 2016, the Crown advised Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse that there would be no further proceedings against them. On 3 June 2016, Crown counsel formally advised the court of that position. In August 2016, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse initiated civil actions against me—I had been appointed on 2 June 2016—to seek damages on the grounds of malicious prosecution and breaches of articles 5 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. They also advanced claims against the chief constable of Police Scotland. I advanced a defence that relied on established legal authority that the Lord Advocate is immune from common-law liability. That defence was upheld at first instance, but, in October 2019, the inner house of the Court of Session overturned the previous legal authority and allowed the claims to proceed. On 20 August 2020, I admitted liability to Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. Those admissions followed the conclusion of a very substantial and lengthy investigation that was undertaken by the legal team, including external counsel, instructed on my behalf. As a result of that investigation, I concluded that the decisions to place Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse on petition in September 2015 and to indict them were indefensible in law. I concluded that those decisions proceeded without probable cause—that is, without a proper evidential basis—in circumstances that met the legal test for malicious prosecution. That legal test can, in certain circumstances, be met even though no individual had malice, in the popular sense of a spiteful motive. My acceptance of liability in this case did not depend on any individual being malicious in that popular sense. I cannot, at this time, disclose in detail the basis upon which liability was admitted, but, when it is free to do so, the Crown will disclose the basis for those admissions in full—including to this Parliament. What I can say is that there were, in this case, profound departures from the normal practices, including precognition, that are designed to ensure—and routinely do ensure—that any prosecution in the High Court has a proper basis. I also admitted breaches of article 5 in respect of the detention of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse in November 2014 and September 2015, and of article 8 in respect of the incorrect press release of February 2016. After the admissions of liability, mediations took place with both pursuers, and agreement was reached to settle their claims. Each of them has been paid £10.5 million in damages, and, to date, more than £3 million has been paid to them in aggregate by way of expenses. Those two pursuers were very high-earning professional people and the damages paid reflect a reasonable estimate of the loss that they sustained as a result of being prosecuted. I have written to the Justice Committee about the financial implications. On 24 December 2020, I issued written apologies to each of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. They should not have been prosecuted, and, as the current Lord Advocate and head of the system of criminal prosecution, I apologised unreservedly for the fact that they had been. I reiterate that unreserved apology publicly to Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse today. Although the case involved significant departures from standard practice, lessons have been learned and will continue to be learned. The precognition process has been reinforced, and, in 2018, I established new arrangements for the management and oversight of large and complex cases. Those arrangements are now well established and provide a substantial safeguard against anything like this happening again. In my JUSTICE human rights day lecture in December 2016, I said this: “a fair and independent prosecution service, taking decisions rigorously, independently and robustly in accordance with the evidence, is, I believe, essential to the freedom under the law which we enjoy as citizens of this country.” Scottish prosecutors and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have a justified reputation for fairness, integrity and independence. The seriousness of what happened in this case should not obscure the truth that, day in and day out, Scotland’s public prosecutors and the staff who support them fulfil their responsibilities with professionalism and skill. They take hard decisions rigorously, robustly and in accordance with the evidence, and they secure the public interest in the fair, effective and robust administration of criminal justice in Scotland. In this case, there was a serious failure in the system of prosecution. It did not live up to the standards that I expect, that the public and this Parliament are entitled to expect and that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service expects of itself. What happened in this case should not have happened. As the Lord Advocate and head of the system of prosecution in Scotland, I tender my apology to this Parliament and to the public for the fact that it did happen and for the consequent cost to the public purse. I confirm my commitment and that of the Crown to supporting a process of inquiry into what happened in this case once related matters have concluded, and I express my determination that nothing like it should ever happen again. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The Lord Advocate will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. Liam Kerr Conservative I remind members that I am a practising solicitor, and I thank the Lord Advocate for advance sight of his statement. There has been an extraordinary catalogue of unexplained and profound departures from normal practices. What is “indefensible”, to use the Lord Advocate’s word, is that, given that the “decisions proceeded without probable cause—that is, without a proper evidential basis”, the prosecution was malicious. Let us be absolutely clear: this was not simple human error or an obscure legal mistake. Rather, our system of prosecution has admitted that it acted with malice in its move to throw innocent men behind bars and destroy their reputations. That begs an obvious question: how many times in Scottish legal history has there been a malicious prosecution? In any event, I note that the Crown is, crucially, committed to a process of inquiry. Can the Lord Advocate confirm that there will be a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry that demands to know why malicious prosecutions were pursued in defiance of evidence? Will it investigate the actions of the Lord Advocate, his predecessor and all agents who were involved? If not, how on earth can the Crown expect the people of Scotland to conclude anything other than that it is brushing this appalling state of affairs under the carpet? The Lord Advocate: Given that I have come to Parliament at the first opportunity when I have been free to do so, I hope that nobody would suggest that I could properly be accused of “brushing” anything “under the carpet”. I have committed myself and the Crown to supporting a process of inquiry once related matters have been concluded. Those matters need to be resolved before the process of inquiry can proceed. On Mr Kerr’s first point, as I observed in my statement, the legal test for malicious prosecution can be met in circumstances even when no individual has malice in the popular sense of their having a spiteful motive. I should make it clear that my acceptance of liability in this case did not depend on any individual being malicious in the popular sense. That is not for a moment to minimise the seriousness of what happened. Quite the reverse is the case; as I observed in my statement, what happened represents a very serious failure in the system of prosecution in Scotland. I have been asked how many times there has been a malicious prosecution in Scotland. As I emphasised in my statement, a process that is known as precognition is undertaken routinely in High Court cases. That process necessarily involves careful collection, investigation and analysis of evidence. It involves a system of cross-checking and should provide significant reassurance to the public that, in our system of prosecution, cases are routinely brought on a proper basis. As I explained in my statement, in this case, that process was incomplete when the case was indicted; essential investigations had not been completed. The normal processes that are routinely followed in every High Court case were not followed, but the public should take reassurance from what I have said that the prosecution system in Scotland is robust, fair and independent, and is one on which they can rely. Rhoda Grant Labour I, too, thank the Lord Advocate for advance sight of his statement. This case raises serious concerns. That it was thought that the Lord Advocate was immune from common-law liability would suggest that he should also have been beyond reproach. We imagine that there are, in the system, checks and balances between the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, with both of them challenging and questioning the activities and evidence in a case. That appears either not to have happened or to have gone seriously wrong in this case, with both being sued by David Whitehouse and Paul Clark. How could that have happened? Were concerns raised, internally or externally, about the actions of both organisations at the time, especially when it came to light that there was inconsistent evidence? The Lord Advocate said that the system has been improved, but there cannot be proper scrutiny until we know exactly what went wrong in the first place. Until that happens, how can we expect to restore confidence in the system? The Lord Advocate: The first thing that I should say is that, at this time, there are continuing live proceedings relating to the matter, which regrettably—I do regret it—constrains what I can say. I have committed the Crown to engaging fully with public accountability in the matter, and the Crown has committed to making more information available when it is free to do that. That includes the basis upon which liability was admitted in this case and supporting the process of inquiry when it is possible to do that. I hope that that gives some assurance to Rhoda Grant that lessons will be learned and that there will be public understanding of what happened. Perhaps it is worth noting—I do not say this to minimise, in any sense, what happened in this case—that the court fulfilled its functions in dealing with certain charges and the Crown fulfilled its responsibilities in withdrawing charges and ultimately confirming that no prosecution would proceed. I do not say that to minimise the significance of a prosecution having been brought without proper basis. However, on those issues the checks and balances in the system fulfilled their functions. As I explained, there is, in the Crown Office, routinely preparation of High Court cases, which involves cross-checking of cases by staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service initially, and ultimately by Crown counsel, on the basis of there being a full narrative of the evidence and analysis of that evidence. Those processes are designed to ensure that we can be confident—I am confident—that, across the system in Scotland, prosecutions are brought properly and that this case was wholly exceptional. Rona Mackay Scottish National Party Can the Lord Advocate reiterate what lessons have been learned and what improvements are being made to ensure that this will never happen again? The Lord Advocate: The key lesson relates to the management of large and complex cases. As I said in my statement, I have instituted new procedures for internal management and oversight of the particular category of case. The arrangements involve early agreement of the investigation and prosecution strategy; early and continuous engagement with the police; a project management approach to case preparation; a system of case management panels to scrutinise case strategy and to keep under review the progress of the case, with reference to the strategy; and any issues that might emerge being addressed. All of that aligns with a protocol that the High Court issued in 2018, with my support, in relation to the management of such cases once they are in court. That protocol, again, encourages a proactive approach to the management of such cases. Murdo Fraser Conservative The Lord Advocate referred to the payment of £24 million that was made to Whitehouse and Clark, but that sum might well be just the tip of the iceberg, because the report suggests that the total cost of the case could top £100 million, given that there are outstanding cases. Will the Lord Advocate tell us whether it is correct that, in addition to those payments, Whitehouse and Clark were also given tax indemnities so that, should HM Revenue and Customs pursue them for payment of tax, that demand would be met by the Scottish Crown Office, and that the cost to the Scottish taxpayer will therefore be far higher than the £24 million that has been paid out already? The Lord Advocate: I acknowledge the significance of the sum involved. Murdo Fraser is correct in observing that, with other cases pending, the cost to the public purse will increase and the ultimate cost is yet to be seen. The approach that has been taken in settling cases was to make a reasonable estimate of the actual loss that individuals could demonstrate. An arrangement was entered into such that if—it is “if”—they can properly show that they have sustained additional loss of the type that Mr Fraser described, that loss will be borne. If that happens, the Crown will account to the Justice Committee, as it did last week, for the costs in the cases. John Mason Scottish National Party Now that it has been established that the Lord Advocate does not have absolute immunity from civil liability, will the Crown be more cautious in pursuing prosecutions, and will that mean that criminals are less likely to be convicted? The Lord Advocate: I am determined that any change in the law regarding the immunity of the Lord Advocate should not have that effect. That is one reason why I have put in place measures to strengthen the management of large and complex cases. It is essential that there is a proper basis for prosecutorial decisions in all cases. As I explained in my statement, the process of precognition that is routinely undertaken in all High Court cases provides confidence and assurance both to prosecutors and to the public. I have confidence in the robustness of Scotland’s prosecutors. They make difficult decisions every day, in exercising their judgment. I am determined to have in place systems that enable prosecutors to continue to take robust decisions in effective prosecution of crime. James Kelly Labour The decisions that were made in this case might predate the current Lord Advocate, but they raise serious questions about decision making and accountability within the Crown Office. Serious errors were made. The system failed, and we have been told that the cost to the public purse will be at least £24 million. What other area of the Scottish budget has had to be to be raided to fund the incompetence of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service? The Lord Advocate: As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance told Parliament last week, arrangements have been made so that the cases will not affect the Crown Office’s resource budget or its operational effectiveness. The member’s question would be better directed to the finance secretary. Liam McArthur Liberal Democrat This is a true scandal. In monetary terms, it is on a scale with BiFab and the Ferguson Marine shipyard. The colossal waste of taxpayers’ money runs to tens of millions of pounds. That money could have been spent on supporting businesses during the pandemic, on educational catch-up or on investment in mental health. There might be worse news to come, given that we do not yet know the extent of Police Scotland’s exposure or of the additional cases to which the Lord Advocate referred. Given that the overturning of the Hester v MacDonald decision means that the Lord Advocate can now be held liable for serious errors from the past, what assurance can he offer that there are no other skeletons lurking in the Crown Office closet? The Lord Advocate: The principal assurance that I can give is the description that I have already given of the routine precognition processes that are carried out in every High Court case. It is fair to say that this case was wholly exceptional in all sorts of ways—that is the principal answer to Liam McArthur’s question. We have a system of prosecution that has demonstrated robustness, fairness, effectiveness and integrity. This case was a serious falling below the standards that all of us expect of that system, but the very fact that those expectations are so high and that this case has occasioned the justified reaction that it has is a reflection of the high standards that our prosecutors routinely meet, day in and day out, in courts across the country. John Finnie, Green I, too, thank the Lord Advocate for early sight of his statement. This was a serious failure of the system of prosecution, and public confidence in our justice system is vital. Can the Lord Advocate outline what further steps will be taken to reassure a public that might reasonably think, “Wow! If this can happen in such a high-profile case, with all that publicity, what chance do I have against the system?” The Lord Advocate: The f irst reason why the public should have reassurance is the point that I made a moment ago to Liam McArthur, that routinely—day in and day out—our prosecution system operates effectively, robustly and fairly, and it is understood and seen by the public to do so. Prosecutors take decisions that, if taken to court, are tested in the independent court and by the examination and cross-examination skill of those who represent accused persons. So, not only are there protections and reassurances to be taken from the well-justified recognition of the integrity and skill of our public prosecutors, but the public can also have confidence because of the reputation, integrity and skill of the defence bar in testing prosecutions that are brought—and, ultimately, because of our court system, in which any case that is brought to court is tried fairly and independently. James Dornan Scottish National Party Having previously been a precognition officer, I am surprised to see that the lack of precognition appears to have been a major failing in this case. Further to your statement, Lord Advocate, can you give some detail to help provide reassurance that the Crown is, indeed, equipped to deal with complex financial crime going forward? Link to this speechIn context Individually The Lord Advocate: Yes, indeed. The Crown successfully prosecutes thousands of cases every year, including complex financial crime cases. For example, an accused was prosecuted last year in respect of a £12 million Ponzi scheme fraud involving 140 complainers and laundering the proceeds of the crime. He was convicted and imprisoned for 14 years. Serious financial crime cases are dealt with in accordance with the arrangements that I have described for large and complex cases. Those new arrangements, which were put in place in 2018, should give reassurance that such cases will be effectively and properly investigated and prosecuted. In the course of this Parliament, the budget allocation to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service has increased by some 42 per cent. Although that was to deal with a range of pressures on the system, part of that additional budgetary resource has gone to ensure that the new system for the management of large and complex cases can be operated as it is intended to be. Adam Tomkins Conservative What happened was completely indefensible, Lord Advocate. I therefore have a simple question, to which I want an answer: was it incompetence or was it corruption? The Lord Advocate: I have said what I can say about the circumstances. There were significant departures from the normal practices that routinely provide safeguards against what happened in this case. I have made it clear that the admission of liability in this case was not predicated on any individual having subjective malice. I should also say that the investigation that was carried out into the prosecutorial work on the case did not report any criminal conduct to me. Had it done so, I would have taken action. However, should criminal allegations come forward, that does not preclude their being considered and, if appropriate, investigated. I am putting in place arrangements, including the instruction of external senior counsel, so that such a process can happen if that is required. Alex Neil Scottish National Party Do the former Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, Police Scotland and the team of prosecutors who worked on the case agree with the current Lord Advocate’s decision to pay out millions of pounds of public money on the basis that the prosecution was malicious? Is the Lord Advocate’s decision making in this case up to scratch and robust? The Lord Advocate: I have had to take the decision on the civil action that was brought against me. I took that decision following the conclusion of a substantial, lengthy and carefully considered investigation that was undertaken by the legal team, including a team of external counsel instructed on my behalf. That decision fell to me to take, and it is one for which I stand here and account to the Parliament. Bill Kidd Scottish National Party Can the Lord Advocate provide reassurance to victims and witnesses that arrangements have been made so that the settlements that are made will not affect the service that the Crown Office provides? The Lord Advocate: Yes. A moment ago, I reminded members that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance told Parliament last week that arrangements had been made so that the meeting of the settlements would not have an impact on the resource budget of the Crown Office. Indeed, the budget allocation to the Crown Office this year is significantly larger than it was last year. As ever, that, in part, reflects the commitment of the service to supporting victims and witnesses. Neil Findlay Labour The Lord Advocate admits to a malicious prosecution but says that no one showed malice. That takes political doublespeak to a whole new level. Can the Lord Advocate answer these clear questions? Who is responsible for this expensive fiasco? Who is accountable? Where is the money coming from to pay for it? Those are clear questions. Can I have clear answers, please? The Lord Advocate: Yes. I proceeded in addressing the case on the basis of the relevant legal tests. As I explained in my statement, the legal test for malicious prosecution—I appreciate that the wrong has that description—can, in certain circumstances, be met even though no individual had malice in the popular sense of the word. That is the basis on which I accepted liability in this case. In terms of our responsibility, ultimately, in our constitutional arrangements, it is for the Lord Advocate, as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and the investigation of deaths, to answer for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, whether in court—as I do every day in relation to the prosecutions that are brought in my name—or here, in Parliament, as I am doing today. As the current Lord Advocate, it is my constitutional responsibility to answer to the Parliament for what happened at that time. I have said what I can say today about the circumstances, given other pending processes. When it is free to do so, the Crown Office will disclose further information. Gillian Martin Scottish National Party The Lord Advocate has already given quite a lot of detail, but I ask him to outline what additional steps he will take to support public accountability for and understanding of such cases. The Lord Advocate: As I have said, as and when the Crown is free to do so, it will disclose further information about what happened in this case. In particular, it will disclose the basis for the admission of liability. I and the Crown will support a process of inquiry once all related matters have been dealt with. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We have a very brief final question from Graham Simpson. Graham Simpson Conservative Will there be a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry? The Lord Advocate: We will debate a motion in the name of Murdo Fraser on that subject tomorrow. In my statement, I have made it very clear that I and the Crown will support a process of inquiry when all other related matters have been concluded. The ultimate form of such an inquiry will be a matter for determination at the appropriate time.

The Crown Office has confirmed settlements with Clarke and Whitehouse: £10.5million. Each. There was, I seem to recall, a prev ous out of court settlement with Poileas Alba, for wrongful arrests, and incarcerations. There are other cases pending. There should be a full Public Enquiry pending £24m bill for ex-Rangers administrators' legal claim https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55983492 The taxpayer will shell out more than £24m to settle a claim by two men wrongfully arrested during a fraud probe relating to the sale of Rangers. Administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark settled out of court with the Crown Office in December. The Crown Office has now revealed both men were awarded £10.5m damages, while legal costs will be at least £3m. Scotland's most senior law officer has said there was no criminal misconduct in the failed fraud probe. The Lord Advocate James Wolffe will make a statement on the case to Holyrood next week where he is expected to offer a public apology to both men. Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark were appointed administrators when the company that ran the Glasgow club went into administration in 2012. The pair were arrested in 2014 but the Crown has since said the arrests were "malicious". Both men launched a £20m compensation claim over their arrests and the matter was resolved out of court. In a letter to Holyrood's justice committee, Mr Wolffe said Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark received £10.5m in damages each. He explained: "Each of these pursuers was a very high-earning individual, and the settlement figure, in each case, reflected the actual loss which the pursuer was able to demonstrate had been caused to him by the wrongful prosecutions." In addition, £3.08m has been paid out by the Crown Office to cover the former administrators' legal expenses to date but the final liability for these costs has not been calculated. 'Operational effectiveness' There are other civil cases pending against the Lord Advocate arising from the same failed prosecution but these have not been concluded. Mr Wolffe added that "arrangements have been made so that the settlement of these claims will not affect the operational effectiveness" of the Crown Office. Last week, the Court of Session heard how Mr Whitehouse wants to pass on details from the civil case to any future investigations, such as a public inquiry, into the saga. Roddy Dunlop QC, acting for Mr Whitehouse, said the businessman wanted answers about why he was arrested, given that the Crown has since said the arrests were malicious. But the Crown Office said its investigations had "disclosed no criminal conduct" to date.

You may have jinxed him.

They seem to be suffering from sleeping sickness. Clearly catching.

A constipated perfomance. We need some roughage. Or, perhaps, Jimmy Bell dispensing some enemas in the dressing room

You? Or the team?

Sometimes, paranoia is nothing more than seeing what the bastards are up to.

Worthy of Court action, that.

How many rings does this circus have? Way more than the Olympian flag, as far as I can see. Sir David Murray's 'legacy': a dripping roast for spivs, chisellers, barrow boys, corner boys, businessmen, accountants, and lawyers. So many have attended the feast, some more than once, that it is difficult to establish who has had, or will have had, by the end of it (should we live so long), the juiciest slices, and the most gravy. From today's Times: Rangers liquidators seek £57m from administrators James Mulholland Saturday February 06 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rangers-liquidators-seek-57m-from-administrators-n33trqpgq The liquidators of Rangers FC are seeking £57 million from the club’s former administrators who have been accused of failing to properly manage the ailing club’s finances. Lawyers for the financial firm BDO have begun legal action against David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, claiming the pair could have raised more money for creditors after the company which owned the Ibrox club was liquidated. Whitehouse and Clark deny any wrongdoing and are contesting the claim. Kenny McBrearty, QC, for BDO, also told Lord Tyre that he did not find an eight-week hearing using a video conferencing “an appetising prospect”. McBrearty told the judge in an online hearing yesterday that he would prefer the case to be heard in Parliament House, the Edinburgh home of Scotland’s highest civil court. He said that he would rather not cross-examine significant witnesses “who are in the comfort of their own slippers who can nip off to make themselves a cup of tea during the break”. Whitehouse and Clark were appointed by the Court of Session after HMRC took Rangers to court for £18 million of unpaid tax in February 2012. The men went on to sell the business and assets to Charles Green’s consortium for £5.5 million before BDO was appointed to liquidate the old company. The three men were later among seven indicted over fraud allegations relating to Rangers; the case against them was dropped in June 2016. Whitehouse and Clark raised a multimillion-pound action against the police and prosecutors last year. Prosecutors admitted much of the case against them was “malicious” and conducted “without probable cause”. The pair recently received a settlement. BDO launched the present action against the two men in 2017. It issued a statement confirming that it was seeking a £28.9 million payment from the administrators. It added: “During the course of the liquidation questions have arisen regarding the strategy previously adopted by the former administrators, which have not, to date, been adequately answered. In seeking clarity, the joint liquidators have been left with no other option but to pursue the matter via the Scottish court.” In a 2017 statement Whitehouse said he was surprised by the legal move, adding: “In essence, BDO is now alleging that as the former administrators we should have achieved a better return for creditors by selling the clubs assets on a piecemeal basis, including Ibrox and its playing squad. “This is a strategy with which we fundamentally disagree.” In a procedural hearing yesterday Lord Tyre told McBrearty that he understood his position and that there remained some possibility that the action could be heard in a courtroom. Lord Tyre arranged for a further procedural hearing on March 30. The main hearing in the case is expected to start in May.

The vacuous cannot fill a vacuum.

We have to call this out for what it is: chicanery. A quasi-judicial system has been subverted by deceit, by subterfuge, to benefit the interests of one of the subscribers to that system, and to disbenefit the others, in particular, one other. However, it is not "consistency" we require: the referees, the other officials, and the disciplinary process in toto, have all been consistent: decisions have been consistently bad, consistently slanted, and consistently inexplicable to the rational man on the Cessnock Subway. What we need are decisions which are fair, equitable, unbiased. The Trials by Sportscene/Sportsound staff, or by certain SKY or BT employees, are a pernicious plague. Few of these characters are fair, equitable, or unbiased, yet they clearly have influence on the post match, quasi-judicial, disciplinary process: in prosecution, verdict, and sentencing. Throw in the written media and it seems that no player is likely to receive an objective assessment; often he is found either guilty, or innocent, beforehand; consequentially, and equally frequently, this judgement is rubber stamped by the mysterious panel. The whole, strange decision making process is far from fair, or equitable, or free of bias, and apparently depends more upon which team the accused represents than on any other criterion.

A piece from today's Times, below. At face value, it seems that Whitehouse wants a full investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and prosecution. He wants to be able to give evidence to any such inquiry, fully, 'without fear or favour', and without threat of prosecution. (All of which makes a change in Nikla Ceausescu's Scotland.) This could be seen as a move to prevent any Inquiry shutting out vital evidence, on legal technicality. Of course, it assumes that there will such a probe. Speaking from the Lisbon Lions' stand, Gerry Moynihan, QC, attempted to block this by arguing that the civil case (which the Lord Advocate conceded, in full) was settled on the basis that Messrs Whitehouse and Clark had accepted that there was 'no criminality' in the malicious prosecution. Even to a layperson, this does not seem to hold water: an Independent Inquiry might well find that there was criminal intent, or criminal negligence, the agreement between the LA and Whitehouse/Clark being one based on instrumentality, to expedite an apology and a financial settlement. But, hey, let's not hold our breaths. Ex-administrator David Whitehouse wants to share Rangers case files James Mulholland Friday February 05 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-administrator-david-whitehouse-wants-to-share-rangers-case-files-5zmlq2vht A former administrator who sued prosecutors over a “malicious” Rangers fraud investigation has urged judges to let him pass key documents on to any future investigation. Lawyers acting for David Whitehouse, the insolvency expert who was arrested after the deal to buy Rangers out of administration, said there was “every possibility” of a public inquiry after his multimillion-pound civil claim against the Crown and Police Scotland. Whitehouse, one of several executives targeted in a fraud investigation after the Rangers deal nearly ten years ago, has previously described his treatment as “utterly scandalous”. The Court of Session was told yesterday that Whitehouse needed a judge’s permission to pass on information he had gleaned from the civil case to any future investigation. Last year Whitehouse and Paul Clark, his colleague, began a £20.8 million compensation claim against the police and prosecutors over their arrests in an “unlawful” criminal investigation at the Glasgow club. They settled the action for an undisclosed sum. Lawyers acting for the Crown previously admitted that the men were the subject of a “malicious” prosecution. Roddy Dunlop, QC, for Whitehouse, who appeared in court alongside Gerry Moynihan, QC, for the Crown, said that his client believed he could help highlight shortcomings in the prosecution. He told the judge that many commentators had said it was “unimaginable in modern-day Scotland that we could have a prosecution that was both without probable cause and malicious and yet this is exactly what we have here. Mr Whitehouse frankly wants to know why that happened.” He added: “If there is an inquiry, Mr Whitehouse wants to participate fully in that. If there’s not, in any event Mr Whitehouse wants the ability to bring his concerns to the appropriate authorities by way of complaint and demand for investigation into how on earth this happened and who is responsible for it. “In order that he may do that he wants to be able to use the documents he has had sight of and what he doesn’t want to do is find himself in contempt of court in so doing.” Whitehouse and Clark’s actions have stemmed from their alleged treatment by the police and prosecution authorities. The men were appointed administrators of Rangers in February 2012. The club was liquidated in October 2012 and they left their positions. Police then arrested Whitehouse and charged him with offences relating to the takeover of Rangers in 2011 by Craig Whyte, a businessman. The charges were later dropped. Yesterday Moynihan told the court that the lord advocate was committed to properly investigating any claims of wrongdoing but that Whitehouse’s legal action had been concluded on the basis that he accepted there had been no criminality on the part of prosecutors. Moynihan added: “I had understood from [Dunlop] that there was to be no discussion today of any of the merits of this and I’m somewhat disappointed that the dean of faculty [Dunlop] has seen fit to repeat the coverage in the media and to refer to that.” Moynihan said that the information given to Whitehouse came from witness statements and was provided to him on the basis of the civil action. Moynihan said he needed time to speak to the people who gave the statements to see if they objected to Whitehouse’s request to pass the information on. Lord Tyre granted Moynihan 28 days to formulate answers to the documents lodged by Whitehouse and ordered the lord advocate to pay Whitehouse’s legal costs dating from August last year.

Answered yourself, there, guv.

A somewhat acerbic piece from Scottish Legal News, last year, is below. The bar is set incredibly high to prove 'malicious prosecution', yet, in this case, the Crown Office folded, almost immediately, with significant financial and reputational cost to the Scottish judicial system. It is quite clear that there should be an Inquiry, but there seem to be immediate problems, beyond the major obstacle of political will: a. who, in Scotland, could act, and be seen to act independently as convenor of such an investigation? b. in the light of the Salmond Inquiry, how can it be ensured that both evidence itself, and the giving of that evidence, are not optional? c. is it possible, or, indeed, advisable, to constrain the scope of any such Inquiry merely to the Malicious Prosecution, itself, or would it be necessary to establish, at least, a context, by examining pre-Administration history? https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/opinion-alistair-bonnington-on-scotland-s-malicious-prosecution-shame Opinion: Alistair Bonnington on Scotland’s malicious prosecution shame Published 22 October 2020 Alistair Bonnington An astonishing admission was made by Scotand’s Lord Advocate in the Court of Session at the end of August. He conceded that his predecessor’s 2012 prosecution of the two men called in as administrators of Rangers Football Club was malicious. This is a shameful milestone in the legal history of this nation. For as long as anyone can remember, every Scots law student was taught that there never has been, nor ever will be, a successful application to have a Scottish prosecution declared to be malicious. That’s because the test to prove malice is, in law, impossibly high; and in any event, those who hold the ancient Scots office of Lord Advocate would never misuse their constitutional power in that way. But sadly, all of that confidence in the good faith of our prosecution system has now gone. Why has this happened? There was a good deal of disquiet amongst lawyers when the Scotland Act placed the Lord Advocate alongside the Scottish Ministers in the new devolved constitutional setup. It was feared that the vital independence of the Lord Advocate could be compromised, both in fact and in public perception. After all, how can you say that you have an independent prosecution system when the head of it sits in the “Scottish Cabinet” with party politicians? To accord with international norms, the function of prosecution in a democratic state must be independent of politicians. To be blunt, contact with politicians is regarded as a potential form of contamination of the legal function. Given the quality of many of today’s politicians, that fear of contamination is surely justified. In my voting lifetime, politicians have degenerated from being (usually) well meaning people of some principle, to (far too often) self-seeking folk of no principles and limited brainpower. The self-seekers’ principal interest is in how they are perceived in the public eye – with a view to re-election. The truth doesn’t matter at all. They are happy to manipulate or conceal it to their own advantage. Now it would be good to believe that even such low-calibre folk have some morals, and would leave the prosection system alone. But I wonder, in today’s Scottish political landscape, can we be sure? In any case, we incurable romantics who still believe in democracy, must, I believe, occasionally investigate to ensure that our legal system is still uncorrupted by politics. I am concerned that since the SNP have become the government in our nation, a Stalinist approach has been taken to our public life. The state and all its functions are subservient to the interests of the Party. In such an outdated and dictatorial approach to government, subservience often includes the prosecution service. Stalin’s notorious “show trials” were the result in Russia. We now need to learn if the result in Scotland has been political interference with our independent prosecution system. The seeming undue closeness of certain holders of the office of Lord Advocate to SNP politicians has been questioned before by Scots legal commentators. There have been surprising approvals by Lords (correct) Advocate of SNP legislation, which almost any lawyer would say breaches the European Convention. All this raises important constitutional questions for Scotland. Why the then Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, (now a Senator of the College of Justice) acted as he did in 2012 I do not claim to know. But the admission that his prosecution of the two men from Duff and Phelps was malicious, is a watershed moment for the Scottish criminal legal system, which cannot be allowed to pass unexamined. To some degree, that exploration may occur within the current civil proceedings where the two wronged men are claiming many millions from the Lord Advocate (huge interim awards have already been made). But out of court settlement of these proceedings is highly likely. That would leave far too many stones unturned. Even looking only at the cost of this case, the public have a material interest in knowing why, yet again, large sums of taxpayers’ money has been lost in our courts, under the present government. The vital thing to learn now is why, to Scotland’s eternal disgrace, a malicious prosecution was mounted in the first place. Given the current pathetic spectacle of the Salmond Inquiry in Holyrood, it is plain that the Scottish Parliament couldn’t conduct such an inquiry. The only proper method of inquiry would be by a retired senior prosecutor whose independence is guaranteed. It’s sad to have to say so, but that means someone from outside Scotland. Alistair Bonnington former honorary professor (criminal procedure law) Glasgow University