Ex-Rangers administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark in £21m settlement

[Uilleam 5,409]

Continued.....

Hardly a cliff hanger, mind, when the only thing in peril is the Public Purse.

 

I suppose that there are some professional reputations, such as they are, on the line, too, but its hard to defend highly paid incompetence, or worse, even -perhaps especially- when you are a highly paid incompetent, or worse. 

 

 

Rangers charges not fit to be in court, lawyer argues

James Mulholland

Wednesday March 10 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rangers-charges-not-fit-to-be-in-court-lawyer-argues-mrgmmprfd

 

Prosecutors in charge of a botched Rangers fraud investigation did not prepare a case “fit” to be brought to court, a senior judge was told yesterday.

The Crown Office’s belief that David Grier, a financial administrator, was involved in wrongdoing failed all legal tests, Andrew Smith QC told Lord Tyre at a Court of Session hearing.

Grier, of Duff & Phelps, was one of several men arrested during an inquiry into the sale of the Ibrox club to Craig Whyte. He and his co-accused were brought to court but acquitted after Lord Bannatyne ruled that the prosecutors’ claims lacked evidence.

 

Grier is suing the lord advocate, James Wolffe QC, for £5 million.

He is also suing Iain Livingston, the chief constable of Police Scotland, and seeking £2 million from the force.

 

Smith, who is acting for Grier, said that Scotland’s prosecution service acted unlawfully at all stages.

In a judgment last month Tyre said Grier’s lawyers were correct to believe there was no “reasonable cause” to prosecute their client. Yesterday’s hearing was to try to establish whether Tyre’s judgment applied from Grier’s first appearance on petition or from when the case arrived at the high court.

Gerry Moynihan QC, for the lord advocate, said that prosecutors were entitled to bring accused people to court and asked Tyre to reject Smith’s request and to consider the matter at a full hearing next month. Tyre told the lawyers that he would issue his decision shortly.

 

[Bill 13,717]

Scotland is a corrupt shithole now but can you imagine it after independence and these rats have full control of the ship?

[compo 6,108]

26 minutes ago, Bill said:

Scotland is a corrupt shithole now but can you imagine it after independence and these rats have full control of the ship?

It would be like a mini Russia substitute Putin for Sturgeon with political allies getting favour  at every turn round 

[Uilleam 5,409]

Who prosecutes the prosecutor?

 

"Whitehouse has returned to court because the law states that people who wish to use documents recovered in civil actions need to have a judge’s permission to make them available in other actions.

The minute lodged by Whitehouse seeks to use the documents to report any suspected breaches of regulations, misconduct to public authorities or for co-operating in investigations or inquiries."

 

 

 

Lord advocate ‘must not mark own homework’ on failed Rangers prosecution

James Mulholland

Monday March 15 2021, 5.00pm, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lord-advocate-must-not-mark-own-homework-on-failed-rangers-prosecution-dshw2jr33

 

The lord advocate must not be allowed to “mark his own homework” over the failed Rangers FC fraud prosecution in which compensation worth more than £20 million was paid to those who were wrongly arrested, a court has heard.

Roddy Dunlop QC said that his client David Whitehouse, one of the administrators when the club entered liquidation, should also be allowed to hand over crucial documents that he believes will help him make a complaint against Police Scotland and the Crown Office for subjecting him to “a malicious and without probable cause prosecution”.

The documents were recovered during a successful civil action against those authorities and Whitehouse argues they reveal how the investigation into him and six other men was unlawful.

 

Whitehouse and Paul Clark were awarded £10.5 million each after charges brought against them in their 2014 indictment were dropped or dismissed. After they were cleared they pursued a civil action against the Crown Office and Police Scotland.

James Wolffe QC, the present lord advocate, admitted liability last year and apologised at Holyrood to the two men last month.

 

Dunlop, acting for Whitehouse, said the documents may assist an upcoming judge-led public inquiry into the debacle and may highlight concerns in Wolffe’s claim that there was no evidence of criminality in the investigation.

Dunlop said: “The background to this case is clear and I’m not going to rehearse it again. But we have an unprecedented situation where Messrs Whitehouse and Clark were, as has been admitted, prosecuted maliciously and without probable cause.

“Mr Whitehouse has a justified concern . . . that it has already been determined that there is no evidence of criminality. Now, Mr Whitehouse is entitled to raise the query: ‘how can that be’? Misconduct in public office is a crime under the common law of Scotland and one might have thought that a malicious prosecution would at least prima facie qualify as misconduct in public office.

“So this is not something that is ephemeral, made up or illusory. This is a real. It is a real concern on the part of Mr Whitehouse that it is something that is worthy of investigation.

“One is thinking about — as has been put by others in the Scottish parliament — how appropriate is it for the lord advocate to mark his own homework, as it were, simply to declare that there has been no criminality when it’s the Crown Office itself that has admitted the malicious prosecution?

“Mr Whitehouse wants, and in my submission is entitled, to have this explored independently.”

 

The legal action stems from a police inquiry surrounding Rangers’s financial position during the last decade and the sale of the club to the businessman Craig Whyte.

Prosecutors admitted that Whitehouse and Clark were wrongfully arrested and charged. Both men later received their financial settlement while their legal costs, which were thought to total £3 million, were also paid.

Charles Green, the former Rangers chief executive, was also told that he was able to receive damages after the Crown admitted it had conducted a “malicious” prosecution against him.

In another legal action, David Grier, a business expert, is suing the lord advocate and Police Scotland for a total of £7 million. He was also arrested during the investigation and cleared.

In an earlier judgement, Lord Tyre also ruled that prosecutors pursued their case against Grier without “probable cause”. The full hearing in this matter is set to take place next month.

 

Whitehouse has returned to court because the law states that people who wish to use documents recovered in civil actions need to have a judge’s permission to make them available in other actions.

The minute lodged by Whitehouse seeks to use the documents to report any suspected breaches of regulations, misconduct to public authorities or for co-operating in investigations or inquiries.

 

Dunlop told the court that his client wished the documents he recovered during the litigation to be used in a public inquiry.

He added: “What Mr Whitehouse wants to do is to be able to use the documents which are now substantial and which took an awful lot of time and an awful lot of money to recover.

“He wants to use them in order to effectively do three things: he wants to be able to make a complaint to the relevant authorities that he was subjected to a malicious and without probable cause prosecution. He wants to be able to co-operate with any investigation which may ensue and he wants to be able to fully co-operate with the judge-led public inquiry which would appear to be in the offing having been announced by the lord advocate to the Scottish parliament on [February 9 2021].”

 

The court heard that the judge Lord Mulholland, who was the lord advocate during the investigation, had no objection to Whitehouse’s request.

 

Lawyers acting for Crown Office officials previously told Lord Tyre that they opposed granting permission for the documents to be passed onto an inquiry at this stage.

 

Lord Tyre said he would issue his judgment in the matter sometime soon.

[compo 6,108]

You may get compensation from the crown if the prosecutor makes a balls up but for them to be prosecuted well prepare yourself for a long wait. 

[Bluedell 5,329]

 

 

[Uilleam 5,409]

So Mrs Wolffe,  gave advice (Opinion, I assume) on the matter of TicketUs, a Civil case, to Clarke and Whitehouse (Duff and Phelps) as Administrators of Rangers, in 2012. 

Is there a problem here? Mrs Wolffe, as a practising Advocate, would have uttered hundreds of Opinions on matters various. Is the fact that she advised D&P, in a Civil matter, in any way significant? Should Mr Wolffe have to check his wife's files for every case, on the off chance that she had represented the defendant(s) or offered advice to them? Would there be the matter of privileged information to consider, also, particularly if one wished to demonstrate the relevance of that past advice to a current case?

Or am I missing something?

What I am missing is what Mr Wolffe was doing between 2010 and 2016. From the potted biography, it seems that he was an Advocate Depute, in the Crown Office, until 2010, and he became Lord Advocate in 2016. A lacuna, as they say in legal circles. 

What would be interesting to know,  is whether, in this time,  Mr Wolffe was involved, in any way, in the malicious prosecution of Clarke and Whitehouse, under Lord Advocate Mulholland. Wolffe was very quick to fold his hand, when called by them. 

 

The fact that Mrs Wolffe, by then a Judge, was slated to preside over a case in which Clarke and Whitehouse pursued Mr Wolffe, by then Lord Advocate, is totally ludicrous, and worthy of Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan, whose audience would laugh at it. 

However, it reads as, at least vaguely, sinister, and should not have happened. Fortunately, it was headed off at the pass. 

 

We still need a thorough, formal,  investigation. 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Uilleam

[Scott7 5,135]

6 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

he was an Advocate Depute, in the Crown Office, until 2010, and he became Lord Advocate in 2016. A lacuna, as they say in legal circles. 

Back to private practice, mibbees?

[Uilleam 5,409]

1 minute ago, Scott7 said:

Back to private practice, mibbees?

Gamekeeper turned poacher turned gamekeeper? Maybe 'widening his experience' having been marked for future preferment?

 

Academia?  Your guess is as good as mine. 

 

He may have been in a promoted post within CO&PFS ie somewhere between the LA and the Advocates Depute. 

I suspect it more likely that he would have been promoted from within, after Mulholland was raised to the Bench.  

 

[Bluedell 5,329]

33 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

The fact that Mrs Wolffe, by then a Judge, was slated to preside over a case in which Clarke and Whitehouse pursued Mr Wolffe, by then Lord Advocate, is totally ludicrous, and worthy of Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan, whose audience would laugh at it. 

However, it reads as, at least vaguely, sinister, and should not have happened. Fortunately, it was headed off at the pass. 

So you're saying that the tweets that I posted aren't really of any relevance?

 

I haven't looked at any of this in any detail (for the good of my blood pressure), so appreciate the views of someone who has.