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

[compo 6,075]

No doubt Charles Green and others will be getting some whopping compensation 

[Uilleam 5,395]

13 hours ago, JohnMc said:

When actions are agreed out of court they almost always carry a 'no blame' caveat. Even when it's clear that one side has won and one has lost, when damages have been agreed and they are clear to everyone lawyers always insert a 'this agreement signifies no acceptance of blame etc...'. Clearly the LA and the PF think they have that here, however it seems one the Duff & Phelps team feels they don't. A lot will hinge on that. I suspect the Crown will push very hard for that and a gaging order agreement on the remaining cases still to be agreed. 

There's little doubt in my mind the current LA is choosing his words very carefully. He's not going to admit to 'malice' in the sense that we understand the word while related cases are ongoing and also because he knows it would start a feeding frenzy I suspect he'd rather avoid. Today buys him and everyone involved time. There was no smoking gun, and this will drop down the news agenda while the related cases are dealt with. When it returns to the public eye, well, who knows where we'll all be by then. 

 

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. 

[Uilleam 5,395]

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.”

Edited February 11, 2021 by Uilleam

[Uilleam 5,395]

"Lord Mulholland was lord advocate when the case against Paul Clark and David Whitehouse was brought"

 

Good Lord, the good Lord speaks!

Or, rather, has his man speak for him, which is rarely a good look, to the man on the Cessnock Subway.     

 

He seems, from The Times' report, below,  rather aerated by the current Lord Advocate's statement to Parliament, and by some of the questioning. He sees these as personal attacks, although, it appears, he is not willing to share his thoughts in an open and transparent manner.

However, he does endorse a Public Enquiry (The Times' report, quoting his solicitor, says "the public inquiry", which is an entirely different matter from "a" public inquiry;  Mulholland and his man either know something, or it is a slip of the tongue or a typo. Ah dinna ken, me.)

His statement is quite unambiguous in regard of his support of an investigation, nonetheless.

 

The current Chief Constable, who was not, as far as I recall, the incumbent when the pursuit of Whitehouse, Clarke, Green, Ahmed, Grier et alia, commenced, also supports inquiry into the events.

Whitehouse and Grier, out of court, have trousered up to £75K, each, from the public purse, for wrongful arrests, incarceration, inhuman treatment, and whatnot. 

 

Lord Mulholland rejects ‘false and scandalous’ attacks over Rangers FC case

Craig Paton

Friday February 12 2021, 12.00am, The Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mulholland-rejects-false-and-scandalous-attacks-over-rangers-fc-case-prw8r5s6p

 

Lord Mulholland was lord advocate when the case against Paul Clark and David Whitehouse was brought

 

Scotland’s former lord advocate has broken his silence to push back against “false and scandalous” attacks on him over the malicious prosecution of two Rangers FC administrators.

Paul Clark and David Whitehouse were awarded more than £20 million 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 this week apologised at Holyrood to the two men. The Scottish Conservatives held a debate in parliament calling for a judge-led inquiry into the matter.

 

Lord Mulholland, who was lord advocate at the time of the prosecution, gave a statement through his lawyer. David McKie said: “In light of the unfounded personal attack made on my client in the Scottish parliament on Wednesday, he requires to take the unusual step of responding publicly to the false and scandalous statements made under the protection of parliamentary privilege.”

The statement did not elaborate on which remarks Mulholland considered to have been a personal attack.

 

McKie said Mulholland, who is now a judge, supported calls for an inquiry. These are also supported by Wolffe and by Iain Livingstone, chief constable of Police Scotland.

“He wishes to make it clear that he welcomes the independent public inquiry and it carries his unequivocal support,” Mulholland’s lawyer said. “My client looks forward to participating in its proceedings to the fullest possible extent.

“He believes that the fullest possible degree of transparency is required and strongly supports robust and thorough interrogation of the full facts.

“Given the importance of this matter, and the public interest in a full examination of the circumstances, it is imperative that the remit of any inquiry also specifically extends to the handling of the recent civil case, not least given the sums of public money involved.

“His view is that any inquiry should also include a public and open review of the entirety of the evidence at the time of indictment, and a detailed examination of all of the case’s processes prior to the decision to proceed.”

 

Livingstone backed an inquiry when he appeared before the public audit and post-legislative scrutiny committee at Holyrood yesterday. “I did listen to the debate in the Scottish parliament and heard from the lord advocate and a number of members,” he said.

“I shared the levels of concern that were expressed and I also share what was the will of parliament that the role of Police Scotland would be included with any judicial inquiry that is then established.

“I give my full commitment to participate fully with that, I agree that there should be an inquiry into the circumstances and I give my commitment that the Police Service of Scotland will contribute to and co-operate fully with any inquiry that arises.”

Livingstone said he had authorised a financial settlement for both men, although he was not allowed to say how much it was. “I was able, through my representatives, to engage and make reparation in regard to both Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse within the limits of my authority.

“I’m allowed to settle issues if I think it is legitimate to do so, and I did do it in this case, and that was within my limit, which was £75,000 in respect of each individual. In the interests of full transparency I also authorised a commensurate payment of legal expenses in regard of both individuals.”

[26th of foot 5,825]

I read a piece in yesterday's Times saying Police Scotland have agreed to compensate both Whitehouse and Clark to the tune of £150,000. Wrongful arrest and six days of mistreatment amount to £75,000 each. Of course, like all other compensation in this case, it is us, the Taxpayer who is footing the bill.

[Uilleam 5,395]

Below is Mr Alex Massie from today's ST.

 

"Like Gaul, Scottish football is divided into three" , he says; he should have added that one part behaves with considerable gall, and has done for, oh, most of its existence, I should think. 

Perhaps you know which part I mean.

 

The piece adds little to our understanding, but is another voice looking for a formal Inquiry. 

 

One thing he has missed, and it is, to me, a rather significant point: Whitehouse and Clarke never got to court. The Crown Office capitulated , and this, on a claim of 'malicious prosecution', a charge which is almost never brought, and which requires any pursuer to clear a very high bar, or series of bars. They 'won', not on a balance of probabilities, therefore, but on a higher standard of proof, which adds weight to the case for a full and frank, and independently chaired Public Inquiry. 

 

Alex Massie: The Rangers case should not be a political football

Malicious prosecution of the club’s administrators must be investigated

Alex Massie

Sunday February 14 2021, 12.01am, The Sunday Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-massie-the-rangers-case-should-not-be-a-political-football-5v5gg8fp0

 

Like Gaul, Scottish football is divided into three. Broadly speaking, one third of the country follows the royal blue of Rangers, a further third the green of Celtic, while the final third wishes to have nothing to do with either Glasgow powerhouse. As such, any difficulty endured by either half of the Old Firm is a matter of some satisfaction, and plenty of joy, for as much as two-thirds of those who follow Scottish football.

Neither Rangers nor Celtic make for sympathetic underdogs, which may help to explain why so little attention, comparatively speaking, has been paid to one of the greatest scandals in modern Scottish legal history. It might be further admitted that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, formerly the Duff & Phelps administrators steering Rangers through insolvency and liquidation in 2012, are not necessarily the kind of individuals whose hard-luck stories tug on public heartstrings. But even administrators — even those involved with Rangers — deserve justice.

Instead, Whitehouse and Clark were subjected — for reasons that remain mysterious — to what the lord advocate now concedes was a “malicious prosecution” conducted without anything even approaching “probable cause”. Not a blunder or an oversight or a mere mistake, entered into regrettably but honestly, but rather a deliberate and unconscionable attempt to destroy the livelihoods and lives of two wholly innocent men.

Again, the reasons for this persecution remain swaddled in mystery but the outcome is clear: Whitehouse and Clark have each been awarded £10.5 million in damages as well as £3 million in legal costs. Should the taxman demand his share of the damages awarded, the Scottish government is committed to meeting those costs, too. And since five other related cases are still pending, there is every possibility the final bill to the state for this fiasco could easily roar past £50 million and towards £100 million, the price of a CalMac ferry in old money.

From which you would think that, even in Scotland, someone must be held responsible for what is, by any measure, a grotesque abuse of state power. It says something, however, that such thoughts may be reckoned optimistic.

Speaking in parliament last week Rona Mackay, the SNP member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, accepted the “hugely regrettable” nature of this case but insisted, remarkably, that “we move on and lessons have been learnt”. Doubtless there is a need for a fuller, public and judge-led inquiry but this should not be confused with any sense that any individual has done anything wrong, let alone any expectation that anyone might be held accountable for a fiasco almost everyone agrees is almost unprecedented.

I am not sure that will suffice. Newspapers are not protected by parliamentary privilege so the precise terms in which Conservative MSP Adam Tomkins attacked Frank Mulholland, the former lord advocate responsible for chasing Whitehouse and Clark, cannot prudently be repeated here. Even so, one need not be a lawyer to think it extraordinary that a malicious prosecution can happen almost by accident.

And yet this appears to be the case. According to James Wolffe, the current lord advocate, however the “legal test” for a malicious prosecution” can, in certain circumstances be met even though no individual had malice, in the popular sense of a spiteful motive”. His acceptance of liability “did not depend on any individual being malicious in that popular sense”. Perhaps not, or at least not in a strictly legal sense. But the alternative is scarcely more cheering, for if the Crown Office has not acted maliciously, in the popular sense, it has plainly acted with extraordinary incompetence, again a term used in the popular sense. “Hopelessly inadequate but not motivated by malice” does not seem a watertight defence.

In parliament, Wolffe insisted “the seriousness of what happened in this case should not obscure the truth that, day in and day out, Scotland’s public prosecutors … fulfil their responsibilities with professionalism and skill”. They have, he says, “a justified reputation for fairness, integrity and independence”. Well, yes, doubtless so, but apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?

Since it is a matter of record that Crown Office officials boasted of their determination to “nail the Duff & Phelps people” someone has to be responsible. Rare as this case may be, the suspicion gathers that there is something profoundly wrong within the prosecution service. Incompetence may be preferable to corruption, but the fact that the latter has even been mentioned is proof enough of malaise within the Crown Office.

Remarkably, if revealingly, lawyers for Whitehouse and Clark have claimed that meetings to discuss the case chaired by Mulholland went unminuted. Or, at the very least, any minutes have not been released. If so, if confirmed, that is worth more than a raised eyebrow. Once again, where is the accountability and how could anyone sensibly think that a prudent basis upon which to proceed?

As Scottish politics is as tribal as Scottish football, I imagine some will be tempted to look at Murdo Fraser and Tomkins harrying Wolffe and note that not only are they each supporters of Rangers, they are also — much, much worse than even that — both Tories. This being the case, their anger and their concern may be dismissed as being of little consequence and occasioned by nothing more than the usual partisan spite evident in such matters.

This would, I suggest, be a profound mistake. For this is not in truth a particularly sectarian — in a political sense — scandal. It ought to concern anyone interested in the better governance of the country and anyone who thinks public servants ought to operate within the law. For if the malicious pursuit of Whitehouse and Clark is not a criminal matter, what can be considered such? And if it is a criminal matter, someone must be responsible. Instead, and despite the near unanimity in the legal profession that this is a scandal of shocking dimensions, the government’s line appears to be that, however unfortunate it might have been, there is no sense in which anyone can really be considered responsible for it. How can that possibly be good enough?

@alexmassie

Edited February 14, 2021 by Uilleam

[RANGERRAB 3,252]

I’ve got to admit to being totally undecided in all of this.

Like many of us I was always dubious when whyte got his own administrators, duff & phelps, after Rangers went into administration on that dreadful day nine years ago today. And d&p had allegedly advised whyte during his takeover too.

During administration a pantomime played out over the following weeks with all sorts of characters supposed to be taking over Rangers as well as various bizarre promises which never materialised.

It was no surprise the COPFS were suspicious. Perhaps rightly so. 

And yes the prosecution was screwed up. It was an embarrassment. A complete failure.

Maybe they never found the evidence. Or insufficient evidence. Or they’re just incompetent.

But should the crown office have done nothing at all? What would we have said then?

[Franc Ergs 1,348]

    

 

[Uilleam 5,395]

From today's Times:

A further report on the dripping roast of the Rangers' Administration by one James Mulholland....surely no relation to the erstwhile lord Advocate and  malicious prosecutor of the innocent?

 

Next off the bench, and hoping to bank more than three points,  is David Grier, of Duff and Phelps.

 

The current Lord Advocate, Woolfe, seems to have been, at least, attempting to clear the hospital ba', passed to him by his predecessor, Mulholland. While failing, and  falling short of the Goldson Standard, he has yet to be classed alongside the Bogside Baresi. The learned referee, Lord Tyre, while declaring that there was no reasonable cause to tackle Grier, suggests that VAR is required to determine whether this prosecution of Grier, of Duff and Phelps, was actually 'malicious'. 

 

We await the second leg. 

 

Grier seeks a modest £5M from the Crown Office, and £2 from Poileas Alba (plus fees and expenses) for the usual reasons. 

 

‘No reason’ to charge Grier in Rangers case

James Mulholland

Wednesday February 17 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-reason-to-charge-grier-in-rangers-case-9nsp7vgh0

 

A judge has concluded that there was no “probable cause” to prosecute a business expert for his alleged role in the sale of Rangers football club, paving the way for him to pursue a compensation claim.

Lord Tyre ruled that prosecutors had no legal basis to bring David Grier to court after an investigation into business activities at the club.

Grier, 58, managing director at the multinational business services company Duff & Phelps, was acting as administrator of the club when he was arrested. He was cleared during an investigation into how Craig Whyte, a businessman, bought the Glasgow club.

 

Lawyers acting for James Wolffe, QC, Scotland’s lord advocate, had argued that Grier’s £5 million compensation bid should be dismissed and claimed prosecutors were entitled to conclude that Grier was guilty of wrongdoing during the business deal.

 

However, Tyre’s decision allows the latest compensation claim connected to the scandal to continue. In a written judgment issued at the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday, Tyre wrote that there was no “reasonable cause” to prosecute Grier.

 

However, the judge said that Grier’s legal team still had to prove at a hearing later this year that the prosecution against their client was conducted maliciously.

 

Grier is suing the lord advocate, claiming that prosecutors had no evidence to justify him being arrested and charged.

He is also suing the chief constable of Police Scotland for acting unlawfully when he was arrested during an investigation into wrongdoing at Rangers. He is seeking £2 million in damages from the force. The legal actions stem from a police investigation surrounding Rangers’ financial position during the past decade and the sale of the club to Whyte.

 

The cases brought by Grier come after admissions made by the Crown in another case brought by two businessmen, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark. Prosecutors admitted that the pair were wrongfully arrested and charged. The men later received a settlement of £10.5 million each. Their legal costs, thought to total £3 million, were also paid.

 

Grier said: “I welcome Lord Tyre’s clear and comprehensive judgment. He has confirmed what I have known from the very beginning — that there was never a proper basis to prosecute me.

“The focus of the court case now moves to consider the issue of malice . . . In a number of related actions the Crown has already conceded the prosecution was malicious.”

 

[compo 6,075]

I hope they all win their corner and get outrageous compensation