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

[the gunslinger 3,366]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Am I the only one who's sick of hearing about D&P, BDO, the Crown office and the rest of them scrabbling after ridiculous sums of money on the back of the rape of Rangers?

no not just you 

[Uilleam 5,948]

Here's a coincidence (for those not too scunnered).

 

The new, or imminent, Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, was involved in the original malicious prosecutions of our friends from Duff and Phelps.

"Bain was appointed" -it is not clear by whom, presumably the defence, or, perhaps, even the Court- "to resolve a row over documents seized during a raid of Duff & Phelps’s offices in August 2013."

She provided an opinion which rubbished a major plank of the Crown's case, and criticised three members of the prosecution about their understanding of the Law of Scotland.  The Bench seems to have concurred. 

I suppose that this only strengthens the case for an Inquiry, and for the absolute independence of that investigation from the Crown Office.

 

 

Rangers prosecutors failed to understand Scots law, says legal chief

Mark McLaughlin

Monday June 21 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rangers-prosecutors-failed-to-understand-scots-law-says-legal-chief-zvl7xmdzs

 

Scotland’s most senior law officer was highly critical of prosecutors involved in the “malicious prosecution” of Rangers FC’s administrators, saying they did not appear to understand Scots law.

Dorothy Bain, who was announced as Scotland’s new lord advocate last week, previously assisted lawyers representing David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, who were wrongfully accused of offences relating to the takeover of Rangers FC by the businessman Craig Whyte.

 

Bain was appointed to resolve a row over documents seized during a raid of Duff & Phelps’s offices in August 2013.

Duff & Phelps said the documents “contained legally privileged materials” that could not be inspected by police and demanded their return.

Crown Office prosecutors wrongly insisted the law of legal privilege was different in Scotland and gave police permission to arrest Whitehouse and Clark and view the documents, until Bain secured a bill of suspension and a review of the police search warrant.

 

(...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................)

 

Bain submitted an affidavit to the Court of Session in 2019 in Clark’s civil case against Police Scotland and the previous lord advocate.

She was highly critical of Jim Keegan QC, the advocate deputy in the case, Helen Nisbet, deputy head of the serious and organised crime division, and Sally Clark, a senior procurator fiscal in the Crown Office’s economic crime unit.

Bain said the trio did not appear to understand the law of legal privilege in Scotland in their efforts to authorise an inspection of the seized documents.

She found “deficiencies in the originating search warrant and the failure on the part of the police to take steps to protect privileged material”.

In the affidavit, Bain said: “I was surprised at the time that Ms Clark and Ms Nisbet thought that the issue of legal privilege could be resolved by the police reviewing the materials. . . Ms Clark and Ms Nisbet were adamant that the police could review the material, and that the law on privilege was different in Scotland than in England.”

Keegan rejected Bain’s insistence that the documents were privileged and backed Clark and Nisbet’s view that “the rules on privilege were different in Scotland than they were in England”.

Bain said the pair “had not fully grasped the importance of legal privilege”.

Judge Lady Dorrian ordered the police to return the documents to Duff & Phelps and requested a report from the sheriff who granted the warrant.

 

Russell Findlay, Scottish Conservative community safety spokesman, said her involvement meant she must recuse herself from further investigation. He said: “This would also preclude her from consideration of the associated criminal allegations made by Mr Whitehouse.”

 

Nicola Sturgeon said “there is an argument” for external scrutiny on Thursday but refused to prejudge the remit of the inquiry.

 

A Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service spokesman said: “The previous lord advocate, James Wolffe QC, made a statement in the Scottish parliament and committed the Crown to further public accountability and a process of inquiry once all litigation has concluded.”

[Uilleam 5,948]

SNP ministers spent £1m in legal fees over Rangers collapse

 

A Cool Million.

Or Day of the Locust.

 

Whichever, it's only the Public Pound.

 

SNP ministers spent £1m in legal fees over Rangers collapse

By Tom Gordon  @HTScotPolScottish Political Editor

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/19420874.snp-ministers-spent-1m-legal-fees-rangers-collapse/

 

SNP ministers spent more than £1m of public money on legal advice relating to the collapse of Rangers Football Club, it has emerged.

The Scottish Government today published a breakdown of all the occasions in the last five years in which it had spent more than £50,000 on external legal fees.

The final bill for the 26 cases came to just over £5.8m.

The costs included £510,224 and £427,061 spent on fees related to Rangers administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark respectively.

The men, who worked for Duff and Phelps, were appointed administrators when Rangers went broke in 2012.

The pair were arrested in 2014, but fraud charges against them were later dropped.

They were awarded £10.5m each in damages after settling out of court with the Crown Office last December after complaining of a "malicious prosecution".

The Scottish Government also spent £72,002 spent in relation to business consultant David Grier, who was also arrested in 2014 over the Rangers administration.

Acquitted of all charges, he is now suing the Lord Advocate, the head of the prosecution services, and Police Scotland for £7m over claims he was wrongfully arrested. 

 

Other figures released under freedom of information show the Scottish Government also spent £363,524 on legal advice in a dispute with Donald Trump’s business empire.

Trump International Golf Club was in dispute with the Government over the siting of a wind farm off the coast of his Aberdeenshire golf course.

The biggest bill identified was for legal advice related to “Agricultural Holdings Landlord’s Claims” for £825,949, followed by £633,273 for “Employment law - procedures advice”.

A fight against the Scotch Whisky Association, which unsuccessfully opposed minimum unit pricing for alcohol, cost £493,928, while a courtroom battle against the Christian Institute, which deafeated the Government over its ‘named person’ scheme, cost £482,266.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by Uilleam

[Gonzo79 15,294]

18 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

A fight against the Scotch Whisky Association, which unsuccessfully opposed minimum unit pricing for alcohol, cost £493,928, while a courtroom battle against the Christian Institute, which deafeated the Government over its ‘named person’ scheme, cost £482,266.

The SNP opposing whisky and parental rights - how distinctly un-Scottish of them.

 

20 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

SNP ministers spent more than £1m of public money on legal advice relating to the collapse of Rangers Football Club, it has emerged.

[bmck 117]

Shows two things: a) despite all our experience in the Union, we can’t do separation of powers properly and informally, the most fundamental aspect of democracy, b) point a) is useless because it’s not an accident, it’s consistent with the inherent working out of nationalist government. Suddenly the executive branch, the legal system and the police are one thing, beyond just the application of laws. We have such a rich legal tradition too. Had. 

Edited July 11, 2021 by bmck

[Uilleam 5,948]

 

2 hours ago, bmck said:

Shows two things: a) despite all our experience in the Union, we can’t do separation of powers properly and informally, the most fundamental aspect of democracy, b) point a) is useless because it’s not an accident, it’s consistent with the inherent working out of nationalist government. Suddenly the executive branch, the legal system and the police are one thing, beyond just the application of laws. We have such a rich legal tradition too. Had. 

"A classic warning sign is when people who have great power are above the law, when the laws don't apply to them. That is a classic case of tyranny and people call it out as a violation of the rule of law. When laws or the law making process are not transparent, when courts don't function efficiently, when people don't trust the police, these are all areas where there would be a problem with the rule of law"....

(Professor Susan Hirsch, USA)

 

People tie themselves in knots about vaccinations, lock downs, and masks, and meanwhile........

Edited July 11, 2021 by Uilleam

[Uilleam 5,948]

The -very- new Lord Advocate has stepped aside from further involvement in legal cases and actions related to Rangers' administration, neatly, and, probably quite scrupulously and fairly, handing the hot potato, or, since this is a fitba' forum, giving the hospital ba', to the equally

-very- new Solicitor General. 

 

Of note:

"Arrangements have also been put in place to ensure that any allegations of criminal conduct in relation to these cases will be considered fairly and objectively, including the appointment of external senior counsel with no previous involvement."

 

“The solicitor-general for Scotland, Ruth Charteris QC, will now issue instructions to the independent legal team and senior counsel advising on these cases."

These, I take it are the lawyers who have already cost us c£1M in fees, disbursements, and expenses. A roast which continues to drip, too. 

 

 

Lord advocate Dorothy Bain recuses herself from Rangers administration cases

Daniel Harkins

Tuesday July 20 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lord-advocate-dorothy-bain-recuses-herself-from-rangers-administration-cases-gm98cxzn0

 

Dorothy Bain QC had previously acted for solicitors who worked for Duff & Phelps, the Rangers administrators

 

Scotland’s new lord advocate has recused herself from further involvement in litigation relating to the collapse of Rangers FC over conflict of interest concerns.

Dorothy Bain QC was appointed Scotland’s most senior law officer in June. Her predecessor, James Wolffe QC, had been forced to apologise to several people involved in the administration of the football club after they were wrongfully prosecuted.

David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, who worked for the firm Duff & Phelps, were appointed joint administrators of Rangers in 2012. They were arrested in 2014.

They were awarded more than £20 million after charges brought against them were dropped or dismissed.

 

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said that on her appointment Bain had “raised the issue of a perceived conflict of interest as she had previously acted for a firm of solicitors who represented the corporate entity, Duff and Phelps”.

It said that she had “recused herself from further involvement in related matters”.

 

Its statement added: “The solicitor-general for Scotland, Ruth Charteris QC, will now issue instructions to the independent legal team and senior counsel advising on these cases.

“Arrangements have also been put in place to ensure that any allegations of criminal conduct in relation to these cases will be considered fairly and objectively, including the appointment of external senior counsel with no previous involvement.

“The lord advocate has written to the convenor of the [Holyrood] criminal justice committee to advise them of the new arrangements.”

 

Nicola Sturgeon has previously backed calls for an inquiry into the prosecutions fiasco, once outstanding legal proceedings have concluded.

 

Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative shadow community safety minister, said: “It is welcome that the lord advocate has agreed to recuse herself from future involvement in the Rangers malicious prosecution scandal after I raised concerns about her previous involvement in the case.

“It is also quite proper that she will also take no role in consideration of any possible criminal prosecutions.”

[ian1964 10,724]

 

[CammyF 8,131]

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

 

There must be a completely independent inquiry into this whole affair as a matter of urgency

 

[Bill 13,717]

25 minutes ago, CammyF said:

There must be a completely independent inquiry into this whole affair as a matter of urgency

 

There are no independent enquiries in Scotland. That's the whole point.