'Wrongful arrest of ex-Rangers administrators costs Scottish taxpayers £24 million' [Archive]

RyeSloan

08-02-2021, 08:48 PM

£24m bill for ex-Rangers administrators' legal claim - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55983492)

What a mess. You'd think the Lord Advocate would have to consider his position.

Seems absurd that this amount of money can be lost due to a malicious and unfounded investigation and yet no one seems to be on the hook for the Crown openly admitting that’s what it did.

They knew they had no grounds for prosecution but did it anyway, apparently out of some sort of spite and because they could.

Which would appear to be a total abuse of power that fundamentally undermines their authority yet it seems to have caused very little reaction.

These guys had the money and power to protect themselves...how many have not when they have suffered the same fate?

Maybe when he rocks up to Parliament our elected representatives might stand up and protect the integrity of our legal system and demand the appropriate resignations and full investigation that’s needed?

One Day Soon

08-02-2021, 09:08 PM

Seems absurd that this amount of money can be lost due to a malicious and unfounded investigation and yet no one seems to be on the hook for the Crown openly admitting that’s what it did.

They knew they had no grounds for prosecution but did it anyway, apparently out of some sort of spite and because they could.

Which would appear to be a total abuse of power that fundamentally undermines their authority yet it seems to have caused very little reaction.

These guys had the money and power to protect themselves...how many have not when they have suffered the same fate?

Maybe when he rocks up to Parliament our elected representatives might stand up and protect the integrity of our legal system and demand the appropriate resignations and full investigation that’s needed?

'Abuse of power' you say? Why does that seem very familiar?

And remember, admitting to a malicious prosecution goes way, way beyond having cocked it up. Malicious means deliberate and without good reason.

Smartie

08-02-2021, 09:24 PM

Who would want to bring about this malicious act and why?

One Day Soon

08-02-2021, 10:54 PM

Who would want to bring about this malicious act and why?

A perfect framing of the question which needs to be answered.

G B Young

09-02-2021, 08:37 AM

Who would want to bring about this malicious act and why?

Iain Macwhirter: Like a fish, Scotland's Crown Office is rotting from the head down | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19034561.iain-macwhirter-like-fish-scotlands-crown-office-rotting-head/)

This article has been posted on one of the Holy Ground threads before, but re-reading it just now, the following paragraphs stand out in relation to your question:

Another reason, perhaps, why the case has not cut through is public confusion over the role of the Lord Advocate. He is not, as some people assume, a judge or a member of the independent judiciary. He is a political appointee, a minister in Nicola Sturgeon’s Government, who acts as the Government’s own lawyer as well as being head of the prosecution service, the Crown Office.

The former SNP Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has called for Wolffe to resign forthwith, and for these twin roles to be separated, so that there is no longer this potential for political interference. There is surely a conflict of interest in being a creature of the First Minister of Scotland as well as head of the Scottish prosecution service. This is all the more problematic because of other legal scandals in which politics and the law have become explosively intertwined.

There are disturbing parallels between the pursuit of Clark and Whitehouse and the reckless behaviour of the Scottish Government in pursuing the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, through the courts.

Keith_M

09-02-2021, 08:59 AM

...
There are disturbing parallels between the pursuit of Clark and Whitehouse and the reckless behaviour of the Scottish Government in pursuing the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, through the courts.

I'll be accused of bias, I suppose, but I don't really see that parallel.

Some women came forward and made claims of sexual harassment against Salmond and this was taken to court.

What does he suggest should be done in this situation?

:confused:

G B Young

09-02-2021, 12:02 PM

I'll be accused of bias, I suppose, but I don't really see that parallel.

Some women came forward and made claims of sexual harassment against Salmond and this was taken to court.

What does he suggest should be done in this situation?

:confused:

If I'm reading the article correctly, the implication is that the case should never have come to court and the backdrop to it doing so was the botched civil service inquiry into Salmond ie as MacWhirter suggests, it mirrors the messaging in the Rangers case of the "need to nail these guys" and points to a "culture of collusion and cover-up where prosecutors and senior politicians are in an incestuous embrace".

Keith_M

09-02-2021, 12:32 PM

If I'm reading the article correctly, the implication is that the case should never have come to court and the backdrop to it doing so was the botched civil service inquiry into Salmond ie as MacWhirter suggests, it mirrors the messaging in the Rangers case of the "need to nail these guys" and points to a "culture of collusion and cover-up where prosecutors and senior politicians are in an incestuous embrace".

But a number of women made accusations of sexual impropriety against Salmond. I honestly can't see how that wouldn't go to court.

p.s. Apologies if I come across as being argumentative towards you, GBY, I realise you're just doing your best to explain the situation

G B Young

09-02-2021, 02:11 PM

But a number of women made accusations of sexual impropriety against Salmond. I honestly can't see how that wouldn't go to court.

p.s. Apologies if I come across as being argumentative towards you, GBY, I realise you're just doing your best to explain the situation

Again, based only on what Iain MacWhirter is alleging in that article, if (as has now been acknowledged by the Lord Advocate) the Rangers administrators can be arrested and prosecuted on the basis of nothing more than malice, did that Salmond case come to court as a result of something more shady than simply women coming forward to make accusations against him? ie was it fuelled by a legacy of frustration in certain quarters that he wasn't 'nailed' by the ham-fisted Leslie Evans-led inquiry?

The charges he faced ranged from those that (I think it would be fair to say) seemed a bit lecherous to some which were of eye-popping gravity. However, the fact a female-led jury acquitted him of all charges (one, IIRC, was 'not proven') in relatively quick time did pose questions of how strong the prosecution's case actually was.

Up until now I've been surprised by the rigour with which Salmond has continued to pursue this issue having walked free from court (he did imply he would have his revenge when the time was right, mind you), but that Herald article has given me pause for thought about the culture within our prosecution service.

Ozyhibby

10-02-2021, 07:54 AM

Again, based only on what Iain MacWhirter is alleging in that article, if (as has now been acknowledged by the Lord Advocate) the Rangers administrators can be arrested and prosecuted on the basis of nothing more than malice, did that Salmond case come to court as a result of something more shady than simply women coming forward to make accusations against him? ie was it fuelled by a legacy of frustration in certain quarters that he wasn't 'nailed' by the ham-fisted Leslie Evans-led inquiry?

The charges he faced ranged from those that (I think it would be fair to say) seemed a bit lecherous to some which were of eye-popping gravity. However, the fact a female-led jury acquitted him of all charges (one, IIRC, was 'not proven') in relatively quick time did pose questions of how strong the prosecution's case actually was.

Up until now I've been surprised by the rigour with which Salmond has continued to pursue this issue having walked free from court (he did imply he would have his revenge when the time was right, mind you), but that Herald article has given me pause for thought about the culture within our prosecution service.

There should be a full inquiry into what happened in this Rangers case. Saying sorry just doesn’t cut it here. When they admit that they were prosecuted with malice then I think the public deserves to know exactly what happened and who was responsible.
Not sure why it links to the Salmond case other than it undermines faith in all cases until we know what happened?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-56002066?__twitter_impression=true

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keith_M

10-02-2021, 08:21 AM

...
Not sure why it links to the Salmond case ...

Because the usual suspects hijacked yet another thread to make a petty dig...

:rolleyes:

G B Young

10-02-2021, 09:19 AM

There should be a full inquiry into what happened in this Rangers case. Saying sorry just doesn’t cut it here. When they admit that they were prosecuted with malice then I think the public deserves to know exactly what happened and who was responsible.
Not sure why it links to the Salmond case other than it undermines faith in all cases until we know what happened?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-56002066?__twitter_impression=true

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's only Iain MacWhirter who has expressly made that link, but he's one of the few Scottish journalists I still keep tabs on - and as he points out in that article the Herald's pursuit of the Rangers story and their determination to bring the depth of the scandal to the fore was impressive.

I don't have a Herald account to access the full text of this, but he seems to be hinting today that the Salmond story is a similarly 'epic scandal':

SNP row: Sturgeon: Salmond inquiry failed to scratch the surface of an epic scandal | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19077323.snp-row-sturgeon-salmond-inquiry-failed-scratch-surface-epic-scandal/)

Ozyhibby

10-02-2021, 09:22 AM

It's only Iain MacWhirter who has expressly made that link, but he's one of the few Scottish journalists I still keep tabs on - and as he points out in that article the Herald's pursuit of the Rangers story and their determination to bring the depth of the scandal to the fore was impressive.

I don't have a Herald account to access the full text of this, but he seems to be hinting today that the Salmond story is a similarly 'epic scandal':

SNP row: Sturgeon: Salmond inquiry failed to scratch the surface of an epic scandal | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19077323.snp-row-sturgeon-salmond-inquiry-failed-scratch-surface-epic-scandal/)

When it comes to the Rangers scandal, no media outlet has been anything more than mediocre.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ozyhibby

10-02-2021, 05:03 PM

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/lord-advocate-agrees-rangers-malicious-prosecution-should-be-investigated-3130929

Inquiry on the way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

G B Young

10-02-2021, 09:58 PM

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/lord-advocate-agrees-rangers-malicious-prosecution-should-be-investigated-3130929

Inquiry on the way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBC pushing the prospect of a judge from outwith Scotland higher up the story. Seems like a good idea to me. It would help to dilute to some extent the perception of an anti-Rangers agenda at the heart of this scandal. The fact that this is being mooted underlines what an unpleasant blight on Scotland Celtic and Rangers - and the influence they exert - can be.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56014280

It also appears that former Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland (now a High Court judge I see) is the one with more questions to answer than his successor.

Ozyhibby

10-02-2021, 10:08 PM

BBC pushing the prospect of a judge from outwith Scotland higher up the story. Seems like a good idea to me. It would help to dilute to some extent the perception of an anti-Rangers agenda at the heart of this scandal. The fact that this is being mooted underlines what an unpleasant blight on Scotland Celtic and Rangers - and the influence they exert - can be.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56014280

It also appears that former Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland (now a High Court judge I see) is the one with more questions to answer than his successor.

I’m not sure it’s an anti agenda at the heart of this?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keith_M

11-02-2021, 12:24 PM

I’m not sure it’s an anti agenda at the heart of this?
...

I agree with that, as I'd be very surprised if anybody involved in pursuing this had an anti-Rangers agenda, but I think GBY's proposal of an independent, non-Scottish enquiry would be a good way to allay any suspicions of the (incredibly paranoid) legions of Rangers fans.

G B Young

16-02-2021, 06:43 PM

A few more million quid for the taxpayer to stump up I imagine:

Judge says case against ex-Rangers advisor David Grier not fit for court - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56089329)

Bishop Hibee

16-02-2021, 06:47 PM

ronaldo7

16-02-2021, 06:59 PM

McD

16-02-2021, 07:16 PM

The idea that any country would bring in a judge from another country is absolutely bizarre. I don't believe our legal system is in such a state that judges cannot be independent of either side of the OF.

I'd agree with you, however you and I don’t generally view the world through the twisted, persecution driven, everyone-is-out-to-get-us, warped lens of old firm fans, of either persuasion, so the powers that be may feel finding someone outwith may be a better option.

RyeSloan

16-02-2021, 07:25 PM

The idea that any country would bring in a judge from another country is absolutely bizarre. I don't believe our legal system is in such a state that judges cannot be independent of either side of the OF.

It’s got nothing to do with the Old Firm really.

And when the main perpetrators are the the Crown prosecution service and the main figure in there at the time is now a judge himself it’s quite easy to see why an outsider might well be a good idea.

And that’s before you even start to speculate just how independent the judiciary are from the Crown Office.

RyeSloan

16-02-2021, 07:32 PM

A few more million quid for the taxpayer to stump up I imagine:

Judge says case against ex-Rangers advisor David Grier not fit for court - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56089329)

The Lord Advocate seemingly has no qualms in spending more public money defending the indefensible..an absolute blistering judgement against them again.

Hard to see how the next case will end any different. If there was such a disparaging lack of evidence to take the case to court in the first place then it seems highly likely the decision to do so wasn’t based on anything apart from the same source of malice that the other two suffered from.

CMurdoch

18-02-2021, 03:32 PM

£24m bill for ex-Rangers administrators' legal claim - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55983492)

What a mess. You'd think the Lord Advocate would have to consider his position.

£24 million and any enquiry will cost another fortune, same as all the other endless public enquiries over the years into all sorts of scandals and botch ups that folk call for, be it the trams mess up or whatever else
What all of these enquiries do most successfully is shovel massive amounts of public money into very expensive lawyers bank accounts and in return we get a large bound report that tells you what happened and what went wrong and makes a load of recommendations almost all of which anyone who had access to the original paperwork and who knew the story well could have scribbled down before the expensive enquiry.

As for the Salmond situation, when female staff made complaints that were of a criminal nature they should have been told by their line managers to report the incidents to the Police in the first instance.

G B Young

18-02-2021, 04:11 PM

£24 million and any enquiry will cost another fortune, same as all the other endless public enquiries over the years into all sorts of scandals and botch ups that folk call for, be it the trams mess up or whatever else
What all of these enquiries do most successfully is shovel massive amounts of public money into very expensive lawyers bank accounts and in return we get a large bound report that tells you what happened and what went wrong and makes a load of recommendations almost all of which anyone who had access to the original paperwork and who knew the story well could have scribbled down before the expensive enquiry.

As for the Salmond situation, when female staff made complaints that were of a criminal nature they should have been told by their line managers to report the incidents to the Police in the first instance.

As far as I'm aware the inquiry into the tramas fiasco has still not been completed and has taken longer than it took to get the trams up and running (which at the time seemed an endless saga). Mind the cost of a tramline from Princes St to the airport ended up costing around £1 billion so the ongoing inquiry costs are probably a drop in the ocean compared to that.

This Rangers case is about much more than the shambolic running of a construction project though. A number of people have been arrested and prosecuted on the basis of nothing more than 'malice' and an inquiry into why is more than merited.

CMurdoch

18-02-2021, 04:18 PM

As far as I'm aware the inquiry into the tramas fiasco has still not been completed and has taken longer than it took to get the trams up and running (which at the time seemed an endless saga). Mind the cost of a tramline from Princes St to the airport ended up costing around £1 billion so the ongoing inquiry costs are probably a drop in the ocean compared to that.

and when it is published it will tell them what they already knew :confused:

RyeSloan

18-02-2021, 04:34 PM

and when it is published it will tell them what they already knew :confused:

Like the fact that the Crown Office was corrupt and the people responsible for it have seemingly got off without even a ticking off and the SG has done nothing to suggest they are remotely interested in the nations prosecution service seemingly prosecuting people on a whim?

Or maybe it might actually do some good by asking just how many times this has happened to people that didn’t have access to millions of pounds for lawyers to fight their corner?

G B Young

18-02-2021, 05:25 PM

and when it is published it will tell them what they already knew :confused:

Will it?

I was actually agreeing with you to some extent re the trams inquiry - which seems to have been as incompetently handled as the project itself. However, as RyeSloan points out the ramifications of the Rangers case are enormous so I can''t agree we shouldn't bother with an inquiry because of the potential cost.

Keith_M

19-02-2021, 11:51 AM

RyeSloan

19-02-2021, 12:04 PM

G B Young

19-02-2021, 03:16 PM

Does the SG have jurisdiction over the Crown Office in Scotland?

:dunno:

I always presumed that was a UK Government that was responsible for oversight of Legal Organisations like this.

I honestly have no idea how it all works, so this isn't a politically motivated question.

I'm no expert on this area either, but until reading up on the Rangers case I hadn't previously known that the Lord Advocate (who heads up the Crown Office) is a minister of the Scottish Government and is (officially) appointed by the Queen on the advice of the First Minister. Both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General (the other top law officer for Scotland) are Scottish government appointees.

CropleyWasGod

19-02-2021, 03:25 PM

I'm no expert on this area either, but until reading up on the Rangers case I hadn't previously known that the Lord Advocate (who heads up the Crown Office) is a minister of the Scottish Government and is (officially) appointed by the Queen on the advice of the First Minister. Both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General (the other top law officer for Scotland) are Scottish government appointees.

That's the same as in the UK Parliament. The Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor are Government appointees.

Didn't you watch Judge John Deed? :greengrin

Keith_M

19-02-2021, 04:57 PM

I believe it’s a non ministerial department of the SG.

So independent in the sense that it’s not headed by a minister of the government but 100% a function of the Scottish Government.

I'm no expert on this area either, but until reading up on the Rangers case I hadn't previously known that the Lord Advocate (who heads up the Crown Office) is a minister of the Scottish Government and is (officially) appointed by the Queen on the advice of the First Minister. Both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General (the other top law officer for Scotland) are Scottish government appointees.

Cheers guys

:aok:

G B Young

19-02-2021, 05:24 PM

That's the same as in the UK Parliament. The Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor are Government appointees.

Didn't you watch Judge John Deed? :greengrin

I never did. Any good?

Yeh, I recall realising that the attorney general was a governemnt appointee when I saw him arguing in the Commons in support of May's Brexit deal. Just wasn't sure of the set-up in Scotland, with it being a different legal system. How was the Lord Advocate appointed pre-devolution?

CropleyWasGod

19-02-2021, 05:35 PM

I never did. Any good?

Yeh, I recall realising that the attorney general was a governemnt appointee when I saw him arguing in the Commons in support of May's Brexit deal. Just wasn't sure of the set-up in Scotland, with it being a different legal system. How was the Lord Advocate appointed pre-devolution?

Presumably by the Scottish Office?

CMurdoch

22-02-2021, 09:57 AM

Like the fact that the Crown Office was corrupt and the people responsible for it have seemingly got off without even a ticking off and the SG has done nothing to suggest they are remotely interested in the nations prosecution service seemingly prosecuting people on a whim?

Or maybe it might actually do some good by asking just how many times this has happened to people that didn’t have access to millions of pounds for lawyers to fight their corner?

I was replying to GBY re the trams inquiry rather than the Rangers related prosecution.
In relation to the Rangers administrators case i was surprised that Woolfe was able to simply apologise for what was termed a malicious prosecution and a waste of £24 million without anyone getting their jotters. His arse must be made of asbestos with a teflon covering.

The Rangers administrators case smacks more of poor decision making rather than being out to get them.
In all cases the Police gather all the evidence and if it is sufficient they will charge the accused and send a report laying the case and evidence out to the Crown. The Crown then consider the evidence in the report and proceed to prosecution if they consider the evidence is sufficient and competent to prove the charges and support a successful prosecution.
In this case it appears the evidence was insufficient to proceed to prosecution and the Crown should not have proceeded to court. The rich guys they prosecuted had heavy duty lawyers who have recognised this and successfully argued this point and ker-ching.

Taking on the rich and/or powerful is hazardous as this case and that of the previous first minister prove. Remember OJ Simpson, guilty as hell but expensive lawyers made a mockery of justice. Just like the rest of life, money can get the rich the decision they seek.

P.S. they should have gone after David Murray instead. That was the major fraud. Dropped the whole toxic mess on Walter Mitty and ran of into the distance and waited for the implosion

RyeSloan

22-02-2021, 12:17 PM

I was replying to GBY re the trams inquiry rather than the Rangers related prosecution.
In relation to the Rangers administrators case i was surprised that Woolfe was able to simply apologise for what was termed a malicious prosecution and a waste of £24 million without anyone getting their jotters. His arse must be made of asbestos with a teflon covering.

The Rangers administrators case smacks more of poor decision making rather than being out to get them.
In all cases the Police gather all the evidence and if it is sufficient they will charge the accused and send a report laying the case and evidence out to the Crown. The Crown then consider the evidence in the report and proceed to prosecution if they consider the evidence is sufficient and competent to prove the charges and support a successful prosecution.
In this case it appears the evidence was insufficient to proceed to prosecution and the Crown should not have proceeded to court. The rich guys they prosecuted had heavy duty lawyers who have recognised this and successfully argued this point and ker-ching.

Taking on the rich and/or powerful is hazardous as this case and that of the previous first minister prove. Remember OJ Simpson, guilty as hell but expensive lawyers made a mockery of justice. Just like the rest of life, money can get the rich the decision they seek.

P.S. they should have gone after David Murray instead. That was the major fraud. Dropped the whole toxic mess on Walter Mitty and ran of into the distance and waited for the implosion

Or you could look at this another way...the rich in this instance had the ability to hold the Crown to account on their completely erroneous decision to take forward the prosecution.

The question I have is how often is this happening to those that don’t have that ability to challenge.

So rather than the rich getting the decision they seek it’s how often is everyone else getting prosecuted on erroneous decisions from the Crown?

I personally know someone that was taken to court on a charge that was clearly time bound and therefore could NEVER be prosecuted.

That did not stop the PF from moving forward despite the time bound rules being simple to understand and definitely applying.

The case was duly thrown out for being time bound but that still did not prevent hundreds of pounds of costs and stress being suffered for absolutely no reason what so ever.

I know of another example where someone was attacked in their own home yet the PF took THEM to prosecution for assault. The judge in that case, which lasted days, when summing up the case lambasted the fact that it should never have came to court in the first place. A travesty and a complete waste of court time is what they called it. Costs of lawyers ran into many thousands of pounds.

Yet there is zero recourse in these matters beyond, as we have seen, taking more lengthy and costly legal action.

That’s what’s troubling me here. Not the fact the rich can defend themselves and use lawyers to achieve beneficial outcomes...that’s always been the case and no one has ever bothered to try and allow the common man similar access to legal recourse.

Here we see a light shone upon the Crown clearly operating out with any sensible or independent view of the strength of evidence...yet that is what it’s fundamental role is.

So in other words we have a prosecution service acting with impunity to prosecute who it wishes with no regard to the strength of evidence...yet there seems to a collective shrug from the powers that be and actually an acceptance that paying off the lucky few that can afford to call this out is fine and not worthy of even a simple reprimand of those that facilitated it.

Finally it’s not as if some of these decisions somehow slipped through the net. They were made by the most senior people in the organisation...if these types of decisions are being made at that level what on earth is the culture like down the rest of the organisation?!?

CMurdoch

22-02-2021, 01:56 PM

Or you could look at this another way...the rich in this instance had the ability to hold the Crown to account on their completely erroneous decision to take forward the prosecution.

The question I have is how often is this happening to those that don’t have that ability to challenge.

So rather than the rich getting the decision they seek it’s how often is everyone else getting prosecuted on erroneous decisions from the Crown?

I personally know someone that was taken to court on a charge that was clearly time bound and therefore could NEVER be prosecuted.

That did not stop the PF from moving forward despite the time bound rules being simple to understand and definitely applying.

The case was duly thrown out for being time bound but that still did not prevent hundreds of pounds of costs and stress being suffered for absolutely no reason what so ever.

I know of another example where someone was attacked in their own home yet the PF took THEM to prosecution for assault. The judge in that case, which lasted days, when summing up the case lambasted the fact that it should never have came to court in the first place. A travesty and a complete waste of court time is what they called it. Costs of lawyers ran into many thousands of pounds.

Yet there is zero recourse in these matters beyond, as we have seen, taking more lengthy and costly legal action.

That’s what’s troubling me here. Not the fact the rich can defend themselves and use lawyers to achieve beneficial outcomes...that’s always been the case and no one has ever bothered to try and allow the common man similar access to legal recourse.

Here we see a light shone upon the Crown clearly operating out with any sensible or independent view of the strength of evidence...yet that is what it’s fundamental role is.

So in other words we have a prosecution service acting with impunity to prosecute who it wishes with no regard to the strength of evidence...yet there seems to a collective shrug from the powers that be and actually an acceptance that paying off the lucky few that can afford to call this out is fine and not worthy of even a simple reprimand of those that facilitated it.

Finally it’s not as if some of these decisions somehow slipped through the net. They were made by the most senior people in the organisation...if these types of decisions are being made at that level what on earth is the culture like down the rest of the organisation?!?

Do you think that OJ Simpson and Alex Salmond were innocent? I don't.
Sadly 1st world courts have little to do with truth or justice.

Were the Rangers administrators taken to court when there was insufficient evidence such that it was malicious?
I don't know, because I haven't read all the papers and seen all the evidence.
What I do know now is that their solicitors have managed to persuade the civil courts that it was but it doesn't make it true, merely a judgement of the court based on the evidence presented to them.

As for your issue with the prosecution in less complex cases for your ordinary Joe.
It simply can't and doesn't work in the 1st world.
Nothing to do with anything other than it is too complex and it is massively under financed and staffed to do the job efficiently given the complexity. This goes for every 1st world country in the planet.
1st World countries legal systems have long since ground to a halt through procedural red tape. Even the most simple case can't be dealt with easily or cheaply.

If you look at a tribe in the jungle. A tribe member is accused of say damaging his neighbours hut.
The case is heard by the tribe leader a few days later and a judgement and punishment is delivered.
Total time for case to be heard, 15 minutes and little or no cost.
Same scenario in Scotland and the same minor crime. What does it take, Police enquiry, a report, the procurator fiscal office, defence solicitor, endless pleading diets and adjournments. Case eventually comes to court 18 months after the event, case takes 6 hours in an expensive court, if found guilty call for background reports, separate diet to sentence. Cost - vast (£30k?)

And there are thousands of cases every day

It simply can't work.
It's too complicated and too expensive.

Smartie

22-02-2021, 02:49 PM

Do you think that OJ Simpson and Alex Salmond were innocent? I don't.
Sadly 1st world courts have little to do with truth or justice.

Were the Rangers administrators taken to court when there was insufficient evidence such that it was malicious?
I don't know, because I haven't read all the papers and seen all the evidence.
What I do know now is that their solicitors have managed to persuade the civil courts that it was but it doesn't make it true, merely a judgement of the court based on the evidence presented to them.

As for your issue with the prosecution in less complex cases for your ordinary Joe.
It simply can't and doesn't work in the 1st world.
Nothing to do with anything other than it is too complex and it is massively under financed and staffed to do the job efficiently given the complexity. This goes for every 1st world country in the planet.
1st World countries legal systems have long since ground to a halt through procedural red tape. Even the most simple case can't be dealt with easily or cheaply.

If you look at a tribe in the jungle. A tribe member is accused of say damaging his neighbours hut.
The case is heard by the tribe leader a few days later and a judgement and punishment is delivered.
Total time for case to be heard, 15 minutes and little or no cost.
Same scenario in Scotland and the same minor crime. What does it take, Police enquiry, a report, the procurator fiscal office, defence solicitor, endless pleading diets and adjournments. Case eventually comes to court 18 months after the event, case takes 6 hours in an expensive court, if found guilty call for background reports, separate diet to sentence. Cost - vast (£30k?)

And there are thousands of cases every day

It simply can't work.
It's too complicated and too expensive.

I don't think Alex Salmond only walked free because he had top notch lawyers.

He was accused of crimes that are notoriously difficult to secure conviction on and most evidence boils down to "he said/ she said" when there were 2 people present in a room many years ago.

I genuinely don't know if Alex Salmond was guilty of anything or not and I don't expect the jury in his case knew much more either. "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "innocent unless proven guilty" though so I guess he's an innocent man.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think his case is the type that can be used to prove some sort of corruption within the legal system. The main conclusion I drew from that is that anything involving offences of that nature is horrible in nature for everyone involved and will rarely lead to any sort of satisfactory conclusion being drawn for anyone.

Once more, I don't really know what to make of this whole affair, and I'd like to know much, much more before making my mind up. I don't like the sound of anything to do with people being accused of crimes via "malicious intent".

RyeSloan

22-02-2021, 02:51 PM

Do you think that OJ Simpson and Alex Salmond were innocent? I don't.
Sadly 1st world courts have little to do with truth or justice.

Were the Rangers administrators taken to court when there was insufficient evidence such that it was malicious?
I don't know, because I haven't read all the papers and seen all the evidence.
What I do know now is that their solicitors have managed to persuade the civil courts that it was but it doesn't make it true, merely a judgement of the court based on the evidence presented to them.

As for your issue with the prosecution in less complex cases for your ordinary Joe.
It simply can't and doesn't work in the 1st world.
Nothing to do with anything other than it is too complex and it is massively under financed and staffed to do the job efficiently given the complexity. This goes for every 1st world country in the planet.
1st World countries legal systems have long since ground to a halt through procedural red tape. Even the most simple case can't be dealt with easily or cheaply.

If you look at a tribe in the jungle. A tribe member is accused of say damaging his neighbours hut.
The case is heard by the tribe leader a few days later and a judgement and punishment is delivered.
Total time for case to be heard, 15 minutes and little or no cost.
Same scenario in Scotland and the same minor crime. What does it take, Police enquiry, a report, the procurator fiscal office, defence solicitor, endless pleading diets and adjournments. Case eventually comes to court 18 months after the event, case takes 6 hours in an expensive court, if found guilty call for background reports, separate diet to sentence. Cost - vast (£30k?)

And there are thousands of cases every day

It simply can't work.
It's too complicated and too expensive.

I’m not sure OJ Simpson case is really relevant here to be honest.

As for ‘it’s not true it’s just a judgement in the court’...if you take that line then what’s the point of any of it?

And while I totally agree that it’s complex and underfunded. Maybe more efforts should be made to make it less complex and properly funded?

But when I see simple cases like the first one I mentioned above when all it took was a very quick google search to know the issue was time bound I’m not buying it’s all down to complexity and funding. Does the PF not even have google access?

But basically your argument is not actually that dis-similar to mine. The system is fundamentally broken yet no one seems to care..you are saying it’s down to complexity and under funding...I’m saying that from the very top there seems to be little desire to actually ensure there is the required evidence to prosecute and even worse that there was a malicious intent in some instances. Ultimately these things are probably not mutually exclusive.

Both of those scenarios result in exactly the same thing...people being dragged into the courts and prosecuted without the necessary due care and attention paid to ensure that should actually be the case.

Sounds like a great work creation scheme for the Scottish legal profession and an expensive disaster for everyone else.

CMurdoch

22-02-2021, 03:41 PM

I don't think Alex Salmond only walked free because he had top notch lawyers.

He was accused of crimes that are notoriously difficult to secure conviction on and most evidence boils down to "he said/ she said" when there were 2 people present in a room many years ago.

I genuinely don't know if Alex Salmond was guilty of anything or not and I don't expect the jury in his case knew much more either. "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "innocent unless proven guilty" though so I guess he's an innocent man.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think his case is the type that can be used to prove some sort of corruption within the legal system. The main conclusion I drew from that is that anything involving offences of that nature is horrible in nature for everyone involved and will rarely lead to any sort of satisfactory conclusion being drawn for anyone.

Once more, I don't really know what to make of this whole affair, and I'd like to know much, much more before making my mind up. I don't like the sound of anything to do with people being accused of crimes via "malicious intent".

I am as sure as you can be about anything these days that there is no corruption in the Scottish Legal System. It's like folk on here slavering about referees being corrupt. It's just guff. Mistakes and incompetence do not corruption make.

Re the Salmond case, i think he did escape conviction due to the skill of his lawyers.
There were 9 woman accusing him of committing offences of an indecent/sexual nature.
As you stated these type of cases are difficult to get a conviction with. Generally each incident occurs when only the accused and the victim are present and there may have be little or no other evidence other than the victims account and the accused denial.
The way you get a conviction in these cases where you have multiple accusers is that each case helps corroborate the others i.e. when the circumstance of each case are so similar they tend to lend credibility to the others. It's called the Moorov doctrine.
I suspect the cases may have eventually fallen because other than being sexually related the cases were materially different and his lawyers through their skills have managed to create reasonable doubt about the links in the jurors minds which is all it takes to result in a not proven verdict.

CMurdoch

22-02-2021, 04:52 PM

I’m not sure OJ Simpson case is really relevant here to be honest.

As for ‘it’s not true it’s just a judgement in the court’...if you take that line then what’s the point of any of it?

And while I totally agree that it’s complex and underfunded. Maybe more efforts should be made to make it less complex and properly funded?

But when I see simple cases like the first one I mentioned above when all it took was a very quick google search to know the issue was time bound I’m not buying it’s all down to complexity and funding. Does the PF not even have google access?

But basically your argument is not actually that dis-similar to mine. The system is fundamentally broken yet no one seems to care..you are saying it’s down to complexity and under funding...I’m saying that from the very top there seems to be little desire to actually ensure there is the required evidence to prosecute and even worse that there was a malicious intent in some instances. Ultimately these things are probably not mutually exclusive.

Both of those scenarios result in exactly the same thing...people being dragged into the courts and prosecuted without the necessary due care and attention paid to ensure that should actually be the case.

Sounds like a great work creation scheme for the Scottish legal profession and an expensive disaster for everyone else.

The OJ Simpson case was just to show that no matter how guilty you are you can still circumvent justice if you can afford the best smoke and mirror guys.
Sir Alex Ferguson had an expensive lawyer make up some cock and bull story to avoid a conviction for driving in the motorway hard shoulder when the road ahead was blocked with traffic. It was obviously a made up story but his solicitor told it well and it worked. I don't for one minute believe the judge fell for the story but there was reasonable doubt.
Both cases show the truth of the matter at hand can be bent out of shape in court. It's a story telling theatre.

What is unfair in the criminal legal system for your normal Joe is that he has to pay for his solicitor whilst recidivist criminals who could be in court 5 times a year get an endless free solicitor. That free solicitor on tap comes at massive cost to the public purse.
If instead everyone had access to a free solicitor to defend them up to three times in their lifetime the legal bill to the public purse would be a fraction of what it currently is and it would be fairer for all.
The issues you describe are a mess because there are simply too many cases because of recidivist criminals endless court appearances take up all the courts time and hoovers up massive amounts of public money. The system favours these criminal defendants and in most cases it is the victims and the witnesses that are messed about by the defending solicitors and the accused seeking adjournments, not turning up etc to draw the process out in the hope it eventually falls apart. This is far more of an issue than accused folk being brought to court where there is insufficient evidence.

The current criminal legal systems in 1st world countries is unaffordable in it's present format for low tariff cases cases. Not inefficient or not trying or not caring but simply unaffordable. It simply haemorrhages public money which would be far better spent on other public services where more funds could make a real difference. Vast layers of expense need to be removed from all but the most serious cases and move to a model near the tribal one described in my previous reply to you for lower tariff offences. The legal profession cobviously won't allow this to happen and public money will continue to be shovelled into their pockets in vast amounts.

None of this has anything to do with the Rangers Administrators case which is at the complex end of the case spectrum and would have had lots of attention from the supposedly big hitters at the crown prosecution service before deciding to take it to court.

G B Young

11-03-2021, 09:45 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56360596

What were they actually charged with when they were arrested?

CropleyWasGod

11-03-2021, 09:47 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56360596

What were they actually charged with when they were arrested?

Fraud. The second line.

G B Young

11-03-2021, 10:03 PM

Fraud. The second line.

What I mean is that in a prosecution which was acknowledged by the Lord Advocate to have been motivated solely by "malice" whoever was at the heart of these malicious allegations must have concocted something for the police to act on. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the case at the time (probably putting it down to just an extension of the shambles surrounding Rangers) but were details provided regarding the administrators' supposedly fraudulent behaviour?

CropleyWasGod

11-03-2021, 10:12 PM

What I mean is that in a prosecution which was acknowledged by the Lord Advocate to have been motivated solely by "malice" whoever was at the heart of these malicious allegations must have concocted something for the police to act on. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the case at the time (probably putting it down to just an extension of the shambles surrounding Rangers) but were details provided regarding the administrators' supposedly fraudulent behaviour?

I have a fair amount of sympathy for those who were investigating the case. Fraud can be a very difficult thing to prove, particularly in a jury trial.

The whole process of the sale of Oldco's assets to Charles Green did not sit right with me, and I shouted as much on here at the time. The liquidator of Oldco seems to agree with me, as he's suing Duff and Phelps for £29m.

There was no 'concoction' as you put it IMO, and the Court of Session (where the burden of proof is lower) might be the setting for the next instalment. Whether there was malice... well,.it's 21st Century Scotland. 🙄

Smartie

11-03-2021, 10:41 PM

If an investigation is carried out and no wrongdoing is found to have taken place, does that necessarily mean that the investigation was a waste of time?

I'd suggest not. Well, not necessarily.

If it was motivated by pure malice and never likely to uncover wrongdoing then yes, it was a waste of time.

Lots of grey areas exist in life and sometimes further investigation needs to take place to work out what went on. Even after that it can be challenging to work out.

G B Young

12-03-2021, 01:37 PM

I have a fair amount of sympathy for those who were investigating the case. Fraud can be a very difficult thing to prove, particularly in a jury trial.

The whole process of the sale of Oldco's assets to Charles Green did not sit right with me, and I shouted as much on here at the time. The liquidator of Oldco seems to agree with me, as he's suing Duff and Phelps for £29m.

There was no 'concoction' as you put it IMO, and the Court of Session (where the burden of proof is lower) might be the setting for the next instalment. Whether there was malice... well,.it's 21st Century Scotland. 🙄

Thanks for that. As I said I didn't pay a lot of attention to the process at the time.

It seems reasonable, though, to suggest that something seriously underhand must taken place for the Lord Advocate to issue an "unreserved apology" and to state that Whitehouse and Clark should never have been prosecuted.

CropleyWasGod

12-03-2021, 01:50 PM

Thanks for that. As I said I didn't pay a lot of attention to the process at the time.

It seems reasonable, though, to suggest that something seriously underhand must taken place for the Lord Advocate to issue an "unreserved apology" and to state that Whitehouse and Clark should never have been prosecuted.

There's a (nother:rolleyes:) inquiry planned, when we might get a better idea of what happened. However, that probably won't be until after the civil case in May.

I don't think Whitehouse and Clark are out of the woods yet. Depending on the outcome of the civil case, they could find themselves with some more serious questions to answer, both from the law and their own professional bodies.

James310

10-08-2021, 11:44 AM

£6.4M of taxpayers money paid to Charles Green. Seems a particularly large amount.

Ozyhibby

10-08-2021, 12:11 PM

£6.4M of taxpayers money paid to Charles Green. Seems a particularly large amount.

And still nobody held responsible and no transparency over what happened. And the press don’t seem to want to investigate?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod

10-08-2021, 12:25 PM

And still nobody held responsible and no transparency over what happened. And the press don’t seem to want to investigate?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a public inquiry due to start.

CropleyWasGod

10-08-2021, 12:26 PM

£6.4M of taxpayers money paid to Charles Green. Seems a particularly large amount.

It's a lot smaller than what the Chuckle Brothers got.

James310

10-08-2021, 12:36 PM

It's a lot smaller than what the Chuckle Brothers got.

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/malicious-prosecution-scandal-duff-and-phelps-sues-lord-advocate-for-25m

Final bill could top £113M.

As it was a malicious prosecution you wonder if this belongs on the sectarian thread as something somewhere has gone incredibly wrong.

Smartie

10-08-2021, 02:05 PM

He's here!

10-08-2021, 09:07 PM

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/malicious-prosecution-scandal-duff-and-phelps-sues-lord-advocate-for-25m

Final bill could top £113M.

As it was a malicious prosecution you wonder if this belongs on the sectarian thread as something somewhere has gone incredibly wrong.

What a shambles. I'm unclear what 'malice' lay at the heart of the prosecution. If our supposedly independent prosecution service can be 'motivated by malice' it's deeply alarming. Surely a f***-up on this scale merits more than a apology from the Crown Office? ie it seems heads should be rolling.
There's also a rather noticeable silence on this from the SG, who are, after all, the ones who appoint the Lord Advocate.

Block

10-08-2021, 10:51 PM

What a shambles. I'm unclear what 'malice' lay at the heart of the prosecution. If our supposedly independent prosecution service can be 'motivated by malice' it's deeply alarming. Surely a f***-up on this scale merits more than a apology from the Crown Office? ie it seems heads should be rolling.
There's also a rather noticeable silence on this from the SG, who are, after all, the ones who appoint the Lord Advocate.

What sticks in my craw is that Hearts weren't liquidated same as the Gers. What a stitch up that was. Funded by a Russian criminal who laundered multi millions of his loot through Tynecastle. That's the real scandal.

Kato

10-08-2021, 11:20 PM

What sticks in my craw is that Hearts weren't liquidated same as the Gers. What a stitch up that was. Funded by a Russian criminal who laundered multi millions of his loot through Tynecastle. That's the real scandal.

One of the all-time great conmen. What he was doing had little to do with football and everything to do with washing dosh through a failed and desperate business that had been run into the ground.

Nothing "mad" about him.

Block

11-08-2021, 12:07 AM

One of the all-time great conmen. What he was doing had little to do with football and everything to do with washing dosh through a failed and desperate business that had been run into the ground.

Nothing "mad" about him.

Exactly. Multi Millions of criminal money paid into a Scottish Premier Club (Hearts) with it never brought into the judicial light. Old school 'Nothing to see here squire'.

He's here!

11-08-2021, 08:45 AM

Malicious: intended or intending to do harm.

Does this basically mean Green & co were (wrongfully) prosecuted because the Crown Office were out to get them? If so why?

I guess some answers may be forthcoming whenever the public inquiry gets under way but surely somebody ultimately has to be held to account for what seems a very sinister sequence of events? Those wrongfully prosecuted had deep enough pockets to pursue civil action against the Crown Office and Police Scotland but how many of us could afford to do that in similar circumstances?

Ozyhibby

11-08-2021, 08:52 AM

Berwickhibby

11-08-2021, 08:58 AM

Exactly. Multi Millions of criminal money paid into a Scottish Premier Club (Hearts) with it never brought into the judicial light. Old school 'Nothing to see here squire'.

I am sure I read, Salmond and Foulkes had a meeting at the the 11th hour with the Lithuanian amabassador during Hearts luquidation/administration to ensure Tynecastle changed hands at a fraction of its market value

Just Alf

11-08-2021, 09:12 AM

I am sure I read, Salmond and Foulkes had a meeting at the the 11th hour with the Lithuanian amabassador during Hearts luquidation/administration to ensure Tynecastle changed hands at a fraction of its market valueYeah, I remember that as well.... the excuse was they were trying to save a Scottish institution, can't help but thinking it would have been better to have used ministers/politicians who were obviously not Hearts leaning to show it was a legitimate discussion (if that was even possible with that lot!)

JeMeSouviens

11-08-2021, 09:16 AM

What sticks in my craw is that Hearts weren't liquidated same as the Gers. What a stitch up that was. Funded by a Russian criminal who laundered multi millions of his loot through Tynecastle. That's the real scandal.

:agree:

Our pink chums have created a myth that they rallied round to save their club while the Huns let theirs die. But the reality is the only difference is that HMRC played hardball with the Huns (cos moral hazard) while the Lith govt went soft on Hearts. Both CVA offers were a pittance.

JeMeSouviens

11-08-2021, 09:17 AM

I am sure I read, Salmond and Foulkes had a meeting at the the 11th hour with the Lithuanian amabassador during Hearts luquidation/administration to ensure Tynecastle changed hands at a fraction of its market value

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/i-need-do-all-i-can-hearts-alex-salmond-1539552

JeMeSouviens

11-08-2021, 09:23 AM

I suspect some staunch unionist bears within the PF’s office decided they were going to get them no matter what.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't think of any other reason. Pity they settled, it would have been an interesting trial.

Kato

11-08-2021, 09:24 AM

Just before CV19 the Lithuanian Courts were preparing to put Romanov on trial in his absence. They changed their law covering trial "in absentia" specifically for him. I'm sure it would have by now if covid hadn't come around. If found guilty I'm sure there are rules in place for football clubs to be stripped of any honours won using the proceeds of crime. So if he is guilty I'm sure the football authorities in Scotland will do absolutely zip about it.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

He's here!

11-08-2021, 09:32 AM

I suspect some staunch unionist bears within the PF’s office decided they were going to get them no matter what.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Might be wrong but is Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate at the time of this fiasco, not a big Celtic fan?

Skol

11-08-2021, 10:27 AM

I suspect some staunch unionist bears within the PF’s office decided they were going to get them no matter what.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really cannot make my mind up on this. In theory you can imagine this could be the case but in practice there should be no way that this should happen. The whole situation is costing the Ccottish taxpayer and the PF Office come out looking extremely bad from this and by implication so do the Scottish Government as this kind of situation should not have been able to happen.

Ozyhibby

11-08-2021, 10:51 AM

I really cannot make my mind up on this. In theory you can imagine this could be the case but in practice there should be no way that this should happen. The whole situation is costing the Ccottish taxpayer and the PF Office come out looking extremely bad from this and by implication so do the Scottish Government as this kind of situation should not have been able to happen.

Surely it has zero to do with the SG? Surely they have zero influence on prosecutions?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smartie

11-08-2021, 11:16 AM

I'm trying to figure out which set of bigots would benefit and in which way through a malicious prosecution?

Skol

11-08-2021, 11:22 AM

Surely it has zero to do with the SG? Surely they have zero influence on prosecutions?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They should have no influence but there should be accountability.

I may be wrong but do they not appoint the Lord Advocate (right title?) and that person is also part of the cabinet. The fact there has been a horlicks made of this which is costing the scottish taxpayer must have some connection to the SG ?

CropleyWasGod

11-08-2021, 11:30 AM

I'm trying to figure out which set of bigots would benefit and in which way through a malicious prosecution?

The deal struck by Green and Duff & Phelps was very dodgy. So much so that D&P are being sued for their part in it.

The price RFC were sold on for was way below what they could/should have been. One could therefore imagine a situation where they (Green and Co) were blamed for that, and criminal charges brought to "punish" them.

Peevemor

11-08-2021, 11:39 AM

They should have no influence but there should be accountability.

I may be wrong but do they not appoint the Lord Advocate (right title?) and that person is also part of the cabinet. The fact there has been a horlicks made of this which is costing the scottish taxpayer must have some connection to the SG ?Depends whether you look for any possible opportunity to have a pop at the SG.

He's here!

11-08-2021, 11:45 AM

They should have no influence but there should be accountability.

I may be wrong but do they not appoint the Lord Advocate (right title?) and that person is also part of the cabinet. The fact there has been a horlicks made of this which is costing the scottish taxpayer must have some connection to the SG ?

Yes, the Lord Advocate is a Scottish govt appointee and a cabinet minister.

He's here!

11-08-2021, 11:50 AM

Kato

11-08-2021, 11:56 AM

CropleyWasGod

11-08-2021, 11:57 AM

So it's genuinely feasible that a prosecution of this magnitude can have its roots in nothing more than bad blood within our public prosecution service? I find this extraordinary. When I first read the phrase 'motivated by malice' I guessed it may have been more of a legal term (ie not as blatant as it appears) yet we're saying it really was that blatant? Just pure spite?!

"We" are not saying anything.

The question was put as to which side of the OF might benefit. All I did was suggest a possible scenario.

Here is a link to a law firm that deals in malicious prosecutions. It might shed some light on the definition, and its relevance to the RFC case.

https://www.livbrown.co.uk/criminal-defence/connected-litigation/malicious-prosecution

Smartie

11-08-2021, 12:04 PM

The deal struck by Green and Duff & Phelps was very dodgy. So much so that D&P are being sued for their part in it.

The price RFC were sold on for was way below what they could/should have been. One could therefore imagine a situation where they (Green and Co) were blamed for that, and criminal charges brought to "punish" them.

I accept that, and I've long held the opinion that the circumstances surrounding the "deal" were very dodgy.

What I don't get is why it would be of interest to the crown to pursue something "maliciously"?

Would the "Celtic-minded" be aggrieved that Rangers were somehow revived when they possibly should not have been? Are there "Celtic-minded" individuals, or such a culture within that office (no laughing up the back).

The biggest losers must surely be the creditors of the old club. They're the ones who were stiffed. But how does that lead to a malicious prosecution? HMRC were the biggest creditor, how closely linked are HMRC and the crown office? Or did an unemployed face painter who found his business down the tubes due to unpaid bills later take a job in the legal sector?

"Malicious" is pretty serious. Sometimes there will be shades of grey and it is hard to know whether any criminal wrongdoing or not has gone on. I suspect that this is the truth of this case, that it maybe wasn't quite cricket but stopped short of being criminal so no guilty charges could be brought. That though still falls well short of "malicious" which has been the very expensive finding here.

I just to don't get the motivation for those doing the "punishing" here, as they clearly also had something to lose. It wasn't a free hit, to which the public purse will attest.

JeMeSouviens

11-08-2021, 12:52 PM

"We" are not saying anything.

The question was put as to which side of the OF might benefit. All I did was suggest a possible scenario.

Here is a link to a law firm that deals in malicious prosecutions. It might shed some light on the definition, and its relevance to the RFC case.

https://www.livbrown.co.uk/criminal-defence/connected-litigation/malicious-prosecution

Interesting bit (from that link) that the Hunministrators' cases have actually changed the law:

In Scotland, however, it was long understood that the Crown was ‘immune from suit’, meaning that no claim could be brought, regardless of how little evidence there was and how malicious the prosecution had been.
That changed in late 2019, with the case of Whitehouse v. Gormley. The Inner House (Scotland’s highest court of appeal in civil cases) decided that the Crown had no immunity. A person who had been prosecuted without sufficient evidence and maliciously had a right to damages. The court ruled that an action could also be brought under human rights legislation.

So I guess the crown office thought they had a free hit? Maybe they just wanted to be seen to be doing something.

He's here!

11-08-2021, 01:14 PM

The word "malice" is being used in it's legal sense rather than the emotive.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Based on the link CWG has posted I'm not seeing the difference between the legal definition and the dictionary definition. I know that in criminal cases 'malice aforethought' relates to pre-meditation but here it just seems to boil down to a desire to screw some guys over who had done nothing to merit a prosecution other than be involved with the sale of a football club which, along with Celtic, would appear to have such a stranglehold not only on the game but wider Scottish culture that these sort of murky machinations can play out under the cloak of the Crown Office.

Kato

11-08-2021, 01:34 PM

it just seems to boil down to a desire to screw some guys over who had done nothing to merit a prosecution

That seems to be what you want it to mean.

I've neither the time or desire to dissuade you otherwise.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod

11-08-2021, 01:35 PM

Based on the link CWG has posted I'm not seeing the difference between the legal definition and the dictionary definition. I know that in criminal cases 'malice aforethought' relates to pre-meditation but here it just seems to boil down to a desire to screw some guys over who had done nothing to merit a prosecution other than be involved with the sale of a football club which, along with Celtic, would appear to have such a stranglehold not only on the game but wider Scottish culture that these sort of murky machinations can play out under the cloak of the Crown Office.

"Some guys", some of whom are currently being sued for £25m over their conduct in the same case. They are no angels.

Fraud is a notoriously difficult charge to make stick. It may be that, in their haste to bring down some of the bad guys in this whole thing, the Crown Office have fallen foul of those difficulties and, quite simply, forgotten to build a case based on evidence first. Reprehensible behaviour, of course, but I can't help thinking that the nature of the alleged offences has had a bearing here. With a different approach to the case, all of them might be sitting in pokey right now.

He's here!

11-08-2021, 02:50 PM

That seems to be what you want it to mean.

I've neither the time or desire to dissuade you otherwise.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

What other meaning can there be?

The Lord Advocate couldn't have been clearer in his public apology. He said they should never have been prosecuted and that the prosecution was motivated by malice.

Kato

11-08-2021, 02:54 PM

What other meaning can there be?

The Lord Advocate couldn't have been clearer in his public apology. He said they should never have been prosecuted and that the prosecution was motivated by malice.See Crop's post above.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

He's here!

11-08-2021, 02:56 PM

"Some guys", some of whom are currently being sued for £25m over their conduct in the same case. They are no angels.

Fraud is a notoriously difficult charge to make stick. It may be that, in their haste to bring down some of the bad guys in this whole thing, the Crown Office have fallen foul of those difficulties and, quite simply, forgotten to build a case based on evidence first. Reprehensible behaviour, of course, but I can't help thinking that the nature of the alleged offences has had a bearing here. With a different approach to the case, all of them might be sitting in pokey right now.

The Crown Office simply forgot to build a case based on evidence?! Is that in any way likely?

And if the prosecution should never have been brought who does that leave as the 'bad guys'?

Peevemor

11-08-2021, 03:01 PM

The Crown Office simply forgot to build a case based on evidence?! Is that in any way likely?

And if the prosecution should never have been brought who does that leave as the 'bad guys'?Sturgeon & the SNP obviously, because we all know that that's where you want to take this.

Skol

11-08-2021, 03:16 PM

Sturgeon & the SNP obviously, because we all know that that's where you want to take this.

It strikes me that there are potential 'bad' guys all over this:

1) Those part of the takeover
2) Those in D&P
3) Those in the police with the investigation
4) Those in the crown office who allowed this to progress and fail so badly
5) The Scottish Government to whom 3) and 4) are accountable

Just Alf

11-08-2021, 03:16 PM

Sturgeon & the SNP obviously, because we all know that that's where you want to take this.It's weird one right enough.

If they'd intervened and stopped it they'd have rightly been hammered for acting illegally.
If they'd intervened and ensured it continued they'd have rightly been hammered for acting illegally.

If I remember correctly the head of the service resigned before being pushed, a mixture of this and the Salmond affair making his position untenable.

Skol

11-08-2021, 03:34 PM

It's weird one right enough.

If they'd intervened and stopped it they'd have rightly been hammered for acting illegally.
If they'd intervened and ensured it continued they'd have rightly been hammered for acting illegally.

If I remember correctly the head of the service resigned before being pushed, a mixture of this and the Salmond affair making his position untenable.

I agree and said earlier that they could not intervene. However the poor actions of people accountable to the SG have cost the scottish tax payer a lot of money. OK, one has gone already but this kind of thing shouldnt happen without consequences

Peevemor

11-08-2021, 03:40 PM

Oh so predictable!

Skol

11-08-2021, 04:03 PM

Oh so predictable!

So are you saying the SG should just sit back and say fine, crack on with botched prosecutions that cost the taxpayer millions ?

Peevemor

11-08-2021, 04:13 PM

So are you saying the SG should just sit back and say fine, crack on with botched prosecutions that cost the taxpayer millions ?I'm not saying anything, but as soon as there's a sniff that the SG are responsible for the appointment if not the actions of the Lord Advocate then certain posters become outraged all of a sudden.

It's akin to those who eventually manage to pin the blame for any goal Hibs concede on either Stevenson or Hanlon.

Meanwhile Bojo wastes billions that end up in the pockets of his cronies but not a peep?

I honestly can't be arsed with this primary school playground finger pointing mentality.

Skol

11-08-2021, 04:16 PM

I wondered when bojo would get drawn in to a Scottish issue.

Primary school finger pointing you say !!!!

Peevemor

11-08-2021, 04:18 PM

I wondered when bojo would get drawn in to a Scottish issue.

Primary school finger pointing you say !!!!Yep. The outrage is over the waste of public funds (I think anyway). I haven't seen the same concern over far greater waste elsewhere.

I suppose it's only an issue if it's the SNP/SG?

Skol

11-08-2021, 04:29 PM

Nope not for me. Both are an issue.

CropleyWasGod

11-08-2021, 04:40 PM

It strikes me that there are potential 'bad' guys all over this:

1) Those part of the takeover
2) Those in D&P
3) Those in the police with the investigation
4) Those in the crown office who allowed this to progress and fail so badly
5) The Scottish Government to whom 3) and 4) are accountable

I would add Malmo into the mix. If they'd only lain down to RFC all those years ago, none of this would've been an issue :greengrin

He's here!

11-08-2021, 07:36 PM

Sturgeon & the SNP obviously, because we all know that that's where you want to take this.

The Crown Office was the answer I was looking for. Whether the SG has anything to answer for remains to be seen, tho IIRC Sturgeon hasn't opposed a judge-led inquiry so she must be pretty confident she's not going to find herself tarnished by association. For me the Lord Advocate's office is the one that should be brought under the microscope.

From a Rangers point of view I'd suggest David Murray was the bad guy for ducking out and saddling the club with those who succeeded him. Craig Whyte may have been a Walter Mitty type but he was cleared of all charges relating to fraud - along with an ever growing list of those linked to the administration/liqidation and subsequent takeovers.

Come to think of it I have no idea who actually owns them these days. Is Dave King still involved?

He's here!

11-08-2021, 07:41 PM

I wondered when bojo would get drawn in to a Scottish issue.

Primary school finger pointing you say !!!!

Whataboutery is what fuels this forum 😉

xyz23jc

11-08-2021, 07:47 PM

Whataboutery is what fuels this forum 😉

You would know, eh mate? :greengrin

Peevemor

11-08-2021, 08:22 PM

Whataboutery is what fuels this forum [emoji6]Olympic level pot & kettle action...

NYHibby

12-08-2021, 04:34 PM

Interesting bit (from that link) that the Hunministrators' cases have actually changed the law:

So I guess the crown office thought they had a free hit? Maybe they just wanted to be seen to be doing something.

I’ve defended malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office cases outside of Scotland. I am genuinely surprised that Scots Law was so different on this point until 2019.

He's here!

12-08-2021, 05:18 PM

I’ve defended malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office cases outside of Scotland. I am genuinely surprised that Scots Law was so different on this point until 2019.

The Crown Office has (so far) paid out more than £30 million in compensation with regard to these wrongful prosecutions. On a scale of wrongfulness how do these payouts compare to cases you've been involved with? The sums strike me as staggering and I'm surprised the media aren't gunning for the Crown Office and Police Scotland more aggressively. IIRC the Herald gave the story pretty comprehensive coverage when the scale of the blunders started to come to light, but bearing in mind that there appear to be further whopping payouts in the pipeline this is a scandal with a lot of mileage left in it.

With Green having accepted this latest payout I'm guessing it means that without a court case the nature of the wrongfulness won't be disclosed. Or will that come out in the public inquiry?

NYHibby

12-08-2021, 09:01 PM

The Crown Office has (so far) paid out more than £30 million in compensation with regard to these wrongful prosecutions. On a scale of wrongfulness how do these payouts compare to cases you've been involved with? The sums strike me as staggering and I'm surprised the media aren't gunning for the Crown Office and Police Scotland more aggressively. IIRC the Herald gave the story pretty comprehensive coverage when the scale of the blunders started to come to light, but bearing in mind that there appear to be further whopping payouts in the pipeline this is a scandal with a lot of mileage left in it.

It's hard to comment without knowing how much the administrators earned. I think both were around 50 when arrested. If you assume that neither are able to work again because their reputations have been ruined, 17 years (guessing when they could take their pensions) times whatever you think their earnings as partners at Duff & Phelps would have been would be a rough starting point on damages. 17*300k is £5.1m. They were probably also seeking their costs for the criminal case as well as the civil cases.

But both appear to still be working for Duff & Phelps under its new name. It is hard to think of how damages could be £10m each without a substantive lost of earnings claim.

That being said, while the government lawyers would have advised on the likely damages award if the case went to trial and advised on reasonable settlement offers considering the SG's legal costs of going to trial and losing, the lawyers aren't the ones making the final decision. The person making the decision can consider wider factors and maybe they viewed those wider factors as warranting higher settlement payments to avoid going to trial.

While I am not familiar with the SG's policy on this, a single settlement payment of £10m is almost certainly well above the threshold where it would need to be signed off on by either Kate Forbes or whoever the junior minister for public finance was at the time, even if the Crown Office was the body making the payments. The minister would have seen the legal advice on the settlement and the submission on why payment is a good use of public money.

With Green having accepted this latest payout I'm guessing it means that without a court case the nature of the wrongfulness won't be disclosed. Or will that come out in the public inquiry?
I’m sure the settlement agreements have some kind of confidentially clause. But I struggle to see how you could have a public inquiry on this without going into the maliciousness. It's not tortious to bring an ill advised prosecution in "good faith". "Everyday" incompetence in the police and prosecution service is also not tortious. You need the element of maliciousness. The government wouldn't be settling if there was not a reasonable chance that the claimants could establish maliciousness in these cases. Even if the inquiry focused mainly on problems with the Crown Office's internal decision making processes, I think the inquiry would need to touch on the maliciousness to understand what went wrong and how could it be prevented in the future.

He's here!

12-08-2021, 10:02 PM

It's hard to comment without knowing how much the administrators earned. I think both were around 50 when arrested. If you assume that neither are able to work again because their reputations have been ruined, 17 years (guessing when they could take their pensions) times whatever you think their earnings as partners at Duff & Phelps would have been would be a rough starting point on damages. 17*300k is £5.1m. They were probably also seeking their costs for the criminal case as well as the civil cases.

But both appear to still be working for Duff & Phelps under its new name. It is hard to think of how damages could be £10m each without a substantive lost of earnings claim.

That being said, while the government lawyers would have advised on the likely damages award if the case went to trial and advised on reasonable settlement offers considering the SG's legal costs of going to trial and losing, the lawyers aren't the ones making the final decision. The person making the decision can consider wider factors and maybe they viewed those wider factors as warranting higher settlement payments to avoid going to trial.

While I am not familiar with the SG's policy on this, a single settlement payment of £10m is almost certainly well above the threshold where it would need to be signed off on by either Kate Forbes or whoever the junior minister for public finance was at the time, even if the Crown Office was the body making the payments. The minister would have seen the legal advice on the settlement and the submission on why payment is a good use of public money.

I’m sure the settlement agreements have some kind of confidentially clause. But I struggle to see how you could have a public inquiry on this without going into the maliciousness. It's not tortious to bring an ill advised prosecution in "good faith". "Everyday" incompetence in the police and prosecution service is also not tortious. You need the element of maliciousness. The government wouldn't be settling if there was not a reasonable chance that the claimants could establish maliciousness in these cases. Even if the inquiry focused mainly on problems with the Crown Office's internal decision making processes, I think the inquiry would need to touch on the maliciousness to understand what went wrong and how could it be prevented in the future.

Thanks, that's really interesting feedback.

JeMeSouviens

13-08-2021, 03:00 PM

https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/1426196138688860162

CropleyWasGod

13-08-2021, 03:14 PM

https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/1426196138688860162

Love it. :greengrin

That's Season 10 sorted. Normally, that all might sound like made-up *****, but these guys have a decent track record, so happy to listen.

Just when I thought I was out......etc etc.

Ozyhibby

13-08-2021, 03:44 PM

Love it. :greengrin

That's Season 10 sorted. Normally, that all might sound like made-up *****, but these guys have a decent track record, so happy to listen.

Just when I thought I was out......etc etc.

The timing was indeed perfect for Dave King.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glory Lurker

13-08-2021, 05:09 PM

https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/1426196138688860162

I know nothing at all about anything to do with all this, but that is nonsense. At least it's acknowledged that paranoia might be playing a part.

NYHibby

17-08-2021, 12:49 PM

I know nothing at all about anything to do with all this, but that is nonsense. At least it's acknowledged that paranoia might be playing a part.

One could argue that the fact these settlement payments are being made is evidence that there wasn’t a grand conspiracy like that Twitter thread suggests.

Even if you think that the prosecutors were part of some weird conspiracy in 2014 and are trying to cover their butts now, as I mentioned above, the settlements almost certainly were signed off on by civil servants in the SG’s public spending directorate and either Kate Forbes or whoever was her junior minister at the time. None of those people would have been part of the supposed conspiracy. Kate and her junior ministers weren’t in parliament let alone government in 2014. What would they gain by dirtying their hands by being complicit in covering up some anti-Mike Ashley conspiracy? Regardless of whatever embarrassing evidence would come out in trial, they personally would come out clean.