WE WANT £20M
Ex-Rangers administrators make huge damages claims against Lord Advocate & police after Crown Office admits its staff acted unlawfully
TWO former Rangers administrators have launched a huge lawsuit after the Crown Office admitted it broke the law by trying to prosecute them.
David Whitehouse and Paul Clark want £20million over the “malicious” case.
PROSECUTORS yesterday admitted they had pursued a “malicious” case against two former Rangers FC administrators without “probable cause”.
David Whitehouse and Paul Clark are now pursuing a massive £20million damages claims against Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC and Police Scotland for alleged wrongful detention, arrest and prosecution.
The ex-Rangers administrators were the subject of an abortive attempt to prosecute them following the Rangers takeover by Craig Whyte and the club’s subsequent liquidation.
Yesterday, in a dramatic U-turn at the Court of Session, the Crown Office, which prosecutes crimes in Scotland, conceded that their staff had acted unlawfully in pursuing the men.
Following the Crown’s stark admissions that the two men’s human rights had been breached, judge Lord Tyre ordered prosecutors to pay them £600,000 in interim expenses – £350,000 to Whitehouse and £250,000 to Clark.
It was later revealed in court papers that Whitehouse is now seeking £10.5million damages – up from £9million – while Clark is claiming £10.3million – up from £5million.
Roddy Dunlop QC, acting for Whitehouse, said the case had been in court since 2016. He added: “From the very off, (the Lord Advocate) has asserted at all times that this prosecution ran on the basis of probable and reasonable cause, and on the basis of good faith in the minds of the prosecutors.
“At 12pm on Monday, that all crashed to the ground.”
Mr Dunlop said “huge amounts of work” by their legal team had been “vindicated” as “we now see that the Crown did maliciously and without probable cause render prosecution of both these gentlemen”.
He added at “no point in time was there was reasonable and probable cause”.
Iain Ferguson QC, acting for Clark, said: “It’s nothing short of a disgrace that the Government has behaved in this fashion towards private citizens who it now accepts should never have been prosecuted.
“It’s only because of the determination of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse to clear their names that this situation came about.
“The bottom line is less wealthy individuals would never have reached this point. That’s completely unacceptable.”
Mr Ferguson said prosecutors spent four years defending their actions. He added: “The Crown has pled a positive case in defence that there was probable cause and there was no malice. That has been turned on its head.
“We find ourselves recognising now there was no probable cause for the prosecution.
“It cannot be denied that the Crown has been in possession of all the relevant documents from the outset.”
Seeking the release of all documents relating to the failed prosecution, Mr Ferguson told yesterday’s court hearing what was “strikingly absent” so far “is any minute of a meeting with the Lord Advocate”.
Mr Ferguson said: “There were numerous meetings chaired by the Lord Advocate at the time (Frank Mulholland QC, now judge Lord Mulholland), where strategic decisions were taken relating to the prosecution.
“Frankly, I find it astonishing that
notes or minutes of these meetings weren’t taken by his private secretary.
“That’s one particular thing that I’m after.”
Gerry Moynihan QC, representing the Crown at the Court of Session hearing in Edinburgh yesterday, said liability for a complaint of “malicious prosecution” was accepted. But some issues relating to the “malice dimension” are still “contested”, he added.
He told the hearing some Crown staff had sought “independent legal advice”, adding: “It may be that some witnesses decline to produce statements.”
Clark and Whitehouse’s lawyers still want further documents released by the Crown before new hearings in the case next year.
Mr Dunlop, Whitehouse’s lawyer, said there had been a “drip, drip, drip” of documents released over time. He added that new documents released made it “quite clear why the admission had been made”. He said: “The case became very, very difficult for the Lord Advocate once those documents were disclosed. These were documents that were in the hands of the Lord Advocate at all material times and not in our hands until steps were taken to force disclosure.”
Mr Ferguson said their release has been a “drip feeding exercise” and “we still don’t know what’s out there”. He added: “The Crown haven’t been particularly diligent in dealing with this expeditiously. Either the Crown chose not to read all documents until recently, or chosen to ignore what they say.”
He referred to a released communication from Crown staff which referred to “obvious shortcomings” in the case, including an absence of a forensic accountancy report.
The court heard a reference to another document in which senior Crown staff talked of the “need to nail the Duff & Phelps people”, the firm Whitehouse and Clark worked for.
The question of expenses was covered during the hearing. Mr Dunlop said his client had shelled out an “eye-watering” £1.8million on legal costs in pursuit of damages. He argued the Crown’s “wholesale admission” it “maliciously and without probable cause prosecuted these gentlemen” justified an immediate, large payment towards Whitehouse’s expenses.
Mr Ferguson said Clark had spent £1,030,000 on legal bills. Lord Tyre said issues relating to the Crown’s liability remained an “issue” and fixed a further procedural hearing for next month.
He awarded Whitehouse £350,000 in expenses and Clark a sum of £250,000.
Alastair Duncan QC, representing Police Scotland, said: “There would appear to be some prospect of this case proceeding against the police alone.”
He said it would be helpful for the Lord Advocate to “clarify what is and what isn’t in dispute”.
Yesterday’s admissions by the Crown followed recent developments involving former Ibrox director Imran Ahmad. Last week BBC Scotland told how Ahmad was to receive a public apology from the Lord Advocate and significant damages after being wrongly prosecuted on fraud charges.
Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is suing Police Scotland for wrongful arrest after charges against him were dropped.