Duke: How I played a part in the case of the missing masterpiece
A SCOTTISH aristocrat told how he became ‘an actor’ in a police undercover sting to secure the return of a stolen family heirloom.
Richard Scott, the 10th Duke of Buccleuch, said: ‘I was an actor in a process which they were creating.’
The duke explained his actions at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, where he is being sued by a former solicitor who is seeking £4.25million for his part in the recovery of the painting.
The police mounted an undercover operation to secure the return of Leonardo da Vinci’s Madonna of the Yarnwinder after it was stolen from the Buccleuch family seat in Dumfriesshire.
The painting was eventually returned – but not before the duke took part in the police operation to recover it, the court heard yesterday.
He explained: ‘I think the police told me and my father what we needed to do in order to help them with their inquiries, but no more.’
The duke said he first became aware of an undercover operation mounted by the police in 2006.
He said he was informed that a man by the name of Brown had convinced the police that he had had sight of the painting and possibly had access to it.
The duke said he was asked by an officer to have a phone conver- sation with him, which he did. ‘I knew I had to act out a role,’ he said.
The court also heard that he was also asked to sign a ‘To whom it may concern’ document that was drafted by police during the sting operation.
The duke said he had been asked to play a part in supporting the undercover officer in the investigation after the theft from Drumlanrig Castle on August 27, 2003.
Following the recovery of the painting, ex- solicitor Marshall Ronald raised an action seeking £4.25million from the duke.
He was cleared in 2010 following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh of conspiring to extort money for its return.
The painting was recovered in 2007 after Mr Ronald, of Upholland, Lancashire, sent a message to an undercover officer stating: ‘The Lady is coming home.’
Mr Ronald claims in the civil action that the duke provided a letter of authority confirming that the officer, known as John Craig, acted as his agent in the
‘I knew I had to act out a role’
recovery of the painting and was authorised to conduct negotiations. He contends that the £4.25million was the amount agreed to be paid to him for his role in securing the return of the masterpiece, and that the agreement was made by Craig.
The duke maintains Craig had no authority to negotiate on his behalf. It is also argued that the agreement Mr Ronald relies on is tainted by illegality and/or is contrary to public policy.
It is said the letter of authority was requested by the police as part of their undercover operation and was designed to support Craig’s undercover persona.
His counsel Andrew Young, QC, asked the duke if police in the period up to the recovery of the painting had ever advised him that Marshall Ronald had come on to the scene. He replied: ‘No.’
He said he was elsewhere on the estate when the painting was stolen from the castle.
Mr Ronald had contacted a loss adjuster involved in the case in August 2007 and Craig called him later that month.
Mr Young told the court that there was no discussion with the duke about what John Craig could say in negotiations to try to recover the picture.
He said there had been a failure to prove actual agency and no contract was entered into by the duke and the action must fail.
Mr Ronald said: ‘I believe I had a contract with John Craig and it had agreed the figure.’
The judge, Lord Brailsford, reserved his decision in the case.