Rangers scandal: Police refuse to answer questions

‘Simply not good enough’

DETECTIVES at the centre of the botched Rangers fraud probe were criticised by a judge yesterday for refusing to speak to lawyers for two men suing over their ‘unlawful’ arrests.

Lord Tyre said it was not ‘good enough’ for police to refuse requests to be interviewed by solicitors acting for former Rangers administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark.

The two insolvency experts are suing Police Scotland and the Crown Office for £20.8million over the probe into fraud at the club.

Lawyers acting for the Lord Advocate have previously admitted the two men were the subject of a malicious prosecution.

But the police still maintain that they acted lawfully in relation to both men.

Mr Clark’s lawyer Iain Ferguson, QC, told Lord Tyre officers involved in the probe against his client were not cooperating with requests for precognition – when lawyers interview witnesses ahead of court action.

Mr Ferguson said Police Scotland had been ‘stringing along’ his legal team.

But Alastair Duncan, QC, who is acting for Police Scotland, said the officers were under no legal obligation to be interviewed by solicitors. He said the officers were facing allegations which were ‘serious’ and ‘criminal’ in nature, and they would provide statements to the court.

However, Lord Tyre said: ‘That the police – as public servants – are not willing to co-operate and assist in this process without being forced to do so simply because these are serious allegations is simply not good enough.’

Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark’s actions have stemmed from their alleged treatment by the police and prosecution authorities.

The pair were arrested following events surrounding Rangers’s financial position last decade.

The two men were appointed administrators of the club in February 2012.

Police then arrested Mr Whitehouse and charged him with offences relating to businessman Craig Whyte’s takeover of Rangers in 2011.

Both men later saw the charges against them dropped.

It is claimed in the current action that there was not any justification for their detention, committal or prosecution, and that the Crown never had sufficient evidence for any of the charges it brought.

Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark won a ruling from a specially convened bench of five judges at the

Court of Session in Edinburgh last year that the Lord Advocate did not have absolute immunity from a civil damages claim in such circumstances.

The police claim that they acted lawfully during the investigation and their treatment of both men.

Mr Whitehouse’s lawyer Roddy Dunlop, QC, said the action against the Crown would focus on the amount of damages that Mr Whitehouse should receive.

Mr Ferguson said his client still wanted to pursue a liability action against the Crown in relation to its claim that it acted lawfully in the initial stages of the investigation.

Another procedural hearing to determine the timetable for the case is expected in November.