Jump to content

The Sevco saga continues ...


JamboAl

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Footballfirst

    235

  • Unknown user

    99

  • buzzbomb1958

    78

  • Mysterion

    77

Footballfirst
6 hours ago, Deevers said:

I don't know why Kenny MacAskill is looking for the head of the Lord Advocate James Wolffe.  The malicious prosecution was carried out under the previous LA, Frank Mulholland.

 

One issue that wasn't mentioned is that Mulholland in now a Judge, Lord Mulholland.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/01/2021 at 11:42, Footballfirst said:

As the article states the Lord Advocate admitted liability for the malicious prosecution a few weeks ago. It was only the amount of the settlement that remained in question. I'm surprised it was the full amount of the claim though.

 

The third of the Duff & Phelps guys, David Grier, also has a hearing on Thursday/Friday of this week in his action against the Lord Advocate.

The whole event is so badly dealt with you'd almost think it was intentional so that no one involved gets jail time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't know why Kenny MacAskill is looking for the head of the Lord Advocate James Wolffe.  The malicious prosecution was carried out under the previous LA, Frank Mulholland.

 

One issue that wasn't mentioned is that Mulholland in now a Judge, Lord Mulholland.

That’s true. There must be others in both the PFs Office and the Crown Office who were pushing the buttons for these prosecutions to take place. The whole investigation and case has now been seriously called into question. A complete  farce fuelled by people with Rangers leanings looking for scapegoats at any cost while the real culprit for their demise slipped off almost unscathed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
6 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

The whole event is so badly dealt with you'd almost think it was intentional so that no one involved gets jail time.

I attended a number of the early hearings in the criminal case at the High Court.  The judge at the time was consistently questioning the Advocate Depute (the Crown's prosecutor) and ultimately scathing of the conduct of the case by the Crown office. 

 

What started with an indictment of around 15 alleged crimes was whittled down one by one, until only two remained against Craig Whyte, the ones he stood trial for and was found not guilty.  There were several instances of malfeasance by the police in collection of evidence, the arrests and in interviews with witnesses. There was also the issue of a lack of evidence for a number of the alleged offences.  However the Crown was intent on continuing the action, until the judge directed that charges be dropped, both for lack of evidence and "oppression" (a legal term for using power to exert willful harm on an individual).

 

The Crown and Police Scotland took every opportunity to cover up their failings which is why it has taken so long to get to this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
9 minutes ago, Deevers said:

That’s true. There must be others in both the PFs Office and the Crown Office who were pushing the buttons for these prosecutions to take place. The whole investigation and case has now been seriously called into question. A complete  farce fuelled by people with Rangers leanings looking for scapegoats at any cost while the real culprit for their demise slipped off almost unscathed.

The names of two individuals came up time and time again during the hearings as being the ones who were driving the prosecutions.  They were the investigating officer DCI Jim Roberson and the Advocate Depute, James Keegan.  The LA himself was barely mentioned during the case, but as the "heid honcho" he has to accept responsibility for those who acted in his name. 

 

Edit: Keegan was actually dropped as prosecutor for the Whyte trial after screwing up so much of the indictment. He was replaced by Alex Prentice, who was judged to be one of the Crown Office's top prosecutors.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The names of two individuals came up time and time again during the hearings as being the ones who were driving the prosecutions.  They were the investigating officer DCI Jim Roberson and the Advocate Depute, James Keegan.  The LA himself was barely mentioned during the case, but as the "heid honcho" he has to accept responsibility for those who acted in his name. 

I'm assuming they are Rangers fans?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Deevers said:

That’s true. There must be others in both the PFs Office and the Crown Office who were pushing the buttons for these prosecutions to take place. The whole investigation and case has now been seriously called into question. A complete  farce fuelled by people with Rangers leanings looking for scapegoats at any cost while the real culprit for their demise slipped off almost unscathed.

But wasn't that always the aim? I believe  they wanted scapegoats,  but importantly, not ones that were going to face consequences that impacted on their liberties,  due to the perceived incompetence. Craig Whyte was chosen and would  have been given guarantees for the role. The subsequent jaw dropping carnage isn't that jaw dropping really. 

Edited by Riccarton3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The names of two individuals came up time and time again during the hearings as being the ones who were driving the prosecutions.  They were the investigating officer DCI Jim Roberson and the Advocate Depute, James Keegan.  The LA himself was barely mentioned during the case, but as the "heid honcho" he has to accept responsibility for those who acted in his name. 

 

Edit: Keegan was actually dropped as prosecutor for the Whyte trial after screwing up so much of the indictment. He was replaced by Alex Prentice, who was judged to be one of the Crown Office's top prosecutors.

A little refresher of just how bad Keegan was at his job : the sheer incompetence is mind boggling. 

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/you-dont-know-what-youre-8524837

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Riccarton3 said:

But wasn't that always the aim? I believe  they wanted scapegoats  but importantly not ones that were going to face consequences that impacted on their liberties due to their perceived incompetence. Craig Whyte was chosen and would  have been given guarantees for the role. The subsequent jaw dropping carnage isn't that jaw dropping really. 

It is. After being charged, Whyte was told effectively that some charges were being dropped (nearly all the big ones) but the authorities intended to hit him with other  charges as and when they felt like it.  Basically. 

Whyte was eventually charged with a most trivial offence, IIRC. 

There ought to be a public enquiry into the abuse of process and the criminal waste of public funds involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
7 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

It is. After being charged, Whyte was told effectively that some charges were being dropped (nearly all the big ones) but the authorities intended to hit him with other  charges as and when they felt like it.  Basically. 

Whyte was eventually charged with a most trivial offence, IIRC. 

There ought to be a public enquiry into the abuse of process and the criminal waste of public funds involved. 

The final charges against Whyte were serious ones, Fraud in the acquisition of the RFC majority shareholding and Financial Assistance (using RFC's own resources to fund the deal - Ticketus)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

It is. After being charged, Whyte was told effectively that some charges were being dropped (nearly all the big ones) but the authorities intended to hit him with other  charges as and when they felt like it.  Basically. 

Whyte was eventually charged with a most trivial offence, IIRC. 

There ought to be a public enquiry into the abuse of process and the criminal waste of public funds involved. 

Down South the police put emphasis on enquiries on the evidence of a known fantasist while 'investigating' the activities of the very worst kind. Once the fantasist is discredited, all Investigations stop? Really? That is what I mean by saying events are not so jaw dropping. Oh yes,and the police discredited their own investigations. How convenient.

Edited by Riccarton3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The final charges against Whyte were serious ones, Fraud in the acquisition of the RFC majority shareholding and Financial Assistance (using RFC's own resources to fund the deal - Ticketus)

What resulted in him being acquitted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The names of two individuals came up time and time again during the hearings as being the ones who were driving the prosecutions.  They were the investigating officer DCI Jim Roberson and the Advocate Depute, James Keegan.  The LA himself was barely mentioned during the case, but as the "heid honcho" he has to accept responsibility for those who acted in his name. 

 

Edit: Keegan was actually dropped as prosecutor for the Whyte trial after screwing up so much of the indictment. He was replaced by Alex Prentice, who was judged to be one of the Crown Office's top prosecutors.

Given the public interest in the case it’s hard to believe that those at the very top of the Crown Office were not being fully briefed on the progress of the case.  The whole manner in which matters were progressed was amateurish. Given the cost to the public purse I’m shocked that there has not been a full blown public enquiry demanded. The muted manner in which politicians of all parties have accepted this tells you so much. The findings of any such enquiry would be wholly embarrassing and severely compromise public confidence in the manner in which justice is administered here. Easier just to take the financial hit and ignore the obvious and hope it’s all eventually  forgotten about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
11 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

What resulted in him being acquitted?

He was acquitted of both charges on a majority verdict.  Donald Findlay successfully put enough doubt in minds of the jury that the club was a basket case and David Murray for desperate for a sale, so was not duped.  The Financial Assistance charge is more of a technical business practice issue which I thought that the prosecution failed to explain adequately to the jury. There had never been a criminal prosecution for that offence in Scotland before the Whyte case. Findlay also successfully argued that Whyte was entitled to use the Ticketus funds as soon as he took ownership, so the timing of the transactions was key. (the takeover was on 6 May 2011, the Ticketus cash was used on 9 May).  It was planned that way by Whyte's people, with a weekend between the financial transactions.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

He was acquitted of both charges on a majority verdict.  Donald Findlay successfully put enough doubt in minds of the jury that the club was a basket case and David Murray for desperate for a sale, so was not duped.  The Financial Assistance charge is more of a technical business practice issue which I thought that the prosecution failed to explain adequately to the jury. There had never been a criminal prosecution for that offence in Scotland before the Whyte case. Findlay also successfully argued that Whyte was entitled to use the Ticketus funds as soon as he took ownership, so the timing of the transactions was key. (the takeover was on 6 May 2011, the Ticketus cash was used on 9 May).  It was planned that way by Whyte's people, with a weekend between the financial transactions.

Thanks. Sounds like the only ones paying for Rangers demise is me, you and every other tax payer. I expect Whyte pays tax abroad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Down South the police put emphasis on enquiries on the evidence of a known fantasist while 'investigating' the activities of the very worst kind. Once the fantasist is discredited, all Investigations stop? Really? That is what I mean by saying events are not so jaw dropping. Oh yes,and the police discredited their own investigations. How convenient.

If you think Keegan going to court knowing what he did (and he has previous) about the prosecution case added to the dropping of all major charges / crown suggestion to add charges as & when they thought,  isn't jaw dropping, good for you. Anywhere else that would be abuse of power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

If you think Keegan going to court knowing what he did (and he has previous) about the prosecution case added to the dropping of all major charges / crown suggestion to add charges as & when they thought,  isn't jaw dropping, good for you. Anywhere else that would be abuse of power. 

I'm really just saying, nothing  surprises me? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Cairneyhill Jambo

Murdo Fraser just about to ask this question during topical questions at the Parliament just now.

 

To ask the Scottish Government what impact there will be on the Crown Office budget as a result of any payments of compensation to individuals involved in the administration and liquidation of Rangers FC, following the admission that they were victims of malicious prosecution.

 

You can watch it on the Scottish Parliament website.  Scottish Parliament TV

 

Edited by Cairneyhill Jambo
added link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
3 hours ago, Cairneyhill Jambo said:

Murdo Fraser just about to ask this question during topical questions at the Parliament just now.

 

To ask the Scottish Government what impact there will be on the Crown Office budget as a result of any payments of compensation to individuals involved in the administration and liquidation of Rangers FC, following the admission that they were victims of malicious prosecution.

 

You can watch it on the Scottish Parliament website.  Scottish Parliament TV

 

The questions and answers from Murdo Fraser and Kate Forbes can be found at 14:17:45 on following video recording.

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/topical-questions-february-2-2021

 

Basically, the cost of the settlement is not expected to impact on the operational activities of any function including COPFS.  :confused:

 

The LA will also also make a statement at a later date.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

There was a further hearing in the Whitehouse case today, when Gerry Moynihan QC (representing the Crown Office) said that an investigation, led by himself, had found no evidence of criminal conduct by the Crown Office.

 

"Malicious prosecution" .......   nothing to see here! WTF.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55930825

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There was a further hearing in the Whitehouse case today, when Gerry Moynihan QC (representing the Crown Office) said that an investigation, led by himself, had found no evidence of criminal conduct by the Crown Office.

 

"Malicious prosecution" .......   nothing to see here! WTF.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55930825

Roddy Dunlop QC, acting for Mr Whitehouse, said the businessman wanted answers about why he was arrested, given that the Crown has since said the arrests were malicious.

 

But Moynihan says there was no criminality involved ? Isn't malicious prosecution a breach of the law / abuse of power / punishable ?  Or is this just a gane Moyhihan is playing to suggest there was no wrongdoing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Roddy Dunlop QC, acting for Mr Whitehouse, said the businessman wanted answers about why he was arrested, given that the Crown has since said the arrests were malicious.

 

But Moynihan says there was no criminality involved ? Isn't malicious prosecution a breach of the law / abuse of power / punishable ?  Or is this just a gane Moyhihan is playing to suggest there was no wrongdoing. 

 Just an attempt to sweep it all under the carpet. I have no doubt that an open public enquiry would thoroughly embarrass a number of senior figures in the Crown  Office and Police Scotland. A “ Malicious Prosecution”  with no one to blame! Unbelievable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
22 minutes ago, Deevers said:

 Just an attempt to sweep it all under the carpet. I have no doubt that an open public enquiry would thoroughly embarrass a number of senior figures in the Crown  Office and Police Scotland. A “ Malicious Prosecution”  with no one to blame! Unbelievable!

There is an offence of "misconduct in public office" that should cover such a malicious prosecution. ("misfeasance in public office" in England)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There is an offence of "misconduct in public office" that should cover such a malicious prosecution. ("misfeasance in public office" in England)

Thousands of pounds paid out in damages. People’s reputations ruined. People arrested and the whole shooting match now completely rubbished, the prosecution now labelled malicious   - yet no one being held to account. It says so much about the administration of justice in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another chateau for Charles of Normandy then. This incompetent insanity was all a result of a scam by King to remove the old Sevco regime. The only crook was King. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/01/2021 at 17:13, Footballfirst said:

I don't know why Kenny MacAskill is looking for the head of the Lord Advocate James Wolffe.  The malicious prosecution was carried out under the previous LA, Frank Mulholland.

 

One issue that wasn't mentioned is that Mulholland in now a Judge, Lord Mulholland.

Was he the guy who had to resign for discussing Salmond's accusers on a train?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
8 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Was he the guy who had to resign for discussing Salmond's accusers on a train?

No. The previous Lord Advocate is now a judge, Lord Mulholland!

 

You were thinking about Gordon Jackson QC who represented Salmond at his trial. He stepped down as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (one of the top ranked QCs) after he disclosed the names of some of Salmond's accusers while on a train.

 

Jackson, a former Labour MSP, was overheard telling another passenger that Salmond was a “quite objectionable bully” and a “nasty person to work for … a nightmare to work for”. He dismissed the complainants’ allegations, saying: “This is hardly sexual … sex offenders’ register? Not for you. Inappropriate, arsehole, stupid … but sexual? Unfortunately, [names one complainer] and [names another complainer] say it’s sexual.”

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

No. The previous Lord Advocate is now a judge, Lord Mulholland!

 

You were thinking about Gordon Jackson QC who represented Salmond at his trial. He stepped down as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (one of the top ranked QCs) after he disclosed the names of some of Salmond's accusers while on a train.

 

Jackson, a former Labour MSP, was overheard telling another passenger that Salmond was a “quite objectionable bully” and a “nasty person to work for … a nightmare to work for”. He dismissed the complainants’ allegations, saying: “This is hardly sexual … sex offenders’ register? Not for you. Inappropriate, arsehole, stupid … but sexual? Unfortunately, [names one complainer] and [names another complainer] say it’s sexual.”

There do seem to be a lot of idiots at the top of the legal profession. Didn't use to be the case. In the 90s, when I got put off being a lawyer it was because they were all drunks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Confirmation from the Lord Advocate of the settlement with Whitehouse and Clark

 

Image

 

They should be made to pay tax on it since it's in lieu of lost wages due to repetitional damage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Club 1872-2012 announced the other day that they are trying to raise 2.5mill for the latest round of debt for equity and have put off their Dave King share purchase for a few months.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/club-1872-target-further-rangers-23461002

 

Quote

"Our aim, which has been agreed by the RIFC board, is to provide up to £2.5m pounds to RIFC in return for shares at a price of 20p per share.

"If we are able to raise these funds, this will significantly raise our percentage shareholding in Rangers. It will also provide a much needed cash injection to Rangers following the impact of Covid on club revenues over the past season.

"We have until June 2021 to raise these funds and RIFC have asked us to provide a first tranche to the club in March. It will only be possible for us to provide this level of funding to Rangers if thousands of additional supporters now join Club 1872 over the coming days, weeks and months.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruickie's Moustache

The irony is of course that the likes of Murdo Fraser were more than likely pretty quiet about the old club and their Tory supporting chairman trying avoid paying Taxes to her Maj by firstly choosing to use EBT's and then by making a total hash of it. Not to mention the millions of debt that needed to be written off when the Murray empire imploded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

The former Lord Advocate fights back according to a Record article.

 

The former Lord Advocate has today broken his silence over the episode.

In a statement released via his solicitor, the senior Scottish judge said he would cooperate with any review of the malicious prosecution.

David McKie, of Levy & McRae solicitors, said: "In light of the unfounded personal attack made on my client in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, he requires to take the unusual step of responding publicly to the false and scandalous statements made under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

“He wishes to make it clear that he welcomes the independent judge-led public inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding this case and it carries his unequivocal support. My client looks forward to participating in its proceedings to the fullest possible extent.

“He has found it frustrating to have his professional reputation maligned, but has until now remained silent due to his judicial role.

“He believes that the fullest possible degree of transparency is required and strongly supports robust and thorough interrogation of the full facts of this case.

"Given the importance of this matter, and the obvious public interest in a full examination of the circumstances, it is absolutely imperative that the remit of any Inquiry also specifically extends to the handling of the recent civil case, not least given the sums of public money involved.

“His view is that any inquiry should also include a public and open review of the entirety of the evidence at the time of indictment, and a detailed examination of all of the case’s processes prior to the decision to proceed."

Scotland's top police officer also backed calls for a public inquiry.

Chief Constable Iain Livingstone lent his support to calls for an inquiry during an appearance before the Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee at Holyrood on Thursday.

“I did listen to the debate in the Scottish Parliament yesterday and heard from the Lord Advocate and a number of members,” he said.

“I shared the levels of concern that were expressed and I also share what was the will of Parliament that the role of Police Scotland would be included with any judicial inquiry that is then established.

“I give my full commitment to participate fully with that, I agree that there should be an inquiry into the circumstances and I give my commitment that the Police Service of Scotland will contribute to and co-operate fully with any inquiry that arises.”

Livingstone also said he had authorised a financial settlement for both men, although he was not allowed to say how much it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/02/2021 at 17:43, Cruickie's Moustache said:

The irony is of course that the likes of Murdo Fraser were more than likely pretty quiet about the old club and their Tory supporting chairman trying avoid paying Taxes to her Maj by firstly choosing to use EBT's and then by making a total hash of it. Not to mention the millions of debt that needed to be written off when the Murray empire imploded.

Maybe but all these scandals have happened whilst the Dear Leader and her former chum have been running the government up here. Mind you they've got enough to worry about with their own internal scandal. Another one that the taxpayer is having to shell out for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/02/2021 at 17:06, Footballfirst said:

The questions and answers from Murdo Fraser and Kate Forbes can be found at 14:17:45 on following video recording.

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/topical-questions-february-2-2021

 

Basically, the cost of the settlement is not expected to impact on the operational activities of any function including COPFS.  :confused:

 

The LA will also also make a statement at a later date.

 

 

 

 

Would the Tories care if it wasn't Rangers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tcjambo said:

Maybe but all these scandals have happened whilst the Dear Leader and her former chum have been running the government up here. Mind you they've got enough to worry about with their own internal scandal. Another one that the taxpayer is having to shell out for.

What the Feck are you on about. Things coming to light about ebts from 20 years ago and tax avoiding and evasion. What has that got to do with the SNP. 

Don't tell me, all Scots who are Scottish and not British are tims. Sorry I forgot. 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, tcjambo said:

Maybe but all these scandals have happened whilst the Dear Leader and her former chum have been running the government up here. Mind you they've got enough to worry about with their own internal scandal. Another one that the taxpayer is having to shell out for.

Not sure if you are saying that the Govt actively leant on the Crown Office iro the investigation?

That, I doubt, however as the Govt appoints the Lord Advocate and head of Crown Office (I think) then naturally there is a degree of responsibility.

In saying that, the decision to proceed is decided by the evidence produced, by Police Scotland?

Therefore the question must be what was so special about the evidence produced that made the crown office proceed, and ultimately fail? Has to go back to the investigating officers, no?

A conspiricist may think that the investigation was botched to protect the "saviours" of the bastion of Ra Peepil, whilst at the same time cause maximum embarrassment and pain to those pesky separatists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

Lord Tyre's opinion on the action of David Grier v Lord Advocate was published today.  He confirms that the case brought against Grier was brought without "probable cause", but it remains for Grier to prove "malice" on the part of the Crown, which will require further hearings.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh018.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

The Lord Advocate made a settlement with Grier's colleagues Whitehouse and Clark for malicious prosecution a few weeks ago, but did not acknowledge that Grier's prosecution was malicious.  Today's opinion takes Grier's claim a further step forward.

 

I think that Grier's claim was much lower than the £10.5m made by each of his two colleagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
42 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Lord Tyre's opinion on the action of David Grier v Lord Advocate was published today.  He confirms that the case brought against Grier was brought without "probable cause", but it remains for Grier to prove "malice" on the part of the Crown, which will require further hearings.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh018.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

The Lord Advocate made a settlement with Grier's colleagues Whitehouse and Clark for malicious prosecution a few weeks ago, but did not acknowledge that Grier's prosecution was malicious.  Today's opinion takes Grier's claim a further step forward.

 

I think that Grier's claim was much lower than the £10.5m made by each of his two colleagues.


The compensation. involved in this is extraordinary. Somebody should be facing criminal charges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Boris said:

Such as?

That would only be possible if the investigation could be proved to have been botched intentionally 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

That would only be possible if the investigation could be proved to have been botched intentionally 

 

Perverting the course of justice?

3 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Those responsible for malicious prosecutions 

 

Is malicious prosecution a crime? Sounds like it should be, but no idea if it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst
34 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Perverting the course of justice?

 

Is malicious prosecution a crime? Sounds like it should be, but no idea if it is.

Misconduct in Public Office is the criminal offence.

 

There would only be two possibilities for that. One was the chief investigating police officer, Jim Robertson and the other would be the original Advocate Depute (prosecutor) James Keegan.

Edited by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Misconduct in Public Office is the criminal offence.

 

There would only be two possibilities for that. One was the chief investigating police officer, Jim Robertson and the other would be the original Advocate Depute (prosecutor) James Keegan.

Police - did they have a decent case ? Clearly not. 

CPS (or whatever the Scottish equivalent) - how could they allow the case to go ahead knowing there was no likelihood of a conviction. What did they tell the police ? 

If something is malicious then it's intended to do harm - obv none of use are legal eagles but how there can be a multi million pound payout for a "malicious prosecution" without  there being "malice" mystifies me. We have a case where something is deemed to be malicious but the victims have to prove there was malice involved. 

If this isn't a case for a jail sentence then I don't know what is and it should be seen for the national scandal that it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Footballfirst

I listened in to part of the proof hearing at the Coart of Session in the cases of David Grier v The Lord Advocate and The Chief Constable earlier today. Grier is claiming £7m in damages.

 

Lord Tyre has previously ruled that there was no evidential foundation to the charges against Grier, but Grier still needs to prove malice on the part of the police/Crown continuing to pursue the case, to be successful in his claim

 

Grier was in the witness box primarily answering questions from Gerry Moynihan QC who was representing the Lord Advocate.  I thought Grier came across very well and explained his role and involvement in the Whyte takeover, so much so that Moynihan was struggling to pose follow-up questions after Grier explained the context and detail of various email chains that the Crown had been relying upon to pursue the case.

 

One snippet that came out  just before the end of the day was that Grier had secretly recorded one or more of his interviews with the Police (he had checked the legality beforehand).  He was also scathing of the lack of knowledge of financial matters shown by the Police officers involved (Robertson & O'Neill).

 

The case continues tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • cosanostra changed the title to Sevco are as stupid as we thought

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...