Thursday, October 25, 2012

The Lord Advocate’s SECRET SLUSH FUND : Crown Office have used secret cash to ‘make payoffs’ & ‘cover up’ criminal, civil cases involving staff

Lord Advocate Frank MulhollandEvidence emerges of a secret slush fund at Lord Advocate’s Crown Office. SCOTLAND’S Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has today been accused of operating a secret, unaudited “slush fund of public money” used to pay for legal advice, and private legal representation for its own members of staff who have been charged with criminal offences or who have become involved in civil legal disputes.

The fund, which legal insiders claim is buried deep in the budget for the Crown Office, is rumoured to have paid out millions of pounds over its existence in cases involving its own staff. There are also suggestions the fund has been used to PAY-OFF ‘media friendly’ law firms to keep headlines involving criminal charges against COPFS staff out of the press and that the fund may have been used “to purchase testimony” from witnesses”.

The claims come after the Crown Office refused to respond to Freedom of Information requests made by journalists investigating leaks that “a substantial fund which is not subject to external audit or accountability”, is maintained by prosecutors to pay huge sums relating to legal costs of their colleagues caught up in scandals, criminal charges and civil legal actions.

Legal insiders claim the fund, which is bankrolled by the Scottish Government, has been operating on an almost “cash-in-hand basis” with several high profile law firms receiving large sums of money for representing Crown Office personnel up to the most senior rank in the organisation.

Documents passed to Scottish Law Reporter show that journalists used FOI laws in June of this year to ask COPFS officials “Are there any arrangements for former Crown Office staff to continue to receive payment of public funds, respective legal advice, action or representation of issues or cases in which they were personally involved in prior to leaving COPFS, and if so, how many such cases have occurred since 2009, how many continue to this date, and how much has been paid in relation to the cases.”

It then took the Crown Office OVER TWO MONTHS to reply, after a series of secret internal discussions concluded the information should not be handed over, out of fears it would reveal significant sums of public money had been handed over by the Lord Advocate’s staff to law firms without any accounting of fees or questions as to the level of charges, which in some cases have skyrocketed past six figure sums.

Gertie Wallace, of the Crown Office ‘Policy Division’ replied to journalists, applying exemptions under Section 35(1)(b) and 35(1)(c) of FOISA to all of the information requested. Gertie Wallace then went onto state : “I consider that the release of the information would substantially prejudice the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the administration of justice.”

“I am satisfied that in all the circumstances there are compelling reasons that the public interest in disclosing is not outweighed by the public interest in not disclosing the information. I consider the public interest is best served by applying the exemptions under section 35(1) (b) and (c) in this particular instance. “

The Crown Office also refused to disclose the detailed reasons for refusing to disclose the information, citing live criminal proceedings against its own staff.

Wallace went onto say : “I cannot provide you with the detailed reason for this decision because to do so would in itself disclose information which is exempt under this section and also under section 26(c) of FOISA in light of live criminal proceedings which are subject to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Section 26(c) is an absolute exemption and not subject to the public interest test.”

Following the refusal to disclose, journalists then asked the Crown Office to review their decision, and in response, David Harvie, the Director of Serious Casework concluded the information on how much public money was being lavished on legal fees for staff should not be handed over.

The full details of the FOI battle to reveal taxpayers cash being spent on Crown Office staff and their dealings with law firms can be viewed HERE

Speaking to Scottish Law Reporter earlier today, a solicitor from a well known law firm expressed dismay at the Crown Office refusal to release the information.

The solicitor went onto say that it was well known in legal circles, there is a small exclusive club of law firms who are being paid substantial sums by the Crown Office for work involving their own staff.

He said that in one case he knew of involving criminal charges arising out of drink driving offences, the Crown Office handed over TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS to a law firm who were defending a senior Crown Office staffer in a case that had dragged on unnecessarily for many months, even attracting criticism from a Sheriff.

He also backed media attempts to reveal how much public money is being spent by the Crown Office on law firms and their staff involved in cases.

SLUSH FUND IN ACTION ?

Questions remain over who paid for lawyers working for Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in battle against anti-abuse campaigner. One case which has brought the issue of this secret fund into focus is that of a case involving legal action taken by the previous Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (born McPhilomy) over a campaign asking for an investigation into abuse against vulnerable people in the Aberdeen area, and allegations of a paedophile gang rumoured to contain members of Scotland’s judiciary.

Groups of law journalists and media publications had sought to use Freedom of Information laws to establish whether the Crown Office did pay for legal representation of Dame Angiolini (born McPhilomy)in the case of Robert Green, a journalist & anti-abuse campaigner who was jailed for six months on a breach of the peace charge, at a cost to taxpayers of around ONE MILLION POUNDS after he was found guilty of handing out leaflets asking for an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse against a downs syndrome victim, Hollie Greig.

The Crown Office refused to disclose any information in response to FOI requests involving Angiolini, and in some cases, enacted a media boycott of certain publications in retaliation for publishing material and allegations connected with the case involving Angiolini

The law firm involved in representing Dame Angiolini (born McPhilomy) was LEVY MCRAE of Glasgow, who also represented the shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell. Partners at Levy McRae have recently been caught up in bitter court fights over personal actions, while others at the firm are known to work for the Cayman Islands tax dodge haven, where some of the world’s biggest drugs gangs, terror groups and mobsters are known to keep their money from state tax authorities. It is also known that Levy McRae have personal ties to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who used to work at the firm, reported by SLR, HERE

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah, the old excuse of the Public Interest Test con?

We cannot tell you what we have been getting up to because the very act of telling you will make you Never trust a single word we utter in the future and that the Public may very likely descend upon our building and drag us out kicking and screaming....?

What a bunch of crooks?

Anonymous said...

Could this 'SLUSH FUND' money have been obtained through unlawful access and use of monies received from PROCEEDS OF CRIME cash?

This is money that:

a) it would be fairly easy to skim money off the top before lodging it in the respective Government bank accounts because of the unquantified nature of where the money was coming from and the recording of this money (who is checking the money being taken in?)

b) when taken from the prosecuted person does not match (i.e. is more than) with the publicly stated banked proceeds of crime amount, then who is going to believe the crook's (the prosecuted person) word against the Crown Office?

c) the Crown Office have recently lobbied MacAskill to pay them the proceeds of crime money (or a share of it) straight into Crown Office hands instead of being lodged back into Public funds with the Government?

d) the Crown Office had the access to, the motive to access and the will to cover their tracks?


Makes you wonder?

Feels like a Public Inquiry is called for here?

Anonymous said...

The top of the Crown Office have their hands covered in gravy?

Anonymous said...

Would this be categorised as perverting the course of justice?

Surely the Crown Office will have to prove (by producing the documentary evidence) that they do not have their fingers in the till to show the Public that their character is above reproach?

A failure to produce the necessary documentation to prove their trustworthiness will result in the total distrust in the Crown Office leading to the Public calling for their removal en masse?

Anonymous said...

Is this Fraud?

Anonymous said...

Who is supposed to investigate the Crown Office when it is the Crown Office who give directions to the police on whether to investigate a particular matter (person) or not?

Does this mean that the Crown Office are totally above the law?

Does this mean that there is an organisation at the very heart of Scotland who are being allowed to act contrary to the laws of the land?

Is this lke the Mafiosi?

Anonymous said...

Is this Slush Fund being used for slushy cold drinks to keep those hot-heads cool or is it just being used for the run-of-the-mill defeating the ends of justice which has sadly become commonplace within the crooked Crown Office which looks more and more like a criminal gang operating above the law with every passing day?

Crooked Crown Office for a broken Scotland being eaten from the inside by legal parasites feeding off its host?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
Could this 'SLUSH FUND' money have been obtained through unlawful access and use of monies received from PROCEEDS OF CRIME cash?

This is money that:

a) it would be fairly easy to skim money off the top before lodging it in the respective Government bank accounts because of the unquantified nature of where the money was coming from and the recording of this money (who is checking the money being taken in?)

b) when taken from the prosecuted person does not match (i.e. is more than) with the publicly stated banked proceeds of crime amount, then who is going to believe the crook's (the prosecuted person) word against the Crown Office?

c) the Crown Office have recently lobbied MacAskill to pay them the proceeds of crime money (or a share of it) straight into Crown Office hands instead of being lodged back into Public funds with the Government?

d) the Crown Office had the access to, the motive to access and the will to cover their tracks?


Makes you wonder?

Feels like a Public Inquiry is called for here?

October 26, 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------

This is like a Mafiosi racket?

Anonymous said...

This is a great photo of Captain Slush........?

Like in the movie Taxi..........'He's a lonely forgotten man desperate to prove that he's alive'

Anonymous said...

Is it true that Keith Brown MSP (transport minister) has been advised to order in an extra shipment of 1,000,000 tonnes of salt from Canada in an effort to make all of this talk of SLUSH disappear?

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if it was true that the reason for them at the Crown Office having such a fine complection was due to them bathing daily in asses milk?

Anonymous said...

Can it be true that the Crown Office have dispensed with the office junior who used to be sent for cakes (hence the term bun boy)?

I have heard that each Crown Office staff member now has a Plebeian assigned to them, whose job it is to make sure that a chilled grape is constantly ready to be popped into their mouth - such is the slush of our cash that is burned?

Anonymous said...

What is the difference between a career Crown Office staffer and a pick-pocket?




Turns out...............NOTHING?

Anonymous said...

This sounds like a Rangers EBT Trust?

i.e. Members of the Slush Fund can use it to dip into if they feel the need?

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20309638

Instead of hosting stories from lawyers eager to portray their profession as honest when it is not, the paper could do with writing articles aimed at the majority of Scots population who now refuse to buy such overt propaganda for the those in society who have the most and cause the most harm to the rest of us.