Heather Capital collapse: Court of Session hears £200K payment was made to suspended Sheriff Peter Watson - who represented ex-Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini & former First Minister Alex Salmond

Suspended sheriff Peter Watson acted for ex Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini. A SENIOR judge at the Court of Session has revealed a suspended Sheriff who represented Scotland’s previous Lord Advocate & ex First Minister, received a £200,000 payment from a Gibraltar based law firm.

The revelations came in a hearing in the case of  Heather Capital Ltd (In Liquidation) v Levy & McRae and others - naming suspended Sheriff Peter Watson amid a series of allegations in relation to the £400m collapse of the Heather Capital Hedge Fund.

The court was told Watson received a £200K payment from Hassans - a Gibraltar based law firm who acted in the transfer of tens of millions of pounds via a series of companies connected to Heather Capital and controlled by Gregory King.

Watson, who represented former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, ex First Minister Alex Salmond, ex Glasgow City Council leader Stephen Purcell, bosses at Rangers Football Club, among others, was suspended from his judicial role as a Sheriff in February of this year by Scotland’s Lord President – Lord Brian Gill.

Watson is known to have provided legal services to former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, and ex First Minister Alex Salmond.

In the course of Watson’s representation of Angiolini, it is known much of the legal services provided were paid for out of public cash via the Crown Office.

Lord Woolman said: Heather Capital Ltd (‘HC’) was incorporated in the Isle of Man in 2005.  Prior to its liquidation in 2010 it had received investments exceeding $400 million. The present action has been raised in its name by the liquidator. The first defender is the firm of Levy & McRae. The other defenders are eight individuals, who were partners in the firm in the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008.

The liquidator contends that the company was defrauded of a sum of about £90 million. The scheme involved the transfer of funds to companies incorporated in Gibraltar that were owned or controlled by one of HC’s directors, Gregory King.  A firm of solicitors in Gibraltar, Hassans, acted in these transactions.

According to the liquidator, in early 2007 HC’s auditors raised queries about these transactions.  Subsequently, Mr King sought to conceal their true nature.

One of the transactions concerned a company called Westernbrook Properties Limited. On 4 January 2007 the sum of £19 million was paid into the first defender’s client account.  It was paid out 5 days later to an account with HSBC Private Bank in Monaco held by a Panamanian company.  On 24 January the sum of £9.412 million was paid into the first defender’s client account.  It was paid out on 28 March to the client account of Hassans.

On 23 December 2008 a payment of £200,000 was made to the eighth defender, Mr Peter Watson, from Hassans’ client account.

Suspension of Sheriff Watson & chronology of Heather Capital:

In February of this year, Peter Watson was suspended by Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill, after the Judicial Office received enquiries from the media in relation to a multi million pound writ naming Watson among a slew of allegations in the £400m collapse of Heather Capital, a hedge fund set up by Spanish based Gregory King.

It has since been reported Watson held a number of directorships in firms linked to the collapsed hedge fund – directorships including Aarkad PLC, based in the Isle of Man, Mathon – another company linked to the collapsed hedge fund, and a directorship of King & Co, a private bank set up by the Hedge Fund’s founder – Gregory King.

The collapse of Heather Capital is currently subject to investigation by Police Scotland, and  the Crown Office – which Angiolini headed as Lord Advocate during the time many of the events in the Heather Capital fiasco took place.

There is currently no suggestion Angiolini was aware of any of the events of Heather Capital during the time she held the post of Lord Advocate.

However, nearly a year on after Scotland’s Crown Office received reports on 4 individuals from Police Scotland, the current Lord Advocate – Frank Mulholland – who served as Solicitor General to Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini is still to decide on whether any prosecutions will take place in relation to the collapse of Heather Capital and the hundreds of millions of pounds lost to private investors.

During a recent hearing of the Heather Capital case at the Court of Session, Lord Woolman revealed Peter Watson  received a £200K payment from funds connected to the new collapsed Hedge Fund.

The £200K payment to Watson – via a Gibraltar law firm - was made during the time Angiolini was Scotland’s Lord Advocate.

Elish Angiolini was Lord Advocate from 12 October 2006 – 31 April 2011 and previously served as Solicitor General from 28 November 2001 – 12 October 2006.

Lord Woolman wrote: “On 23 December 2008 a payment of £200,000 was made to the eighth defender, Mr Peter Watson, from Hassans’ client account.”

In July 2011, two months after Frank Mulholland succeeded Elish Angiolini as Lord advocate, the Scottish Crime & Drug Enforcement Agency obtained search warrants to recover material from the Glasgow based Cannon Law Practice – run by Frank Cannon – as part of an investigation into the alleged embezzlement of millions of pounds of cash linked to Heather Capital and it’s founder – Gregory King

Much of the allegedly stolen money passed through Cannon’s client account.

The move by Police in 2011 followed a financial audit of Cannon’s Law Practice – conducted by the Law Society of Scotland in 2010, when it was discovered millions of pounds had passed through Cannon’s client account in relation to a series of offshore transactions involving their client – Gregory King, a director of Mathon Ltd &founder of Heather Capital.

A legal insider said it would be a difficult proposition for the Crown Office to deny any knowledge of the SCDEA raid on Cannons Law firm in 2011 or knowledge of what would have likely been a lengthy SCDEA investigation prior to warrants being served.

Suspended Sheriff Watson also counted former First Minister Alex Salmond among his clients. Mr Salmond had appointed Peter Watson to a Scottish version of the Leveson inquiry - which aimed to curtail media freedoms in Scotland.

Heather Capital - Lord Woolman’s opinion:

 Heather Capital Ltd (In Liquidation) v Levy & McRae and others

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

[2015] CSOH 115 CA207/14

NOTE BY LORD WOOLMAN

In the cause

HEATHER CAPITAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Pursuers; against

LEVY & McRAE AND OTHERS Defenders:

Pursuer:  Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC;  Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
Defenders:  Clark QC, J Brown;  Simpson & Marwick
14 August 2015

Introduction

[1]        Heather Capital Ltd (‘HC’) was incorporated in the Isle of Man in 2005.  Prior to its liquidation in 2010 it had received investments exceeding $400 million. The present action has been raised in its name by the liquidator. The first defender is the firm of Levy & McRae. The other defenders are eight individuals, who were partners in the firm in the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008.

[2]        The liquidator contends that the company was defrauded of a sum of about £90 million. The scheme involved the transfer of funds to companies incorporated in Gibraltar that were owned or controlled by one of HC’s directors, Gregory King.  A firm of solicitors in Gibraltar, Hassans, acted in these transactions.

[3]        According to the liquidator, in early 2007 HC’s auditors raised queries about these transactions.  Subsequently, Mr King sought to conceal their true nature.

[4]        One of the transactions concerned a company called Westernbrook Properties Limited. On 4 January 2007 the sum of £19 million was paid into the first defender’s client account.  It was paid out 5 days later to an account with HSBC Private Bank in Monaco held by a Panamanian company.  On 24 January the sum of £9.412 million was paid into the first defender’s client account.  It was paid out on 28 March to the client account of Hassans.

[5]        On 23 December 2008 a payment of £200,000 was made to the eighth defender, Mr Peter Watson, from Hassans’ client account.

[6]        The liquidator pleads that HC was the client of the first defender at the material time. Accordingly, the defenders owed HC certain fiduciary duties, together with an obligation to exercise the knowledge, skill and care of reasonably competent solicitors.

[7]        It is also important to notice the terms of the pursuer’s ninth plea-in-law. It states:

“the pursuer having suffered loss, injury and damage by reasons of the defenders’ dishonest assistance of Gregory King in the latter committing breach of his fiduciary duties owed to the pursuer … decree should be pronounced”

[8]        The liquidator seeks to recover the sum of £28.4 million from the defenders. He intimated the claim on 23 June 2013.  There followed extensive pre-action correspondence before the summons was served on 23 October 2014. During that period, the liquidator did not request clarification of the membership or constitution of the firm of Levy & McRae as it existed from time to time.

[9]        The summons called on 10 February 2015.  The defences were lodged a week later. They stated that three of the defenders had been wrongly convened, because they had been assumed as partners after June 2007.  They are Mr Alasdair Gillies (1 July 2007), Mr Andrew Sleigh (1 December 2008), and Mr Gary Booth (1 January 2011).

[10]      The defenders raised this matter at the preliminary hearing on 5 March, and the continued hearing on 8 May. They said it involved significant reputational damage to those three individuals. They asked for early disposal of this discrete issue.

[11]      I fixed a hearing to take place on 13 August.  About a week before the hearing, the liquidator enrolled a motion to allow a minute of amendment.  It sought to add five further individuals as defenders, on the footing that they had been partners in the first defender in the period from 4 January 2007 to date.

[12]      The liquidator gave the following reasons in support of his motion:

“The pursuer’s agents wrote to the agent for the defenders on 7 May 2015 and 7 July 2015. In those letters, the pursuer’s agent requested:

    confirmation that the defenders had adequate insurance cover in place to meet the pursuer’s claim if it was successful;
    copies of the partnership agreements for each defender that the defender’s agents maintain have been wrongly convened; and
    details of each defender’s capital contribution to the firm

The defenders have failed to provide any of this information to the pursuer. The pursuer has identified a further 5 current and former partners of the firm who require to be convened.

Without confirmation that the defenders have sufficient insurance cover, or evidence as to why the defenders do not incur personal liability (which depends on the circumstances of each case), the pursuer seeks to convene these partners and former partners to the action as they may be jointly and severally liable for the debts of the firm.” (emphasis added)

Liability of new partners

[13]      The liability of new partners is governed by section 17(1) of the Partnership Act 1890:

“A person who is admitted as a partner into an existing firm does not thereby become liable to the creditors of the firm for anything done before he became a partner.”

[14]      In their Joint Consultation Paper on Partnership Law (2000), the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission state in relation to Scots law (at 10.65):

“Where the business taken over is substantially the same as the old firm, and where that business is continued without interruption, there appears to be a general presumption that the new partnership takes over the whole liabilities as well as the assets.”

[15]      Lord Hodge considered this point in Sim v Howat & McLaren [2011] CSOH 115 at [31]:

“The presumption does not arise unless there are facts and circumstances which bring it into play. The continuation of substantially the same business without interruption is necessary for the presumption.”

He suggested a number of other relevant facts and circumstances. They included whether the new partner had made a substantial capital contribution, whether he had paid or acknowledged any of the prior debts, and whether separate accounts were kept for the new and the old firm.

[16]      Lord Hodge determined at paragraph [29] that the appropriate test was whether a new partner had “accepted liability either expressly or tacitly” for the claim.

[17]      Who is responsible for averring those facts and circumstances? The answer is clear. In Thomson Balfour v Boag & Son 1936 SC 2 Lord Fleming stated (at p16) that “it was for the pursuers to prove” that a new partner had accepted liability for the debts of the old business.

[18]      Similarly in Miller v Macleod 1973 SC 172 Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley stated (at p183):

“whether in the circumstances the pursuer has established by presumption or by proof of facts and circumstances that the new firm agreed to adopt the old debts and become liable for them. Of course, the establishment of the presumption itself is dependent upon sufficient facts being proved to sustain it, and this in my opinion entitles the Court to look at all the facts, whether they occurred before, at or after the establishment of the partnership.”

[19]      In the present case, the liquidator does not offer to prove such facts and circumstances.  Instead, he states in condescendence 1:

“the defenders have been called upon, but failed, to provide to the pursuer the evidence (including a copy of the relevant partnership agreement(s) and copies of the accounts showing capital contributions made by the partners joining the partnership after December 2008) that any new partners who joined the partnership of Levy & McRae have not, in fact, undertaken liabilities of the partnership which were in existence prior to them joining. Accordingly, all the defenders are properly convened.”

[20]      In my view, that averment fails to satisfy the test identified by the Inner House. There are no averments that would allow the liquidator to lead evidence that the three individuals either expressly or tacitly agreed to take over the existing liabilities of the previous firm.  It does not set out the basis upon which the three individuals are convened. Instead it inverts the normal rule that the pursuer must plead his case.

[21]      Given the serious nature of the allegations and the size of the claim, the liquidator required to identify the basis upon which each defender had been convened.  He also had to differentiate between the acts of those individuals who had been partners at the material time and those who had been assumed after 2007.

[22]      I shall therefore sustain the defenders’ first plea-in-law to the extent of dismissing the case, so far as laid against the third, sixth and seventh defenders.

[23]      In doing so, I observe that on 25 March, the defenders’ solicitors wrote three separate letters to the pursuer’s solicitors and stated:

“In terms of his partnership agreement, no obligation was imposed on [the relevant defender] in respect of acts or omissions prior to his assumption, nor did he provide any indemnity in respect of such matters.”

Minute of Amendment

[24]      In the minute of amendment, the pursuer seeks (a) to alter the dates for the partners called as defenders to 4 January 2007 to date; and (b) to add five individuals, all of whom have been partners of Levy & McRae at some stage in that period. The relevant dates are as follows: Anne Bennie (2000 – 2008), Calum Anderson (1 July 2014) Laura Salmond (3 November 2014), Graham Craik (5 January 2015), and Stephen Hay 2007 (c6 months in late 2007).

[25]      The minute does not include any substantive averments to indicate the basis upon which these individuals are said to have taken over prior liabilities.  Accordingly, for the same reasons as given in relation to Messrs Gillies, Sleigh and Booth, I refuse to allow receipt of the minute.

[26]      The pursuer has had ample opportunity to investigate the position. Standing the very serious nature of the allegations, and the absence of a proper basis for seeking to add the five individuals as partners, I hold that it is not in the interests of justice to follow that course.

Disclosure of the Insurance Position

[27]      The pursuer seeks an order requiring the defenders to answer questions about the insurance position.  First, will the policy cover the claim?  Second, have the defenders notified a claim to insurers?  Third, have the insurers accepted the claim?

[28]      At the May hearing, the pursuer’s then senior counsel accepted that he was not entitled to ask for that information.  Lord Davidson, however, explained that the application had been made to elide the difficulty of identifying the correct defenders.  If the claim is covered by insurance, then that issue is much less important.

[29]      There is no Scottish authority in point.  In England the matter has been considered in the context of the court’s powers under the Civil Procedure Rules.  In West London Pipeline & Storage Ltd v Total UK Ltd [2008] EWCH 1296 (Comm), David Steel J refused to allow disclosure, although he also stated at [30]:

“The trend is strongly towards a more open approach to litigation. Albeit the potential for prejudice to the defendant and his insurers must be borne in mind, in the modern age of ‘cards on the table’ the question is readily posed why should not the one factor which may be key to a claimant’s view of the merit of pursuing a claim, namely what is the limit of cover and will the costs eat it up anyway, be known?”

[30]      In XYZ v Various [2013] EWHC 3643 (QB) Thirwall J ordered very limited disclosure to demonstrate that the defendant had sufficient insurance to fund its participation to the end of the trial.  The Court of Appeal has indicated that the matter is not free from doubt: Dowling v Griffin [2014] EWCA Civ 1445.

[31]      Lord Davidson suggested that I could use the wide powers contained in rule of court 47 to order disclosure.  I decline to do so. The details of insurance are a private matter between the insured and insurers.  There are major questions involved in disclosure, including the likelihood that it would encourage speculative “deep pocket” litigation: West London at [30].

Further Procedure

[32]      I shall allow a further period of ten weeks for open adjustment, with the qualification that all substantive adjustment should be completed within eight weeks.

[33]      That lengthy period is justified by three factors.  First, there have been recent extensive adjustments to the pleadings.  Second, a hearing is due to take place before the Supreme Court of Gibraltar on 24 September in respect of a Letter of Request to recover the files of Hassans.

[34]      Third Lord Tyre has reserved judgment following a recent debate in similar proceedings raised by the liquidator against Burness Paul.  Mr Clark said that the decision may have a significant bearing on the present action, as the arguments on prescription and loss are very similar.

[35]      Having regard to that third factor, I shall also fix a diet of debate.  Mr Clark estimated that it would last three days.  Apart from the plea of prescription, the defenders mount eleven separate challenges to the relevancy of the pursuer’s averments.  

[36]      If the defenders are successful and obtain dismissal, that may save each party a considerable sum of money.  Mr Clark estimated that a proof before answer would last about six weeks and cost each side several hundred thousand pounds.

Request for a witness statement from Peter Watson

[37]      The pursuer asks the court to ordain Mr Watson to provide a witness statement to explain the circumstances in which the sum of £9.5 million was paid to Hassans and the purpose of the payment of £200,000, made to him from Hassans’ client account on 23 December 2008.  The pursuer seeks the statement to make his own averments “more pointed”.

[38]      I would be slow to order one witness to produce a statement in advance of the other statements.  I find no compelling reason in this case to depart from the normal rule that there should be a simultaneous exchange of witness statements.  I therefore refuse the application.

Concern as figures reveal nearly £2Million spent on prosecution of Child abuse allegations case involving claims against First Minister's Complaints Adviser & former Lord Advocate

Campaigner Robert Green re-arrested after alleged breach of interdict obtained by ex Lord Advocate Angiolini. A LONG running case involving allegations of child abuse in Aberdeen which has now become a cyber stalking case against campaigners has so far resulted in nearly two million pounds of public funds being spent on a series of legal gaffes, Police operations, prosecutions and imprisonments of persons who have made claims against members of Scotland's legal establishment including First Minister Alex Salmond's complaints adviser & Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (nee McPhilomy)

The staggering figure, currently estimated at £1.7m by internal Crown Office sources but expected to rise substantially could have instead been used to employ 100 nurses on an average salary of around £20K.

Explanations for the massive spend of public funds on the claims & counter claims of campaigners, law firms, conspiracy theorists and activity in the courts has apparently seen large sums of taxpayers money being spent on multiple court hearings, multiple prosecutions, numerous legal teams & solicitors, legal aid, the setting up of a team at the Crown Office to specifically deal with Green and others, long term surveillance & forensic analysis teams, a special unit of former Grampian Police, now Police Scotland sent on numerous cross border trips into England to arrest 'campaigners' and confiscate items, prison bills and a rising bill from various law firms including one which itself represents First Minister Alex Salmond himself.

And a further development in this costly battle between anti abuse campaigners, and figures in Scotland's legal establishment has seen the re-arrest and detention of Robert Green from his home in England by officers from Police Scotland sometime in late February. Green was re-arrested after allegedly breaking an interdict obtained by the ex Lord Advocate during December 2013 in relation to a case reported earlier by Scottish Law Reporter

Information on Mr Green's current location & detention is difficult to obtain in terms of a clear picture, however the media has been told a bail application is to be made on Green's behalf "sometime soon".

Another individual somehow connected with the case, identified as Tim Rustige, was convicted of a campaign of harassment against ex Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, reported by Scottish Television here: HERE. Mr Rustige is due to face court for sentencing later this month.

As the costs rise in this case, legal sources close to the Crown Office today called for the full publication of all spending on work relating to the various cases in this saga, including full records of payments to private law firms.

Crown Office insiders have also let it be known their office has received enquiries from internet providers and corporations over the authenticity of court orders outside those already used by Police Scotland and the Crown Office.The enquiries came after a law firm which cannot be named for legal reasons served papers on several internet and email companies seeking access to personal email communications.

While the documents served on the companies appear to contain signatures of Scottish judges, no official or published records of the warrants appear to exist, prompting questions of whether fabricated documents have been used to obtain access to private communications.

No one was available from the Crown Office to give an official comment.

ANGIOLINI’S BATTLE WITH ABUSE CAMPAIGN :

Scottish Law Reporter previously covered Mr Green’s release from jail after he was sentenced to ONE YEAR in Aberdeen’s Craiginches Prison for a breach of the peace, by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen. Reports on developments in the hugely expensive case also claimed Sheriff Bowen failed to declare relationships with key figures central to the case which included the now former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (née McPhilomy).

It was also revealed the case against the anti abuse campaigner ranked as Scotland’s most expensive ever Breach of the Peace trial which saw a record HALF A MILLION POUNDS spent on the investigation & trial of Mr Green, a case which tunnelled through the Scottish Courts system for over two years at huge cost to taxpayers.

A reminder of previous events in the trial of anti abuse campaigner Robert Green can be viewed in earlier coverage by Scottish Law Reporter HERE and further coverage of Hollie Greig. Scottish Law Reporter published an investigation into the knighthood of Angiolini, apparently recommended by the Scottish Government. Dame Elish Angiolini was also appointed Ministerial complaints adviser to Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond. More recently, Dame Elish Angiolini was also appointed to the post of Principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford.

Glasgow based law firm Levy McRae are well known for a ‘colourful’ list of clients, including shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell and former Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini who took on Levy McRae to sue anti abuse campaigner Robert Green. Levy McRae threatened several media outlets including law journal “The Firm” & other journalists over their reporting of the case, covered by Scottish Law Reporter HERE & HERE. The Purcell scandal caused some newspapers to ‘evaluate’ their relationship with Levy McRae, details of which were featured in a report here : HERE. Levy McRae are also known to work for clients in the well known tax dodging haven of the Cayman Islands.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has ties to Levy Mcrae. As details of the Hollie Greig case began to be reported in the wider press, it emerged the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill has personal links to LEVY MCRAE, the law firm employed by the then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in legal action over the abuse case allegations. Mr MacAskill has made no comment on the fact he served his apprenticeship at Levy McRae and also worked at the firm for a considerable time during his years as a solicitor before he entered politics. The revelations of MacAskill’s links to Levy McRae, the same law firm who represented Steven Purcell, were reported by Scottish Law Reporter at the time, HERE

Media, political & legal links drive deep in Rangers fiddle as Crown Office order Police investigation of Charlotte Fakeovers Twitter email leaks

A SERIES of leaks of private emails, documents & sound recordings between individuals involved in Rangers football club and the saga which ultimately led to the club’s demise into insolvency has prompted the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to order Police Scotland to investigate the source of the damaging leaks - a Twitter account known as Charlotte Fakeovers (@charlotteFakes).

While Police Scotland are giving little away to media enquiries regarding the investigation, legal insiders have revealed the Crown Office became involved after lobbying from persons involved in the saga who have links to high profile political figures including First Minister Alex Salmond himself.

A legal insider called the content of the leaks “explosive”, and went on to describe the contents of one particular document which contained claims that knowledge of dirty secrets of newspaper editors could be used to block publication of stories relating to Rangers.

Other documents purport to relate to discussions about how to ‘go after’ and undermine journalists, bloggers, football fan forums and virtually anyone who may not see eye to eye with figures involved with Rangers football club and those around it.

While the Police Investigation into the leaks and their content has had little reporting in Scotland’s mass media, it has been revealed in the English media that a law firm acting for one of the parties identified in leaked documents now in the possession of Crown Office has forced the removal of some of the damning documents from the Scribd website.

The law firm involved is none other than Levy & McRae, who have among their clients, Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond, and his own personally appointed Ministerial complaints adviser & former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (nee McPhilomy).

The Guardian :

Twitter email leaks about Rangers too hot for Scottish media to handle

An extraordinary story has broken in Scotland that has galvanised the country's media elite. Though it is the subject of much chatter among journalists, none of the mainstream outlets has reported it.

For months, a Twitter account known as Charlotte Fakeovers (@charlotteFakes) has been running a series of snippets from private emails between people involved in Rangers football club during the crisis that eventually led to its insolvency.

According to a well-placed Glaswegian media insider, the tweeter should be regarded as "the Julian Assange of Scotland". He said: "These revelations are explosive but I understand, in this post-Leveson atmosphere, why the papers are not publishing them.

"Though there is no proof either way, there is a feeling that the communications might have been obtained illegally."

In fact, according to a source familiar with the situation, there is no way the emails could have been obtained legally and the publication of them is a possible breach of the data protection act.

Scottish police are now investigating the Twitter account, a fact reported yesterday by one online news outlet that has dared to highlight the CharlotteFakeovers story, The Drum.

A police spokesman told The Drum's writer: "We can confirm that we did receive a complaint in connection with a Twitter account and police enquiries are ongoing to establish if there is any criminality involved."

Among people named in the correspondence are the club's former owner Craig Whyte, the man who masterminded its recreation, Charles Green, the club's PR, then and now, Jack Irvine, and even the political editor of the Sunday Times, Isabel Oakeshott.

The revelations have been acutely embarrassing for Irvine, who declined to comment. But a former colleague told me he believes the emails need to be seen in the context of Rangers problems and the consequent frenetic atmosphere at the time.

Irvine, who edited the Scottish Sun for three years from 1987, launched a PR company, Media House, some 20 years ago.

A legal firm acting for Irvine, Levy & McRae, did successfully request the removal of some documents from the website being used to host them, Scribd.

The Drum story quotes Channel 4 News's chief correspondent, Alex Thomson, as saying that the reluctance of mainstream media to report the story is related to the Leveson report.

Thomson was one of the very few reporters outside Scotland to cover the Rangers crisis in any depth. Indeed, mainstream newspapers in Scotland were slow to cover it too.

Instead, all the central revelations to emerge came from Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, who runs a blog and published a book, Downfall: how Rangers FC self-destructed.

The Drum :

Police Investigate Mysterious Charlottefakes Twitter Account Exposing Private Emails

Police are investigating a fake Twitter account which has been releasing a wave of private correspondences between some of the major players in the long-running crisis surrounding Rangers Football Club, including PR guru and Media House founder Jack Irvine.

For several months, the @CharlotteFakes account has been revealing private email and audio conversations between some of the key figures in the drama engulfing the club, including Irvine, former club owner Craig Whyte – who led the club’s descent into liquidation – and Charles Green, the chief executive of the entity created from the assets of the liquidated club. The account has acquired more than 13,000 followers.

A police spokesman confirmed to The Drum that a probe had been launched: “We can confirm that we did receive a complaint in connection with a Twitter account and police enquiries are ongoing to establish if there is any criminality involved. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”

It’s unclear how the information has been obtained but Scottish and national media outlets have steered clear of reporting it, while Scottish football fans have bombarded journalists with requests for coverage, claiming the information is in the public interest.

Media House executive chairman Irvine features heavily in the correspondence but declined to comment on the revelations when approached by The Drum.

Irvine founded Media House more than 20 years ago after a career spanning periods at Murray Media, the Scottish Sun, the Daily Record and the Glasgow Herald and the company has since expanded into London and New York. The PR man once described himself as “combative and aggressive”.

The PR firm was hired by Rangers in 2006 under Sir David Murray and kept on by Craig Whyte following his takeover of the club in 2011. Whyte bought the club for the sum of £1 and an agreement to pay off the club's banking debt.

It emerged some time later that Whyte had used future season ticket monies at the club to secure a loan from lender Ticketus and claims of Whyte’s billion pound wealth were without foundation. Months of crisis and a PR battle followed before the extent of the financial trouble at the club was revealed when it was placed in administration in February 2012, and liquidation four months later.

Although legal firm Levy & McRae successfully requested the removal of some documents from the website being used to host them, Scribd, the anonymous ‘Charlotte’ has continued to reveal streams of information despite the police investigation.

A spokesman for BBC Scotland said the broadcast of any information relating to Rangers must comply with guidelines: “Having aired two documentaries already you can probably imagine that we continue to receive a lot of information from various different sources on the Rangers story as we do with much of our newsgathering activity.

“The editorial criteria which is laid out in our editorial guidelines on verification of sources etc. would apply to any future news stories or docs that we proceed with.”

Channel 4 News chief correspondent Alex Thomson, who covered the Rangers tax story in some depth, indicated on Twitter that the reluctance to report was related to Leveson, leading to speculation the information may have been illegally obtained in the wake of the recent hacking scandal at the News of the World.

The Rangers story has taken a new twist with the emergence of ‘Charlotte’ and the recent revelations, although the account isn’t the first anonymous one to cover developments at Ibrox.

The Rangers Tax Case blog was a thorn in the side of the club during the first-tier tax tribunal over Rangers EBT tax avoidance scheme for paying staff. HMRC claims to be owed tens of millions from the club and the case is ongoing and under appeal after the tribunal ruled in favour of Rangers in a number of the disputed cases. The row led to an investigation by Scottish footballing authorities, which found the club guilty of breaching registration rules earlier this year. The Rangers Tax Case blog was awarded an Orwell Prize in 2011.

KEEP SALM & CENSOR ON ? First Minister’s report on Leveson will censor anyone with an opinion - facebook, twitter & blogs also targeted in ex-judge’s bill

First Minister Alex Salmond wants regulator with power to censor anyone with adverse opinion. THE PROSPECT of Soviet style total media censorship coming to Scotland has taken a significant leap forward with the conclusions of Lord McCluskey’s Expert Group on the Leveson Report in Scotland, prepared for First Minister Alex Salmond who wants to appoint a regulator with powers to sanction anyone who produces news or comment in print form or on the internet.

The now widely criticised report, prepared by the former Solicitor General in consultation with a number of others including lawyers such as Peter Watson of Levy Mcrae (who count among their clients former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, née McPhilomy and former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell)  and who also recently represented Mr Salmond personally in a failed complaint against the Daily Mail newspaper, aims to silence anyone in Scotland with an opinion that does not match those who want to keep criticism & scandal out of the limelight.

The Daily Record reports : Leveson: Press freedom under threat as Alex Salmond's draconian Bill threatens to censor anyone with an opinion

16 Mar 2013

SCOTLAND'S First Minister wants to appoint a regulator with powers to sanction anyone who produces news, comment or celebrity gossip – in print or digital.

ALEX SALMOND yesterday stood accused of plotting a draconian law that will have a chilling impact on freedom of speech and cost thousands of jobs.

The First Minister wants to appoint a regulator with powers to sanction ANYONE who produces news, comment or celebrity gossip – in print or digital.

Salmond hired an expert group headed by Lord John McCluskey to work out how Lord Leveson’s plan to regulate the press could be adopted in Scotland. But their report – branded Loch Leveson – said the powers of the regulator in Scotland should be beefed up to cover the web and ­publications other than newspapers.

They also recommended legislation to cover Twitter and Facebook.

Unlike the English system, Loch Leveson will regulate opinion pieces and even what they call scandalous gossip about celebrity.

In theory, bloggers such as ­schoolgirl Martha Payne, who complained about her school dinners, could be hauled before the regulator and fined.Even a local church magazine could fall foul of what Tory leader Ruth Davidson described as “the most draconian press controls in the western world”. The Bill would make it compulsory for every newspaper to fund the new system. Experts say it would cost £1.5million a year – mainly in fees to lawyers. It could signal the death of scores of local newspapers and cost thousands of jobs.

Sink this attack on democracy 

The Leveson inquiry into press ethics was held in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World. But the Scottish move goes even further than the controversial ­recommendations made last year by Lord Justice Leveson. Scotland would face tighter control of its print media than the rest of the UK, where Leveson recommended a voluntary system of self-regulation.

All written news material in ­Scotland – from the biggest national newspapers and magazines to the smallest church newsletter – would be affected. In a further departure from the Leveson recommendations, the rules would apply to all internet news media.

The report even suggests they could be extended to social networking websites like Twitter. That means anyone commenting on Facebook or posting on a website about celebrities or current affairs could fall foul of the regulator.

McCluskey’s committee said a two-tier system should be created by law. The first level would be a UK regulator set up by the press. The second tier would be a Scottish “recognition body” to ensure the regulator complied with the ­principles laid down by Leveson.

Crucially, the report suggests Government ministers would have the power to appoint the head of the recognition body – opening the door to ­state interference with the press for the first time in centuries.

Salmond was last night accused of attempting to shackle the press. Critics fear they could be used to muzzle newspapers in the run up to next year’s referendum.

Former journalist Davidson said: “With the First Minister now saying he will consider the expert group’s findings, there’s a real danger the threat of legislation will be kept hanging over the heads of editors as the ­referendum approaches.

“Even more astonishing is the proposal for the regulator to be responsible for news comment on the internet and for the newspaper industry to provide all the funds.

“It cannot be right that an industry already in crisis should be expected to pay for the regulation of the very thing that’s killing it off.

“We are, however, pleased that the expert group has recognised there’s no specific need for a Scotland-only regulator and a single regulator can operate across the whole UK as at present.”

McCluskey’s panel included David Sinclair, director of communications at Victim Support Scotland, legal academics Neil Walker and Peter Watson and journalist Ruth Wishart.

Their report was hurriedly published yesterday after the collapse of talks at Westminster to find a common way forward for the UK.

McCluskey said a UK-wide ­regulator could still be set up if a deal can be reached between David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

But while Leveson recommended a “carrot-and-sticks” approach to get newspapers to sign up to a voluntary regulator, McCluskey’s panel said they had “little confidence” this would encourage publishers to sign up.

They said: “We have reached the view that there is no practical ­alternative to making it compulsory for all news-related publishers to be subject to the new system of ­regulation,”

Salmond praised the “extremely thorough” report, saying: “It is for the parliaments in London and in ­Scotland to establish a recognition process.

“It is for the press to bring forward a voluntary regulatory body compliant with Leveson principles. I hope this is still possible.”

But Scots Labour leader Johann Lamont said: “We agreed with the First Minister that this group should look solely at the technicalities of implementing Leveson in Scots law.

“We did not agree to the Leveson recommendations being rewritten or built upon.”

The McCluskey report was commissioned by Alex Salmond to look at how the recommendations of the Leveson report could be implemented in Scotland. The findings go further than those of Lord Justice Leveson last year.

McCluskey report at a glance

All newspapers and magazine publishers would be forced to sign up to the regulator. Under the Leveson proposals, this would have been voluntary but came with incentives such as lower damages in the event of libel action.

A recognition body would be set up – appointed by ministers – to ensure the regulator was sticking to the rules. They would have the power to overrule the regulator.

The regulator could have the power to censure newspapers, magazines and websites, including gossip sites. Leveson made no recommendations on policing the internet or ruling on celebrity gossip.

McCluskey’s group said further regulation of  social media may also be required, opening the door to Facebook posts and Twitter being scrutinised.

Major publishers would have to meet the cost for setting up and running the regulator but websites – many of which generate millions of pounds for their owners – are likely to be exempt from paying.

Analysis - by media lawyer Campbell Deane

WHEN Alex Salmond announced an expert group to advise on the most appropriate means of regulating the newspaper industry, the writing was on the wall.

He wasn’t asking the group whether there was a need to implement Leveson’s proposals in Scotland. He was asking them how to achieve it.

That decision was astonishingly short-sighted. We have not had a Millie Dowler or Madeleine McCann in Scotland. We have not even come close.

We have had no phone- hacking scandal. Journalists as a rule in Scotland have behaved. These were London-centric issues for which the Scottish newspaper industry was being punished without guilt.

And yet Salmond’s panel of experts recommend the Scottish Parliament creates a regulator to prevent serious abuses of the kind which don’t occur in Scotland. Not content with implementing Leveson’s recommendations, the panel have chosen to go further by bringing under regulation all publishers of news-related material.

This country prides itself on free speech yet the panel recommended implementing proposals that could mean gossiping about the rich and famous online with your friends would get you into trouble.

By its nature, comment allows people to express their views. That should not be restricted.

At a time when newspapers are struggling for their very existence, they will be asked to fund complaints based on comment and gossip which have nothing to do with them.

They will put a financial burden on the Scottish industry that may push some newspapers over the edge.

How the loss of indigenous Scottish titles will benefit Scotland is beyond me.

Scottish Government ‘to consider’ draconian censorship of all media as proposed in Lord McCluskey’s report on Leveson press regulation

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT have today published the report by their own expert group headed by 86 year old Lord McCluskey on the recommendations made by Lord justice Leveson into press practices and how these could be applied in Scotland. However, the terms of the former Solicitor General’s report go much wider than the original Leveson recommendations, with Lord McCluskey also advocating regulation of twitter, facebook and all forms of media carring ‘news’.

Lord McCluskey’s report can be viewed online here : Expert Group on the Leveson Report in Scotland

The Scottish Government’s Press Release : Scottish Government to consider McCluskey report

First Minister Alex Salmond today thanked the expert group led by former Solicitor General Lord McCluskey considering how the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson into press practices could be applied in Scotland as it published its report.

The expert group, which was appointed by the First Minister in December, has made a series of recommendations on how a system of self-regulation of the press could be established and recognised in Scotland in a report distributed to all parties this morning.

Mr Salmond said the thorough report from Lord McCluskey and his colleagues was “an important contribution” to the process of implementing Leveson in Scotland, as he indicated the Scottish Government would now consider the report’s findings carefully while continuing the cross-party efforts to reach a suitable way forward in Scotland.

The Scottish Government is committed to cross-party talks on implementing the Leveson recommendations and will continue to work toward a consensus on the way forward in Scotland.  The First Minister confirmed today that ministers would report to Parliament after the Easter recess on the progress of these talks.

The First Minister said: “Lord McCluskey and his group have reported at an opportune time.While there is a huge amount of uncertainty and division surrounding how Westminster is going to take forward the Leveson recommendations, I am hopeful that in Scotland all parties in the Parliament can continue to work together to find an acceptable way forward.Lord McCluskey’s group has delivered an extremely thorough piece of work looking at how the proposals made by Lord Justice Leveson could be applied in the context of Scots law, including draft legislation. We will now take the time to consider all of their suggestions in full and discuss the proposals with the other political parties and other stakeholders.”

Mr Salmond continued : "The report is admirably clear. It is for the Parliaments in London and in Scotland to establish a recognition process. It is for the press to bring forward a voluntary regulatory body compliant with Leveson principles. I hope that this is still possible.The Scottish Government indicated at the time of Leveson’s report that we wanted to implement his key proposals of a voluntary self-regulatory system set up by the press with statutory underpinning.

“Since Leveson reported, all parties in the Parliament have taken part in a cross-party effort that has seen the leaders hold talks with Hacked Off, the Media Standards Trust and representatives of the press with a commitment to meet with the UK Government after their position becomes clearer.These efforts will continue and the Scottish Government will report back to Parliament after Easter on the progress of these talks. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to Lord McCluskey, David Sinclair, Professor Neil Walker, Peter Watson and Ruth Wishart for their efforts in producing this diligent report.”

The camera never lies, yet inquiry & SNP spin campaign clears First Minister Salmond of TV lying over ‘legal advice’ for independent Scotland’s chances of remaining in EU

First Minister Alex Salmond claimed legal advice had been sought during tv interview. PROVING the worthlessness and indeed, damage to reality by party political media campaigns & a so called “independent inquiry” undertaken by persons appointed by those accused and under investigation, Scotland’s struggling First Minister Alex Salmond has yet again been cleard of a complaint lodged under the mysterious “Ministerial Code”, this time Mr Salmond being cleared of claiming on television he had legal advice to the effect that an independent Scotland could remain in the European Union, even though Mr Salmond actually said those very words in a BBC television interview with Andrew Neil.

You decide - First Minister Alex Salmond claimed he had legal advice an independent Scotland will remain in the EU

The full report on the ‘investigation’ into Mr Salmond can be viewed online HERE The Scottish Government’s version of the timeline of the events is available HERE

Predictably, the Scottish Government’s media machine has issued a long tirade (reprinted below) with quotes from the First Minister, congratulating himself upon his apparent exoneration from misinforming & misleading the public on the EU legal advice claims.

It is rumoured the entire PR driven incident along with the enquiry has cost the taxpayer around £50,000 to come up with an intense media campaign, supportive political appearances, snide media comments & speeches, supportive online media forum comments and a report to clear Mr Salmond of a a habit which the First Minister and the SNP will be remembered for in 2012, the year Scots finally found out the Nationalists are like all other political parties, and no different from the ones they castigate.

Political observers will also recall 2012 for being the year in which Mr Salmond was accused of being an “instinctive liar” by Scottish Labour, the party who along with the Scottish Conservatives & Liberal Democrats have made instinctive lying in public life a national sport, now joined in earnest by the SNP.

A political insider commented on the fiasco : “Clearly the European Union can do without another nationalistic leader who's Government clears him of lying on television, even when the camera suggests he did exactly that”

Scottish Govt Press Release : FM cleared by ministerial code report

The First Minister acted fully in accordance with the Scottish Ministerial Code in relation to the debate on the existence or content of legal advice on an independent Scotland’s continued membership of the European Union, an independent report has concluded.

The First Minister appointed Sir David Bell KCB – an independent adviser to the Scottish Government on the Ministerial Code – to conduct the investigation following a complaint by Catherine Stihler MEP.

The report, which has been published today, says: “I have not found you, or the Scottish Government, to have breached the Ministerial Code in respect of any complaints made by Ms Stihler. I have though recommended that the Scottish Government considers revising those parts of the code relating to legal advice.”

Sir David examined five separate grounds of complaint from Ms Stihler – and in each case he found that the First Minister and the Scottish Government had acted fully in accordance with the Ministerial Code.

The report also concludes that “the Edinburgh Agreement was the appropriate moment to seek specific legal advice from the Law Officers … it was only when the details of the referendum process became clear that you were in a position to seek such advice.”

Sir David also recommends that the Scottish Government considers whether the part of the Ministerial Code relating to legal advice could be redrafted in a clearer and more accessible form – a recommendation which the Government accepts.

First Minister Alex Salmond said: “I would like to thank Sir David for his very thorough and detailed report, the findings of which clearly demonstrate that there was no breach of the Ministerial Code on this matter.”

“I welcome the report which demonstrates that I and the rest of the Scottish Government acted entirely in accordance with the Scottish Ministerial Code. I also welcome his conclusion that the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement was the appropriate moment at which to seek specific legal advice on an independent Scotland’s continued membership of the European Union.”

“Sir David also recommends that the Scottish Government considers whether the section of its Ministerial Code relating to legal advice provided to Ministers should be redrafted to make it clearer. That is a recommendation I am happy to accept, and work will now be taken forward by Government officials with that aim in mind.

“This has been the sixth complaint to be referred to the independent panel of advisers I introduced in 2008 to rule on these matters.  I am delighted that each complaint has been dismissed and the advisers concluded my ministers and I have acted entirely properly at all times.”

Ex-judge McCluskey to head Salmond’s Leveson group, Cayman Islands & Ex Lord Advocate Angiolini’s lawyer among ‘usual suspects’ to consider Leveson media muzzle for Scotland

Less than stellar First Minister Alex Salmond appoints Peter Watson of Levy McRae to Leveson ‘expert group’. A LAWYER who has represented controversial clients including shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell, & former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (née McPhilomy) and whose law firm has been accused by some newspapers of attempting to silence press reports over scandals involving the seedy private lives of some of its prominent public figure clients, has been appointed by struggling First Minister Alex Salmond to an ‘expert group’ charged with considering the proposals to regulate (or muzzle – Ed) the press, put forward by Lord Leveson.

PETER WATSON, of Glasgow law firm Levy McRae, the same law firm with personal connections to Scotland’s much derided and five-years-in-the-job-too-long Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who worked at the law firm for several years was named today in a Press Release issued by the Scottish Government as being appointed along with David Sinclair, Ruth Wishart, Professor Neil Walker to the First Minister’s ‘expert group’ which will be headed by retired judge Lord McCluskley (aged 83).

Glasgow based Levy McRae have hit the headlines in recent years over their representation of characters such as former Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini who took on Levy McRae to sue anti abuse campaigner Robert Green and recently, after the England based journalist Mr Green had been jailed for six months for handing out leaflets in Aberdeen, Levy McRae went back into court to silence further calls for an investigation into claims of historical abuse in the case of Hollie Greig, a downs syndrome victim who has alleged she was abused by several individuals in the Aberdeen area.

Documents presented to the court by Levy McRae, whose offices Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) told the court she resided at, also name a number of websites which it is claimed are linked to the campaign to out alleged child abusers. The Court interlocutor, which is a public document, can be viewed and downloaded here : Interlocutor Elish Angiolini v Robert Green re Hollie Greig case. Levy McRae were also identified by the Press Complaints Commission as being the authors of a complaint submitted to the PCC against Scots law title “The Firm”, who were forced to retract statements made regarding Angiolini’s alleged involvement in the abuse case.

Troubled law firm Levy McRae also featured in a recent report where one of it’s other partners, Legal Defence Union boss Bill Macreath (60) of Troon, is facing accusations of professional misconduct & inadequate service as a result of a Law Society of Scotland investigation.

Scottish Government Press Release : Leveson findings - expert panel appointed

A five-person panel has been appointed to consider the recommendations of the Leveson Report in Scotland. The expert group, to be chaired by former Solicitor General and Senator of the College of Justice Lord McCluskey, features Scots legal experts and representatives of journalism and those affected by malpractice:

Lord McCluskey of Church Hill LLD, former Solicitor General for Scotland and Senator of the College of Justice (chair)
David Sinclair, Director of Communications at Victim Support Scotland, former President of the National Union of Journalists and former assistant editor of The Herald
Professor Neil Walker FBA, FRSE, Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh
Peter Watson, Senior Partner of Levy & McRae and Visiting Professor at the School of Law, University of Strathclyde
Ruth Wishart, independent media production professional, former assistant editor of the Sunday Mail, Scotsman and Sunday Standard

The panel is tasked with considering the findings and certain recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson – particularly how statutory underpinning of a new independent system of self-regulation of the press could work in Scotland.  The terms of reference are set out below.

Panel members are invited to provide advice and recommendations to the Scottish Government within three months.

First Minister Alex Salmond said: “Press regulation is a devolved responsibility, there have been victims of press malpractice in Scotland and Scotland has its own unique legal system. It is therefore unarguable that we in Scotland need to make our own response to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson in his report – particularly on the proposal for statutory underpinning in Scots law of a new, independent self-regulation system for the press. This expert panel will offer advice on the most appropriate way to approach such statutory underpinning in Scotland, bearing in mind our legal system, developments elsewhere in the United Kingdom and experience internationally.  What happens thereafter will be a matter for the Parliament.”

Stressing the range of expertise within the panel, Mr Salmond added: “What is critically important is that this panel is representative of the broad spectrum of interests that need to be taken into account. It is a balanced panel that features experts in Scots law, respected journalists, legal practitioners and someone with a background in supporting those affected by crime and malpractice. This group of experts is independent and non-political and is chaired by a former Court of Session judge. I am grateful to each of them for bringing their knowledge, expertise and commitment to this issue and look forward to receiving their recommendations.”

Background

The terms of reference of the expert group are as follows: To consider the findings and recommendations made in the Part 1 of the Report of the Leveson Inquiry in respect of Press Regulation, and, accepting the main principles on which those recommendations are made, including in particular the need for statutory underpinning of a newly created, genuinely independent and effective system of Self-Regulation, to offer advice and recommendations as to the most appropriate means of achieving such statutory underpinning in Scotland, in the context of —

the Scottish legal system;
any other existing provisions in law that relate to publication by the Press in the UK;
any developments in Press Regulation elsewhere in the United Kingdom arising out of the Leveson Inquiry;
experience in regulation of the press outside of the United Kingdom, that might inform consideration of the recommendations made and the mechanisms suggested in the Part 1 Report of the Leveson Inquiry,

and to provide such advice and recommendations to the Scottish Government within 3 months.

Lord McCluskey (Chair)

John Herbert McCluskey, Baron McCluskey was Solicitor General for Scotland from 1974 to 1979. During this period he worked on the then Labour government's proposals for devolution. Lord McCluskey became a member of the Judiciary in 1984 and presided for 16 years as a High Court judge over some of the country's most famous criminal cases. He retired in 2000.  In 2011 he chaired the Independent Review Group examining the relationship of the High Court of Justiciary and the United Kingdom Supreme Court, whose recommendations were accepted both by the Scottish Parliament and the UK Government.  Lord McCluskey was for many years chair of the judges for the Bank of Scotland Press Awards and also Vice President of the West of Scotland Press Fund (the Journalists’ Charity).

David Sinclair

David Sinclair has been head of Communications at Victims Support Scotland since 2006, he is a former assistant editor of The Herald, having worked there from 1975 – 2006 and was President of the National Union of Journalists in 1990-91.

Professor Neil Walker

Neil Walker - LLB, PhD, LLD (Honoris Causa) (Uppsala), FBA, FRSE - is Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh His main area of expertise is constitutional theory. He has published extensively on the constitutional dimension of legal order at sub-state, state, supranational and international levels. Previously he taught public law at Edinburgh for ten years (1986-96), was Professor of Legal and Constitutional Theory at the University of Aberdeen (1996-2000), and, most recently, was Professor of European Law at the European University Institute in Florence (2000-8), where he was also the first Dean of Studies (2002-5). In December 2008 Professor Walker was asked by the Scottish Government to conduct an independent review of final appellate jurisdiction in the Scottish legal system.

Peter Watson

Peter is Senior Partner and Head of Litigation at Levy & McRae.  Under his leadership, Levy & McRae has built up a worldwide reputation in areas of expertise such as media law, licensing, aviation, international claims, public inquiries, employment law and tax and revenue investigations.  He is also a part-time Sheriff and Visiting Professor at the School of Law, University of Strathclyde, and is a former President of the Society of Media Lawyers, Chairman of the Association of Mediators and a Member of the Criminal Rules Council.

Ruth Wishart

Ruth Wishart is a journalist and broadcaster with extensive experience of the Scottish media. She has been  a columnist with the Daily Record, columnist and Assistant Editor of the Sunday Mail, columnist and Assistant Editor of the Sunday Standard, and  Senior Assistant Editor of the Scotsman. Currently she writes a column for Herald Society, and contributes regularly to The Scotsman. She has also presented radio series for Radio Scotland and Radio 4. With Deborah Orr and Paul Flynn she recently interviewed a range of journalists, the transcripts of which were used for Enquirer, the National Theatre of Scotland's response to the issues covered in the Leveson Inquiry.

COCAINE SCANDAL IN GLASGOW : HOW THE NEWSPAPERS SAW LEVY MCRAE & PETER WATSON

PR, politics and the press: A conflict of interest but no barrier to the truth

EDITORIAL COMMENT Published on 21 Mar 2010

The shockwaves emanating from the controversial departure of Glasgow City Council leader Steven Purcell have shaken the foundations of Glasgow’s political and business establishment.

The initial facts were bad enough: allegations of drug-taking, cover-ups, incoherent ramblings, paranoia, a stay at a clinic specialising in the treatment of drink and drug problems, and finally Mr Purcell’s retreat from Scotland, reportedly for up to a year.

Since Mr Purcell’s departure, speculation has grown ever more fevered, encompassing suggestions of a network of powerful figures working behind the scenes to influence the workings of the city. The suggestion that this so-called network includes leading figures from the media is now threatening to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Scottish press.

There have been hints that some Scottish newspapers have pulled their punches on the controversy because editors have been too close to Mr Purcell or, worse, they have been cowed into submission by Peter Watson and PR firm Media House. These suggestions have involved the Herald & Times Group, publishers of this newspaper, The Herald and the Evening Times. Other newspapers have also been referred to. We believe our readers should learn the facts here rather than read assumptions in the pages of other publications.

Glasgow is a large city but its political and business centre is small. Personal and business relationships meld together, contacts extend and overlap, boundaries blur. Business dinners become social occasions, colleagues become friends. Such social networking goes on in every city in the world. It only becomes a problem when a conflict of interest arises.

We believe our readers should learn the facts here rather than read assumptions in other publications

For the Herald & Times Group that conflict of interest arose when solicitors Levy & McRae, the firm we employ to ensure the legality of our editorial content, was engaged to act on behalf of Steven Purcell in the early stages of the controversy. The Herald broke the news of Mr Purcell’s resignation as council leader in a story by Paul Hutcheon on Tuesday, March 2.

Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, and Jack Irvine, of Media House, acted for Mr Purcell as the crisis unfolded. In the most recent documents lodged with Companies House, Mr Watson is listed as one of four shareholders of Media House, along with Mr Irvine and two other individuals. Mr Watson has told us that he holds the shares as a representative of a trust for Mr Irvine’s children.

Mr Watson and Mr Irvine denied reports that Glasgow City Council’s PR department planned to issue a statement referring to Steven Purcell’s “chemical dependency”. When released, the official statement referred only to Mr Purcell’s “stress” and “exhaustion”.

They warned that a story in The Scotsman newspaper revealing details of the deleted reference to “chemical dependency” could be a breach of the Data Protection Act and be referred to the Information Comissioner. The media was also warned that inquiring into Mr Purcell’s health might breach his right to a private life under the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Sunday Herald’s analysis of the Steven Purcell controversy on March 7 included an article criticising the tactics of Mr Watson and Mr Irvine. To avoid a further conflict of interest, the article was not scrutinised for legal problems by a full-time employee of Levy & McRae but by a QC acting as an independent adviser, although still under the overall umbrella of the Levy & McRae contract with the Herald & Times Group.

After the story’s publication, the Sunday Herald was contacted separately by both Peter Watson and Jack Irvine. We will not reveal the details of private telephone calls with Peter Watson but the results of those calls could be seen in last week’s Sunday Herald. We printed a correction of one factual inaccuracy: we had said Mr Watson and Mr Irvine had left Scotland to go “on holiday” around the same time as Mr Purcell had left the country. In fact Mr Watson and Mr Irvine had both left on business trips to the Cayman Islands. We also printed a letter from Mr Watson complaining about our coverage. We agreed to print the letter to fulfil our duty to offer a right of reply.

In response to separate complaints from Mr Irvine we offered the same factual correction and the same opportunity to submit a letter for publication, subject to our normal editing procedures. He refused both offers.

In an article in industry magazine PRWeek on March 10, Mr Irvine revealed he had lodged a complaint with the Sunday Herald. He said he had asked for an apology and that he would refer the matter to the Press Complaints Commission if his request was refused.

Mr Irvine has now submitted a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission against the Sunday Herald article. He has complained on two counts:

1: By stating that he and Mr Watson had gone on holiday the Sunday Herald implied that he had left Mr Purcell “in the lurch”.

2: The Sunday Herald launched a “vicious attack” on the methods he and Mr Watson had employed without giving either the right to comment or reply before publication, allegedly in breach of the Editor’s Code of Practice.

Mr Irvine referred to previous “problems” he had experienced with the Sunday Herald, including discussions this newspaper had had with Mr Watson over a story concerning another Media House client earlier this year.

Mr Irvine claims to the Press Complaints Commission that the Sunday Herald’s article on the Steven Purcell tactics was “heavily influenced by spite, bad blood and malice”. The Sunday Herald will defend itself against Mr Irvine’s accusations through the normal channels.

There have been other references in the media to the friendship between Steven Purcell and leading newspaper editors, including Herald & Times editor-in-chief Donald Martin. Mr Martin met Mr Purcell and prominent figures in the Glasgow business community on a fairly regular basis and both were part of a network dubbed “Team Glasgow”.

Mr Martin told the Sunday Herald: “I was glad to play a role in Team Glasgow along with other individuals who believed in co-operating for the good of the city. Our aim was to encourage actions which would help the city. As a newspaper editor it is an important part of my job to make contacts in the political, business and other spheres and I also believe it is part of my job to work for the good of Glasgow and indeed Scotland. There is no conflict between that aim and my commitment to publishing the facts of stories which are important to the lives of our readers.

‘‘The Herald broke the news of Steven Purcell’s resignation and has continued to inform our readers of the major developments in this story. We remain committed to uncovering the full facts surrounding Mr Purcell’s departure, many of which remain obscured. We will work to uncover the truth, no matter how long it may take. There is no evidence of a ‘conspiracy of silence’. Indeed, the facts render such an allegation ridiculous.”

There remains the question of a conflict of interest regarding Peter Watson in his roles as legal adviser to the Herald & Times Group and as a listed shareholder in Media House. Levy & McRae’s website offers a service described as “reputation management”. It states: “With a low profile, we aim to keep our clients off the front page and take swift, effective action where required. Being networked at the highest levels and having access to major decision-makers is key to our success.”

One media organisation asked the Herald & Times Group last week if such a statement could be reconciled with the aims of our newspapers.

Herald & Times managing director Tim Blott said he was extremely concerned at the conflict of interest which had arisen in the Steven Purcell case. He said: “We are taking this problem very seriously and are assessing our relationship with our legal advisers this week. We certainly need to be assured that there is no potential for similar conflicts of interest in future and we are making our position very clear to Levy & McRae.”

Calling for a Dimmo ? First Minister Salmond seeks Judge-led quango style post-Leveson group to look at ethics in Scottish media

First Minister Alex Salmond will need a judge without a dodgy background to chair his media ethics effort. ON THE DAY Lord Leveson’s Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press was published, absurdly accusing the UK media of creating havoc with the public interest, Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has outlined his plans for meddling with free speech in the media & published criticism north of the border, with the announcement he is looking for a Court of Session judge to lead a five ‘non-politician’ implementation group who will ‘take forward’ the issue of press ethics in Scotland.

It has been rumoured this evening Mr Salmond’s advisers have drawn up a short list of currently serving and retired judges, a list which include the names of Lord Nimmo Smith (who recently chaired the ‘inquiry’ into problems at Rangers Football Club) and also none other than recently retired Lord President, Lord Hamilton.

Stocking fillers for the five ‘non-politician' roles are rumoured to include several controversial figures and former law officers already given positions by Mr Salmond (A former Lord Advocate, perhaps ? – Ed)

A Scottish Parliament insider commented earlier today : “Perhaps Mr Salmond’s new media muzzling quango may be able to investigate his own party’s dark media ethics.”

Leveson: Salmond suggests post-Leveson inquiry group

First Minister Alex Salmond has outlined plans for an independent group to take forward the issue of press ethics in Scotland.

His call came as Lord Justice Leveson recommended a new and tougher watchdog in his report on the issue  report on the issue .

But Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said Mr Salmond was not fit to lead such reforms.

They said his relationship with News Corporation meant he should step aside from the process.

Mr Salmond pointed to Lord Justice Leveson's finding that the first minister "cannot be criticised", over his involvement surrounding the controversial proposed takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation.

During first minister's questions at Holyrood, Mr Salmond suggested the post-Leveson group should be non-political and chaired by a current or recent Court of Session judge.

The first minister appeared as a witness at the nine month-long Leveson Inquiry, which was prompted by the phone-hacking scandal at the former News of the World newspaper, owned by News Corporation.

Mr Salmond, who said he was "positive" about the findings of the inquiry, invited all the Scottish Parliament's political parties to meet him and give their views, adding: "I believe it's important to achieve cross-party agreement in Scotland on the best way forward."

The first minister, speaking in the context of Holyrood being responsible for the regulation of the printed media in Scotland, added: "I propose the establishment of an independent implementation group, chaired by a current or recent court of session judge, with five non-politician members.

"The purpose of this group would consider how best to implement the Leveson proposals in the context of Scots law and devolved responsibilities of this parliament."

During his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, Mr Salmond was quizzed about his contact with media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his willingness to lobby the former culture minister Jeremy Hunt over the planned BSkyB takeover.

In his report, Lord Justice Leveson concluded Mr Salmond could not be criticised for his role in lobbying for the takeover of broadcaster BSkyB by Mr Murdoch's News Corporation.
   
What did Lord Justice Leveson say?

All of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time"

The press must create a new and tough regulator backed by legislation to ensure it was effective

This cannot be characterised as statutory regulation

Legally-binding arbitration process needed to force newspapers to deal effectively with complaints

Some "troubling evidence" in relation to the actions of some police officers - but no proof of widespread corruption (Hear no …. See no …. Speak no …- Ed)

Over last 30 years all political parties have had too close a relationship with the press which has not been in the public interest

Former Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was not biased in his handling of News Corp's BSkyB bid but failed to supervise his special adviser properly (Haha – Ed)

However, the judge's report said that, had Mr Salmond been successful in persuading UK ministers, his actions would have rendered any final deal "unlawful".

The inquiry also said there was no evidence of a specific deal between Mr Salmond and the Murdochs to trade newspaper support for help with the bid.

But Lord Justice Leveson said the first minister was seeking political support from The Sun in the same conversation as he was repeating an offer to assist with the bid.

The report added that there was clearly "mutual respect" and admiration between Mr Salmond and Mr Murdoch.

It said Mr Murdoch, the owner of The Sun and The Times, appreciated he was dealing with a politician of "considerable skill, resource and intelligence".

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie insisted Mr Salmond was the most heavily criticised in the report and, therefore, his role in spearheading a cross-party group of leaders was in doubt.

He said the first minister had been accused by Lord Justice Leveson of "seeking to entice the UK government to act unlawfully over the BSkyB bid".

Mr Rennie added: "He should offer to stand aside from the cross-party work. It should be led by someone untainted by the report.

"Lord Leveson has seen right through Alex Salmond. He is justly concerned about the murky dealings between Alex Salmond and the Murdochs."

Labour Leader Johann Lamont added: "On the face of it, what Lord Leveson is recommending looks sensible.

"I am not convinced that there is need for a separate press regulation system in Scotland, but, after reading Lord Leveson's comments in his report, I am convinced that Alex Salmond is not the man to lead any form of press regulation."

And Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, added: "The Leveson Report contains some marked criticisms of the first minister and his conduct surrounding the BSkyB bid and his attempt to curry favour with The Sun newspaper.

"In light of these remarks, I think it would be wise for the first minister to take a step back from the process he announced today and allow another minister to represent the Scottish Government in the proposed cross-party talks."

While answering questions on the inquiry, Prime Minister David Cameron was asked by SNP MP Angus Robertson whether he endorsed Mr Salmond's proposals.

Mr Cameron responded: "I will look carefully at what the first minister says and the proposals that he's making in this area, adding: "I recommend that the honorable gentleman might want to have a look at what the report says about the first minister as well."

Reacting to Lord Justice Leveson's report, the first minister told BBC Scotland: "I think he's actually managed to make the distinction between state regulation, which I don't think would have been a good thing, on the one hand and the other hand self-regulation with an underpinning of the law, particularly if they give it incentives for people to take part and play the game, and that distinction's pretty successfully made in Leveson's conclusions."

On the attacks over his relationship with Rupert Murdoch, Mr Salmond added: "I think I'll accept the Leveson finding that I can't be criticised.

"He also says it's laudable for the first minister of Scotland to try and get jobs and investment for this country - that is the prime requirement."

Mr Salmond said it would be "totally irresponsible" not to have regular contact with News Corporation, which he said was Scotland's ninth biggest private sector employer, through News International and BSkyB, which supported 8,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Labour and Conservative leaders, Johann Lamont and Ruth Davidson, welcomed the prospect of cross-party talks.

MSPs will debate the Leveson Inquiry report next week.