Revealed: The ex Lord Advocate appointed to review deaths in Police custody, and the £56K public cash link to the suspended Sheriff advising cops involved in Sheku Bayoh custody death

Custody deaths review role for ex Lord Advocate linked to lawyer advising Police in Sheku Bayoh custody death. A FORMER Lord Advocate with links to a suspended judge who is now representing Scottish Police Officers in a controversial custody death case - has been appointed by the Home Secretary to chair a UK wide review into deaths & accidents in Police custody.

Last week, Home Secretary Theresa May announced Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC will chair the independent review into deaths and serious incidents in police custody.

However, it can be revealed Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (55) (nee McPhilomy) used the services of the very same suspended Sheriff - Peter Watson - who is now representing and advising  Police Officers involved in the death in Police custidy of Sheku Bayoh.

According to documents in the possession of Audit Scotland – who are investigating claims about public cash spent by the Crown Office – Elish Angiolini billed taxpayers for upwards of £56,000 for personal legal services provided by Peter Watson and his former law firm – Glasgow based Levy & McRae.

The final amount of public cash paid to Watson & Levy & McRae for their services to Angiolini may be higher - as the Crown Office are resisting calls to disclose documents and final figures.

Levy & McRae – where Watson was based until late last year - are also known to have represented Police Officers who were charged and prosecuted for a number of serious criminal offences including rape, assault & fraud.

Watson (61) served as a Sheriff until he was suspended earlier this year by Scotland’s top judge, Lord Brian Gill.

The suspension came after Sheriff Watson was named in a multi million pound writ seeking £90m in damages for the collapse of hedge fund Heather Capital.

Levy & McRae are also named in the writ, which alleges the firm was involved in multiple fraudulent cash transfers to offshore jurisdictions.

In August of this year, the Court of Session heard how Watson received a £200K payment from an Gibraltar based law firm – Hassans.

Suspended from his judicial duties, Watson is now giving legal advice to and issuing media comment on behalf of Police Officers involved in the controversial death in custody of Sheku Bayoh.

Last week, a Press Release was issued by Media House International on behalf of suspended Sheriff Peter Watson -  in his role of representing Police Officers involved in the Sheku Bayoh case.

Watson, along with former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill – attacked public interest media coverage of the death of Sheku Bayoh while in Police custody.

The 31-year-old trainee gas engineer, who left Africa and settled in Kirkcaldy, died in May of suspected asphyxia while in police custody after he was restrained by up to nine officers .

A post-mortem examination revealed he had cuts and bruises all over his body, including more than 20 facial injuries and tiny blood spots in his eyes.

Sheku’s death is being investigated by PIRC - Scotland's Police Investigations and Review Commissioner - but former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill appeared to prejudice the investigation in comments he made last week. MacAskill said he did not expect police officers to face charges .

And, right after MacAskill made his remarks - as if following a script - current Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland intervened, appealing for calm following a row between Kenny MacAskill and Aamer Anwar, the lawyer representing Mr Bayoh's family.

Yesterday, Justice Secretary Michael Matheson said on BBC Politics Scotland it is not helpful if people give a "running commentary" on the death in police custody of Sheku Bayoh.

It has since emerged Police Scotland tried to have the body of Sheku Bayoh returned to his country of birth - Sierra Leone - two days after Mr Bayoh died in Police custody.

Police Officers in Scotland contacted the High Commission (Embassy)of Sierra Leone to discuss repatriating his body but officials at in London were alarmed and contacted the father-of-two’s family – who were unaware of Police Scotland’s attempt to remove the body from the UK.

Press Release from suspended sheriff Peter Watson claimed “open season of hunting Police Scotland”:

Last week, a Press Release was issued by Media House International on behalf of suspended Sheriff Peter Watson -  in his role of representing Police Officers involved in the Sheku Bayoh case.

Watson, along with former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill – attacked public interest media coverage of the death of Sheku Bayoh while in Police custody.

The Press Release, featured in some Scottish newspapers earlier this week read: SHEKU BAYOH – THE 10 VITAL QUESTIONS (Issued on behalf of Prof. Peter Watson BA LLB SSC of PBW Law)

Glasgow, October 19, 2015: Kenny MacAskill, the former Justice Secretary, has made a timely and important intervention in openly criticising the media campaign waged against Police Scotland, the PIRC and the officers involved in the Sheku Bayoh case.

He points to an “open season of hunting Police Scotland” rather than allowing due process to follow and for the investigation to be completed. He highlights the importance of protecting the integrity of whatever judicial process will follow, most likely a Fatal Accident Inquiry. He also points to a litany of assumptions of racism and homicide, and the misrepresentation of statistics of deaths in custody in England.  The statistics surrounding deaths in custody in England have little to do with what happens in Scotland, where most deaths in custody relate to drink or drugs.

Mr MacAskill rightly points to the poisonous atmosphere which has been created and  recognises that those who are the subjects of these wild accusations and criticisms cannot comment as they are involved in this process, and can do no more than co-operate in that process.

Prof. Peter Watson said: “As the lawyer representing the Police Officers involved, I welcome these comments from the former Justice Secretary and I agree the sooner we get to whatever Judicial Proceedings are to follow the better. This will most likely be a Fatal Accident Inquiry. This will establish the facts and do so on evidence tested in Court. In broad terms, the Inquiry will set out to explain what happened on  May 3 which led to Sheku Bayoh, known locally as Chris and by some as “socks”  to be on the streets of Kirkcaldy in the early morning, being confronted by the Police and sadly dying.

“I will not engage in speculation as to the outcome nor make wild allegations. The information which has come into the public domain suggests there was a fight in a house, and that Sheku Bayoh had taken drugs.  This information will shape some of the questions which must be answered. The family say there is no justice without truth. There are, I suggest, ten questions that will lead us to the truth:

Along with 10 questions, alleging a number of ‘what ifs’, Prof. Watson added: “These questions will be asked. Answers to these questions will help get to the truth, as will the post mortem and toxicology reports.  The family have their own reports. Although information has been drip fed to the media with details of bodily injury, the family have so far refused to release their reports, whilst at the same time demanding that the PIRC or the Crown release evidence, which as the investigating agencies, they clearly cannot do. There is no reason why the family cannot release the reports they hold if they want the public to have a full and balanced understanding of their position.

“I doubt whether these questions will be answered until evidence is given in Court by all those involved but my hope is that until then, the PIRC and the Crown are allowed to complete their investigation in an atmosphere free of orchestrated media events and unsubstantiated allegations.”

The press release issued on behalf of Peter Watson came after a number of media reports revealed a number of allegations including racism & violence against Police Officers involved in the Bayoh case.

Concerns have also been expressed by many including the family of Mr Bayoh on the progress of an ‘independent’ investigation by PIRC - Scotland's Police Investigations and Review Commissioner into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Bayoh while he was in Police custody.

Ex Lord Advocate linked to lawyer defending custody death cops - to chair deaths in Police custody inquiry:

The Home Office website reveals the terms of reference for the Home Office inquiry chaired by Elish Angiolini on deaths in Police custody:

• to examine the procedures and processes surrounding deaths and serious incidents in police custody, including the lead up to such incidents, the immediate aftermath, through to the conclusion of official investigations. It should consider the extent to which ethnicity is a factor in such incidents. The review should include a particular focus on family involvement and their support experience at all stages.

• to examine and identify the reasons and obstacles as to why the current investigation system has fallen short of many families’ needs and expectations, with particular reference to the importance of accountability of those involved and sustained learning following such incidents.

• to identify areas for improvement and develop recommendations seeking to ensure appropriate, humane institutional treatment when such incidents, particularly deaths in or following detention in police custody, occur. Recommendations should consider the safety and welfare of all those in the police custody environment, including detainees and police officers and staff. The aim should be to enhance the safety of the police custody setting for all.

It has also been confirmed that there will be a formal role for INQUEST, a charity that offers advice to families bereaved by death in police custody. Deborah Coles, Director at INQUEST, has been appointed as a special adviser to the chair and the charity will:

• facilitate family listening days so that the Chair can hear evidence first-hand from those who have lost loved ones in police custody to ensure their views are taken into account.

• play a leading role on an advisory board which will offer expert advice to the Chair during the course of the review.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: I am pleased that Dame Elish Angiolini has agreed to chair the independent review into deaths and serious incidents in police custody. When I announced this review, I said that the Chairman would be someone with the ability to work closely with victims, families and the police alike, and with a proven track record of being willing to ask difficult questions. Dame Elish has all of these qualities.

Thankfully, deaths and serious incidents in custody are rare. And no one – least of all police officers – wants such incidents to happen, and I know everyone involved takes steps to avoid them. But when such incidents do occur, they are a tragedy that has the potential to undermine the relationship between the public and the police. As Home Secretary, I have been struck by the pain and suffering of families still looking for answers.That is why I set up this independent review and I’m grateful to Dame Elish and Deborah Coles, as special advisor to the chair, for agreeing to take on this important work.

Failing to mention any previous link to suspended Sheriff Watson, Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC said: “This is a matter of critical importance to many families and I hope that this review can identify pragmatic and effective responses to this longstanding issue.”

The Home Office has not commented on the links between Angiolini & the suspended Sheriff Peter Watson.

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

Shame for Crown Office & Lord Advocate as former Procurator Fiscal Stuart MacFarlane admits downloading child porn, added to sex offenders register

Silence from Crown Office after former prosecutor admits downloading child porn A  FORMER PROCURATOR FISCAL DEPUTE who served under ex-Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (born McPhilomy) at Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is facing a possible custodial sentence after he ADMITTED downloading indecent images of children. Scottish Law Reporter earlier reported on the case in January of this year HERE

Stuart MacFarlane (45) from Glasgow was caught with at least 15,000 images of child pornography on computer equipment at his home after Police succeeded in gaining a search warrant to raid his premises and seize computer equipment.

Images seized by Police showed acts of a sexual nature against minors, and also pictures of sexual acts with animals. However, despite the severity of evidence seized, and the ex Procurator Fiscal’s admitting to downloading the material, sentence on MacFarlane was deferred at Paisley Sheriff Court although his name was placed on the sex offenders register.

The current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, and the Crown Office have issued no statement or comment on the case and MacFarlane’s admission to downloading child porn and no details have yet been made public on how the admitted paedophile obtained the material or from whom. However, a Police source has said further action related to the case could follow.

A legal insider at COPFS has come forward this afternoon and told Scottish Law Reporter there have been other cases swept under the carpet of prosecutors, staff and former members of COPFS staff who were also found to be in possession of inappropriate images of children.

It is thought current & former COPFS staff thought to be involved in activities similar to MacFarlane have accessed such images through contact with online paedophile rings and in one worrying case, it has been revealed that evidence seized by Police in one case, was found on personal computer equipment of another prosecutor who has since stood down from his position yet has not faced criminal charges.

The now shamed ex Procurator Fiscal Stuart MacFarlane escaped prosecution for earlier charges of indecency with a prostitute while serving under Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, the Crown Office claiming at the time “it was not in the public interest” to prosecute the former prosecutor who has now admitted to being a paedophile.

Daily Mail newspaper reports the story :

Disgraced fiscal faces prison over child porn

Daily Mail Reporter

A FORMER depute fiscal whose career was overshad­owed by reports he had sex with a prostitute is facing jail after admitting downloading indecent images of children.

Father-of-two Stuart Macfar­lane, 45, spent hours hidden away from his family in a garden hut kept for his exclusive use.

When detectives raided the property in Eaglesham, Renfrew­shire, last December, they went to the shed on which there was a plaque saying 'Dad's Den'.

They seized two laptops, one of which had an external storage device, and took them away for forensic examination.

Paisley Sheriff Court was told Macfarlane was detained and questioned after being medically examined, as it was known he had previously claimed to be suffering from post traumatic stress disor­der after Iraq War service as a Territorial Army captain.

Procurator fiscal Laura McPherson said almost 15,000 still images were found on the computer equipment. The majority were of children in erotic poses.

Others involved sexual activity between children and adults, sadism and bestiality. There were also 184 moving images showing sexual activity involving children or children and adults.

Deferring sentence for reports, Sheriff James Spy warned him: 'The court must be considering the question of custody.'

The heard that Macfarlane, whose address was given as Mount Florida, Glasgow, is cur­rently employed as a contractor in Afghanistan.

BBC News also reported on the case here :

Ex-prosecutor Stuart MacFarlane had indecent images

A former prosecutor is facing a prison term after he admitted downloading indecent images of children. Stuart MacFarlane, 45, from Glasgow, was caught with almost 15,000 images at his former family home in Eaglesham, East Renfrewshire, on 28 December 2012. Sentence on MacFarlane was deferred at Paisley Sheriff Court and his name was placed on the sex offenders' register.

A case against the ex-depute procurator fiscal, after he was allegedly caught with a prostitute, was dropped in 2006.

The court heard how police, acting under a search warrant, searched MacFarlane's then family home at the end of last year. They seized two laptops and an external hard drive from an outside shed, which had a plaque outside stating "Dad's Den".

After the computer equipment had been fully analysed, it was discovered that there were almost 15,000 still images. Some showed children posing alone, others showed sexual activity between children and adults, while others featured an animal. The girls involved in the images are thought to have ranged from three to 14 years of age.

MacFarlane, who now lives in Mount Florida, Glasgow, later admitted downloading the images between March and December last yea

BBC News reported on the earlier case involving dropped charges against MacFarlane, here : Fiscal indecency charge dropped

The case against a prosecutor allegedly caught with a prostitute has been dropped because "it was not in the public interest" to proceed to trial.

Stuart MacFarlane, 37, a principal procurator fiscal depute in Glasgow, was arrested after a police function. He faced indecency and resisting arrest charges and resigned from the Crown Office earlier this month. Glasgow Sheriff Court heard the case would not proceed after "changes to his situation and medical reports".

It was alleged that Mr MacFarlane and Joanna Crane, 27, had been caught by police while she was performing a sex act on him. The offences were alleged to have taken place in Bothwell Street on 29 October.

David Spiers, procurator fiscal at Hamilton, told Glasgow Sheriff Court: "Mr MacFarlane's lawyer has advised of changes in his situation. "Considering this and specialist medical reports it would not be in the public interest to proceed further with this case."

The charge against Ms Crane was also dropped. She had pleaded not guilty to committing an offence of public indecency by engaging in a sexual act in a public place.

Mr McFarlane, who lives near Eaglesham, had not tendered a plea.

‘Magic Circle’ of Scottish Judges & rent boys : Scandal Solicitor David Blair Wilson is convicted of attempted smuggling of drugs & mobile phones into Saughton jail

Solicitor David Blair Wilson pictured outside court. DAVID BLAIR WILSON, a crooked solicitor well known for his part in the Magic Circle affair which exposed a sex-for-justice scandal involving liaisons between rent boys and members of Scotland’s judiciary & Crown Office, has been convicted of attempting to smuggle drugs and mobile phones into Saughton Prison during October 2011.

Blair Wilson was found guilty at the High Court in Edinburgh after a six day jury trial which heard the solicitor attempt to blame a younger male friend, identified as Steven Douglas who Blair Wilson told the jury was a drug dealer and who regarded Blair Wilson as a “surrogate dad”.

The trial judge, Lord Burns, granted bail to Blair Wilson until he is sentenced next month.

Sex for justice scandal involved Scottish Judges & male hookers, forced resignation of Lord Dervaird while others escaped. Scottish Law Reporter has featured coverage of the Magic Circle in earlier article HERE and also featured a report on the former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (born McPhilomy) key role in what was known at the time as Operation Planet, the drive to catch crooked judges & prosecutors who were swapping boys for favours in Scottish Courts, HERE

Lord Nimmo Smith QC’s REPORT ON MAGIC CIRCLE GAY JUSTICE SCANDAL, widely regarded by many as a whitewash of the corruption in the Scottish judiciary, identifies Dame Elish Angiolini who worked at the Crown Office at the time as a Senior Legal Assistant, under her maiden mane of Elish McPhilomy. It was clear from subsequent discussions, the report played a heavy part in formulating Crown Office policy on the prosecution of judges, lawyers & other members of the legal profession who were engaging in the illegal sex acts with other men & under age boys.

The Daily Mail newspaper has reported on David Blair Wilson’s conviction :

Lawyer tried to take drugs and phones into jail

'Magic Circle' solicitor's career over

By Brian Horne and Jim McBeth

A CROOKED lawyer with a colourful past has been convicted of trying to smuggle drugs and mobile phones into a prison.

David Blair Wilson was found guilty yesterday at the High Court in Edinburgh after a six-day trial.

The court heard the Dunfermline -based lawyer turned up at Saughton Prison, Edin­burgh, in October 2011 to see Lee Brown, 35, who was serving 18 years for attempted murder and other offences.

Prison officer Graham Robertson checked the lawyer's ID and told him to pass his 'bulging' folder through a scanner.

Mr Robertson told the court: 'His body language changed. He became anxious-looking (and), began to fidget.'                  

Blair Wilson, 55, left and went back to his car taut when he returned the file was 'noticeably thinner'. A search of his vehicle by Lothian and Borders Police found the contraband under a seat.

Blair Wilson, who was disciplined by the Law Society ten years ago for being derelict in his duties as a solicitor, claimed it belonged to a drug-dealing friend, Steven Doug­las, and alleged Douglas had used the car the previous evening.

The lawyer said that Douglas, who failed to appear to give evidence, regarded him as a 'surro­gate dad'. He claimed Douglas had lost a valuable packet of heroin belonging to 'heavies' and had been threatened with death.

Blair Wilson said the contraband, worth nearly £3,000 behind bars, had nothing to do with him but admitted it was allegedly to be given to Lee Brown in the hope he would negotiate with the drug dealers on behalf of Douglas.

However, the jury convicted the lawyer by a majority of trying to smuggle three phones and three SIM cards into the jail.

He was also convicted of supply­ing cannabis resin, diazepam and body-building drugs.

The lawyer, whose 30-year career was in tatters last night, is no stranger to controversy.

In the 1980s, he played a key role in the 'Magic Circle' affair - rumours there was a clique of high-ranking homosexuals in the legal profes­sion and that 'gay blackmail' had played a part in high-profile trials. Blair Wilson was the solicitor for fellow lawyer Colin Tucker, cleared of embezzling £50,000 from clients.

Tucker confessed to taking money but said he had been made to do it by a 'boss' who 'had a hold over him because he was gay'.

He is said to have provided his defence team with a list of highly-placed gays in the profession which 'proved' the blackmail claims.

An independent inquiry, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, concluded 'there was no conspiracy'.

Blair Wilson will be sentenced next month.

Yet another job for controversial Ex Lord Advocate Angiolini, now named as new Chancellor of University of West of Scotland

Ex Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini named as new UWS Chancellor also received a £28k golden goodbye on top of a slew of jobs since leaving Crown Office FORMER Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) recently back in the news for launching a legal action to silence the well known anti-abuse campaigner & journalist Robert Green, over claims made in the case of alleged abuse victim Hollie Greig, has now been named as the new Chancellor of the University of the West of Scotland (UWS). The latest job for Angiolini comes after the ex Law Chief scooped up a number of lucrative positions such as babysitting Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond as his personally appointed Ministerial complaints adviser and also being to the post of Principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford (wow, how many jobs, salaries & expenses claims can one person hold down ! –Ed)

The Press Release from the University states : Dame Elish Angiolini Named as New Chancellor of UWS

One more for the pot of many jobs ? Angiolini named as Chancellor of UWS University of the West of Scotland (UWS) has announced the appointment of Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC as its new Chancellor. Dame Elish, who will be formally installed as Chancellor of the University at a ceremony later this year, will represent the University at the highest level and hold formal powers to confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions.

Dame Elish replaces Lord Smith of Kelvin Kt who has held the post of Chancellor of UWS since October 2003. Lord Smith, a highly respected figure in the Scottish business sector, steps down from this role at UWS this summer at the end of the current academic year. He has held a range of prominent posts in the commercial and financial arenas and is currently Chairman of the Weir Group, Scottish and Southern Energy, Green Investment Bank and the organising committee of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.

The appointment of Dame Elish as Chancellor was made by the University’s governing body, University Court at a meeting on 5 February 2013. This five year appointment will see Dame Elish acting as an ambassador for UWS and as part of this role she will confer awards at the University’s graduation ceremonies.

Dame Elish, who is Principal of St Hugh's College, University of Oxford, is one of Scotland's most senior lawyers and has extensive experience of public administrative, criminal and civil law as well as Public Inquiries and Fatal Accident Inquiries.

She is the former Lord Advocate of Scotland – the highest law officer in the Scottish legal system. Prior to this she was Solicitor General for Scotland. Dame Elish was the first woman and the first solicitor in the modern era to hold either position. In 2008 Dame Elish created another legal first when she and Frank Mulholland QC, the then Solicitor General, were admitted as members of the Faculty of Advocates.

As Solicitor General for Scotland (2001–06) and then as Lord Advocate (2006–11), Dame Elish was instrumental in reforming the operation of the justice system in Scotland, in particular making it more responsive to the victims of crime.

In addition, Dame Elish, who is renowned for her championing of equality and dignity in the justice system, supervised some of the most significant prosecutions in Scotland in the last decade, and acted as the Scottish Government’s legal advisor during a period of major change.

She was awarded the DBE for services to the administration of justice in the Queen’s birthday honours in 2011. In the same year, she was granted a Special Achievement Award by the International Association of Prosecutors.

Commenting on her appointment as Chancellor of the University, Dame Elish said: “UWS plays a key role in the economic, social and cultural development of Scotland and I am truly honoured to accept the position of Chancellor of the University.Universities perform a hugely important role in society and I very much look forward to being involved with the activities of UWS.”

Professor Seamus McDaid CBE, Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University of the West of Scotland, said: “We are delighted to announce the appointment of Dame Elish as the University’s new Chancellor. She has demonstrated a great capacity for achieving excellence throughout her professional career and, indeed, her work embodies many of the core values of this institution. She will be a first class ambassador for University of the West of Scotland.”

Commenting on the retiral of Lord Smith, Professor McDaid added: “Over the last ten years as Chancellor he has been unstinting in his support of UWS and on behalf of the entire University community I would like to thank him for his time at UWS and wish him continued success for the future.”

Richard Blackburn, Chair of University Court, said: “We are extremely pleased to appoint someone of Elish’s calibre to succeed Lord Smith of Kelvin. She is a great supporter of higher education and has shown throughout her career a commitment to making a significant contribution to society through her work.”

ANGIOLINI’S BATTLE WITH ABUSE CAMPAIGN :

Scottish Law Reporter recently 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 the Hollie Greig. Scottish Law Reporter recently 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.

Former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini employed Levy McRae to go after anti abuse campaigner. 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 proceeded to threaten several media outlets & 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

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.”