Lawyer 'had too much to lose' by joining da Vinci ransom plot

A SUCCESSFUL and respected Scottish solicitor would never have risked his career and reputation by becoming involved in a plot to ransom a stolen painting, a court has heard.

David Boyce, 63, was asked for advice on a plan to try to return the Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece, Madonna of the Yarnwinder, and believed everything was done above board, a jury heard.

However, he had been used by a fellow lawyer with a "propensity for deceit" and found himself charged with conspiracy.

Boyce denies plotting in 2007 with Marshall Ronald, 53; Robert Graham, 57; John Doyle, 61; and Calum Jones, 45, to extort 4.25 million for the safe return of the painting, which was stolen four years earlier from the Duke of Buccleuch's Drumlanrig Castle in Dumfriesshire.

The High Court in Edinburgh has heard that private investigators Graham and Doyle, from Liverpool, were approached by intermediaries of people holding the painting and they sought advice from their solicitor, Ronald, of Skelmersdale, Lancashire. He, in turn, contacted Boyce at the Glasgow law firm Boyds Solicitors, where Jones was also a partner.

The five men met, and Ronald approached an insurance loss adjuster about "repatriating" the painting. The police were told and an undercover operation ended in the artwork being seized at a meeting in Glasgow.

In his closing speech to the jury yesterday, David Burns QC, for Boyce, said his client had been in the legal profession for 35 years by 2007 and had an unblemished record. He had become senior partner in Boyds, which was about to merge with the much larger firm of HBJ Gateley Wareing.

"He would do nothing to harm that firm, his staff or his own standing," said Mr Burns.

"The Crown contend that at this juncture of his life, at the behest of Marshall Ronald, a business acquaintance he had met on one previous occasion, he made the conscious and deliberate decision to enter into a criminal conspiracy to extort money for the return of a renowned stolen painting. That is a startling proposition," said Mr Burns.

"What could possibly compel him to make such an extraordinary decision? He stood to gain nothing personally. Would he risk ruin, his career, his future by becoming knowingly involved in a plan to extort?"

Mr Burns suggested it was plain from notes made by Boyce after being contacted by Ronald that he considered police approval necessary for the paying of any reward. Boyce had not been closely involved in the transaction and heard nothing from Ronald to cause him any concern.

"He was not told of a lack of police involvement. Mr Ronald sought the cloak of credibility, respectability, Mr Boyce and his firm would provide for him. He might think he would lose that if he imparted this sort of information," added Mr Burns.

"Mr Boyce has said he was used by Marshall Ronald. He knew nothing of Mr Ronald's motivation or, as the Crown would call it, his propensity for deceit. There is no evidence Mr Boyce knew of, far less agreed to, any plan to extort."

The trial continues.