Malicious prosecution of Rangers' administrators raises serious questions for Crown – Kenny MacAskill

The admission that malice was a factor in the prosecution of Rangers’ administrators is not a minor indiscretion that can just be brushed aside, writes Kenny MacAskill.

Rangers' administrators David Whitehouse, left, and Paul Clark were awarded £600,000 by the Court of Session after Crown lawyers admitted much of the prosecution was "malicious" and lacked "probable cause".(Picture: Robert Perry)

As a defence agent and then as Justice Secretary, I always respected the Crown, recognising they acted not as some zealous state prosecutor but in the wider public interest. Not for them the actions of some zealous American district attorney seeking re-election and intent on obtaining a conviction by fair means or foul.

Instead, whilst pursuing vigorously, they never forgot the rights of the accused. Indeed, as a young agent I remember a few occasions when cases were instantaneously dropped when information came to light. I even recall overhearing the shouting in the witness room as a police officer, who let’s say had embellished evidence, was suitably taken to task.

That’s why the admission by the Crown of a malicious prosecution in the case involving Rangers’ administrators is quite extraordinary, and deserving to be a front not back page story. I’ve worked with past Lord Advocates, Eilish Angeolini and Frank Mulholland, and hold them in the highest regard. Both had been career Procurator Fiscals and reared in that culture I’ve described. I don’t for an instant believe that any such conduct would have been instigated by them or even an investigation conducted without some reasonable cause for suspicion.

So, what happened, when and by whom in this case? Where’s the explanation or inquiry, the resignations or dismissals, even the statement to Parliament? I’ve been present when narrations were given by Lord Advocates for example in the World’s End case debacle. But here there’s little other than a brief reference in court.

Yet, it’s costing a fortune to settle it. But the price to be paid could be far higher than that. This isn’t some minor indiscretion that can just be brushed aside, as it goes to the very integrity of the prosecution service. There needs to be an assurance that it’s a one-off not a change in ethos and culture.

The Crown Office has latterly failed to cover itself in glory. The Alex Salmond case and continued prosecutions in its wake raise concerns but this is fundamental and even more concerning.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to scotsman.com and enjoy unlimited access to Scottish news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit www.scotsman.com/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Joy Yates

Editorial Director