FORMER Rangers chief executive Charles Green is in line to receive millions of pounds in damages from the taxpayer after Scotland’s Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC, admitted in the Court of Session that he had been subjected to malicious prosecution.
Green, 67, joins former Rangers administrators, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, and former club director, Imran Ahmad, in receiving public acknowledgement of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s malicious prosecution. All four and another administrator David Grier are seeking damages said to run into millions, with Green alone reported to be suing for up to £20 million.
Both the Lord Advocate and Police Scotland are being sued by Green, but the latter has made no admission of liability, as confirmed by Alastair Duncan QC for Police Scotland in court yesterday.
The hearing before Lord Tyre heard a ringing declaration from Green’s lawyer Garry Borland QC, who said: “The public admission that Mr Green has been subject to a malicious prosecution represents a shameful episode in the history of the prosecution service in Scotland. Mr Green has suffered a gross injustice as a result of this.”
He added: “Our action is proceeding on the following grounds; firstly the prosecution of Mr Green never had any proper basis; secondly the prosecution was conducted without probable cause - it was unjustifiable and should never have been pursued.
“Thirdly, the prosecution was malicious and consequently improper and unlawful. He is suing the Chief Constable in relation to his detention.
“Liability and causation are no longer an issue following the admission of liability. The focus of any proof as between the pursuer Mr Green and the Lord Advocate will be solely on the quantification of Mr Green’s losses arising from this admittedly malicious and unlawful prosecution.”
Gerry Moynihan QC, acting for the Lord Advocate said he wanted to make “a public statement” and said: “It is admitted that the prosecution of Mr Green had no proper basis. It is admitted that there has never been objective probable cause, and it is admitted that in these circumstances, malice, in the sense required to give rise to liability at common law, can be inferred. The import of all of that is that the Lord Advocate acknowledges that there has been a malicious prosecution in the sense in which that term is used in our law, and accordingly there is liability in damages to Mr Green.”
Garry Borland QC said that an expert report on Green’s losses would require three or four months to be prepared. He said: “Given the size of the losses in this case, I want that report to be as thorough and comprehensive as possible, and it will be a significant expense in itself for Mr Green in instructing that report.
“Steps have already been taken with a view to identifying an appropriate expert to produce such a report. I would expect the instruction of that expert to be only a matter of days away. My best estimate given the nature of the investigation and the breadth of the report that may have to be produced on the financial losses which Mr Green has suffered is that it will take three to four months to produce that report.”
The case follows the events subsequent to the collapse into administration in 2012, and later liquidation, of Rangers under owner Craig Whyte. Charles Green led the consortium which took over Rangers, though he was later ousted. The current Rangers ownership has no involvement in the cases which resulted from the arrest and wrongful prosecution in 2105 for alleged fraud of Green, Whitehouse, Clark and Ahmad.
Ruling that Green was entitled to damages, Lord Tyre continued the case with an eight-day hearing set for August next year.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here