SAUDI lawyers acting for the British nurses released from the kingdom last week have threatened to sue the brother of murder victim Yvonne Gilford.
Mr Salah al Hejailan said Frank Gilford had caused Lucille McLauchlan, 32, from Dundee, and Deborah Parry, 39, from Hampshire, unnecessary distress by dragging out a decision on whether to accept blood money.
He told BBC Scotland that a claim against Mr Gilford had been filed in court because of the hardship suffered by the nurses.
Mr al Hejailan said: ''I have filed on their behalf against Mr Gilford because he's really the one responsible for all the hardship and difficulties that we've faced during the last year in court.''
He said Mr Gilford and his lawyers dragged the matter out unnecessarily and treated it in a ''very commercial way''.
Earlier, Mr al Hejailan caused controversy by suggesting the nurses made up allegations of abuse at the hands of the Saudi police.
Dundee solicitor William Boyle, who represents McLauchlan, said she had not instructed an action against Mr Gilford but may consider doing so.
''I can well understand why people would be extremely upset at Mr Gilford's actions and some of his comments. We have not ruled out any action against Mr Gilford but Lucille has not instructed any action,'' he said.
Mr Boyle said he would contact Mr al Hejailan to clarify what action had been taken.
Meanwhile, it was reported that Mr Gilford was poised to receive the #680,000 blood money, which he accepted as payment in return for overruling the death penalty imposed on Parry for his sister's murder.
The money, raised by British companies trading with Saudi Arabia, was withheld to ensure Mr Gilford's waiver of Parry's sentence, and the eight years and 500 lashes imposed on McLauchlan for her alleged part in the crime. It was reported that the money could be paid as soon as today.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article