SCOTLAND’S prosecution service has already paid out £35 million of taxpayers’ money over its botched prosecutions related to Rangers FC, and has set aside millions more.
The figures, which show the situation as of last month, are revealed in the annual accounts from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Copfs).
The 2020/21 accounts, which were laid at parliament last week but have yet to be published by the COPFS itself, show £40.5m has so far been identified for Rangers related cases.
The bill ultimately falls on the public purse, with ministers allowing the COPFS to over-spend its budget in order to fund the so-called “losses and special payments”.
Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: "It is astonishing that unknown sums of taxpayers’ money are being diverted from frontline public services to pay for the Crown Office’s malicious prosecution scandal.
“It appears no-one yet knows how many tens of millions of pounds this will cost."
The Crown Office has faced a series of compensation claims related to wrongful arrests and prosecutions over the Ibrox club, which went into administration in 2012.
Last year David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, who were appointed as its administrators, agreed an out of court settlement after launching a £20.8m compensation claim.
The pair, who worked for insolvency firm Duff and Phelps, were arrested in 2014.
Lawyers acting for the Crown later admitted much of the prosecution against them was “malicious” and lacked "probable cause".
In February, then Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, gave a statement to parliament on the Rangers prosecutions, revealing Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark had each been paid £10.5m in damages, plus £3m in legal expenses, making £24m in total.
In August, it was announced that former Rangers chief executive Charles Green had also won £6.3m plus costs after bringing a £20m claim against the Lord Advocate.
He was one of several people arrested during a fraud probe relating to the sale of the club.
The case was abandoned and the Crown admitted his prosecution was also “malicious”.
However the Crown Office accounts suggest at least £10m more is expected to be paid out on top of the £30.3m going to Whitehouse, Clark and Green.
The accounts show that in 2020/21, the Crown Office spent £170m compared to £134.1m the year before, with the difference largely being due to Rangers cases.
The say substantial “unforeseen costs” arose late in the financial year, forcing COPFS to get “additional written budgetary authorisation” from SNP ministers to overspend by £14.6m.
The reason was Whitehouse and Clark winning an appeal judgment at the Court of Session, which decided the Lord Advocate, as head of the prosecution service, did not have absolute immunity from being sued for malicious prosecution.
The decision upended an area of the law that was largely taken for granted for 60 years.
The COPFS accounts state: “We have been involved in civil litigation brought against the Lord Advocate by individuals prosecuted in connection with the acquisition and administration of Rangers Football Club. Some cases were resolved, with sums paid to pursuers as at September 2021 totalling £35.3million, and other cases remain before the court. In 2020/21 we have charged £27.9m (2019/20: £12.6m) as expenditure in relation to the various cases associated with this.”
In 2018/19, the year before money started being set aside for Rangers cases, these so-called “losses and special payments” totalled just £229,000.
The accounts concede the Rangers pay-outs could go higher still, as the estimates are based on information known at the date they were signed off, September 23.
“Actual losses could be materially understated or overstated,” the document said.
It was reported in August that New York based Duff and Phelps is seeking a £120m pay out from the Crown Office for reputational damage, after initially suing for £60m.
The Scottish Government has agreed to hold a judge-led inquiry into the Rangers fiasco at the Crown Office once all the related legal proceedings are concluded.
Scottish Labour MSP Pauline McNeill said: “Every penny of public money diverted from the core work of the Crown Office - investigations and prosecutions - represents a breach of trust with the public.
“This cash could have been better spent keeping our streets safe or clearing the backlog of court cases but instead must be diverted to smooth the wake of poor decisions."
The Crown Office said it was not in a position to speculate about any further costs. It said: “The Crown will support public accountability and a process of inquiry once related litigation has concluded.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel