Criminal complaint threatened over malicious prosecution

Mr Whitehouse found himself embroiled in legal woes in the wake of Craig Whyte’s takeover of Rangers in 2011. Fraud and other charges brought against him and his colleague Paul Clark were either dropped or dismissed.

The Lord Advocate’s lawyers admitted that prosecutors acted unlawfully in pursuing the men and that their human rights were breached.

The Court of Session heard of a reference during the civil case that was ultimately brought against the Crown Office of a document discussing the “need to nail the Duff & Phelps people”.

But the payouts do not mark the end of the saga. Mr Whitehouse has said that if Mr Wolffe does not make a statement at a court hearing this week, apologising and explaining what happened, his lawyers will seek the right to use evidence from the civil case to make criminal complaints against those behind his prosecution.

Mr Whitehouse told the Scottish Daily Mail: “I have confirmed to the Lord Advocate that I believe the interests of justice are best served in him publicly saying what has been misrepresented in court and setting out the steps which are being taken to address the failings within the Crown Office, and to hold those to account for any wrongdoing.

“I believe it is essential that he uses that opportunity to re-establish public confidence in the integrity of the system and in his fitness for the role as head of the prosecution service. It would be scandalous to use vast amounts of public money to sweep the circumstances of this case under the carpet.”

He told the Herald on Sunday that the money alone is not enough and that he is determined that “something good” comes out of his terrible ordeal.

“Compensation might serve my interests. But it doesn’t serve the interests of the justice system in Scotland,” he said.

“It doesn’t protect others from the same horrendous conduct which I faced.”

Mr Whitehouse told the newspaper: “If you don’t address the abuse of power, if you don’t address the conduct of those who are engaged in process, then the future costs will just magnify.

“They have to address, own up to and face up to the scandalous conduct for which they were responsible. They are not owning up to it and addressing it by simply buying it off.

“I have had what has been presented as an apology from the Lord Advocate which in essence says that he unreservedly apologises, that I should not have been prosecuted and that lessons have been learnt and steps taken to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

“What steps? What I have asked him to do is spell out what steps because I cannot see any evidence of anything having changed. Nobody has been disciplined, nobody has been sacked, nobody has been prosecuted.

“No marker is being laid down in over egregious, unlawful conduct as far as I can see. I am seeking leave to use material recovered through the civil case to make a criminal complaint in relation to conduct.

“This will enable us to make complaints and make reports of criminality in relation to Crown staff, the former Lord Advocate and police officers. And to enable me to give open evidence to a public inquiry.”

Mr Whitehouse said he had an “enormous mountain of evidence and information which shouldn’t be brushed under the carpet”.

He added: “If they want something good to come from this, they should address their shortcomings and put it right. Not just pretend it didn’t happen.”

Mr Whitehouse believes that the Crown Office pursued the case after being told there was no evidence.

While a review of the case, ordered when Mr Wolffe was appointed Lord Advocate, found there was no evidence supporting a prosecution, the Crown Office nevertheless fought a case for immunity – at the expense of the taxpayer.

Allies of Mr Wolffe say he was not at the helm when the botched prosecutions were sought, while those of Lord Mulholland say there were thousands of successful prosecutions during his tenure.

A spokesman for the judge said he did not plan to make any statement about his involvement.

Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser said: “A malicious prosecution of innocent individuals is something we might expect from a Third World dictatorship. But this is not North Korea or Zimbabwe.

“That it could have happened in Scotland in the 21st century is simply outrageous, and raises the most serious questions about the conduct of the Crown Office.”

A Crown Office spokesman said: “The civil action raised by David Whitehouse and related actions are not fully resolved and we will not comment on them in detail at this time.

“The Lord Advocate intends to make a statement to the Scottish Parliament when the actions raised by Mr Whitehouse and Mr Paul Clark are concluded.

“A number of ongoing related court actions will restrict the scope of this statement.

“However, the Lord Advocate is committed to supporting public understanding of these cases and will provide as much information as he properly can.

“The Justice Committee has written to the Lord Advocate on this subject and that correspondence will be responded to in due course.”

A Police Scotland spokesman commented: “We have reached an agreement to resolve this dispute and, as part of that agreement, will make no further comment.”