Crown Office confirms £24m bill for malicious prosecutions
Costs incurred by the Crown Office as a result of its malicious prosecutions of two men amount to around £24m, the Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC, has officially confirmed.
But the sums – and any future costs Scotland’s prosecution body may incur – will not mar its operational effectiveness, the Lord Advocate has stated in a letter to Holyrood’s Justice Committee.
Writing to convenor Adam Tomkins MSP, Mr Wolffe confirmed that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark had been paid £10.5 million each in damages and that their legal costs amounted to £1,650,000 and £1,436,250 respectively. He added that the judicial expenses had not yet been assessed.
The pair were arrested and charged in relation to their positions as administrators of Rangers. The charges were later dropped and the two men said that the Crown Office and Police Scotland had subjected them to wrongful detention, arrest and prosecution.
The Lord Advocate also wrote that he has admitted liability in two other cases against him arising from the same prosecution and that he is defending others.
The settlement of these claims would not, however, “affect the operational effectiveness of COPFS”, he wrote.
“In particular, the payments will not require to be met from the COPFS resource allocation which was announced as part of the Scottish government budget last week. That allocation involves an increase in COPFS funding from £124.9m in 2020-21 to £146.8m in 2021-22, representing an increased resource allocation of £21.9m and additional capital funding of £0.5m.”
He added: “Although the claims related to events which occurred before I was appointed as Lord Advocate … it was and is for me, as the current incumbent of that office, to answer them”.
Mr Wolffe clarified what constitutes a malicious prosecution.
“I should make clear that the legal test for a malicious prosecution can, in certain circumstances, be met even though no individual had “malice” in the ordinary sense of a spiteful motive against the pursuers. The basis upon which I have accepted liability in these case did not depend on any individual having subjective “malice” in that sense.”
The Lord Advocate said he could not provide details of costs in the civil action made against him.
“I cannot at this time provide figures for the internal or external costs involved; but will confirm those to you in due course, to the extent that is possible having regard to the deployment of internal resource which may not be quantifiable in financial terms.”