Friday 19 January 2018
Glasgow Sheriff Court (Unallocated)
David Grier v Philip Gormley QPM, Chief Constable, Police Scotland
Today’s hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court pertains to a claim by David Grier apropos unlawful arrest and the illegal seizure of client privileged information. The Police Scotland Chief Constable Phil Gormley will not be present as he has been on ‘special leave‘ since September facing six serious charges of misconduct. A backdoor attempt to reinstate Gormley was vetoed when the Scottish Justice Secretary intervened.
Gormley as the titular head of Police Scotland is carrying the can for Our International Man of Mystery, DCI Jim Robertson and his pert assistant Jackie ‘Passepartout‘ O’Neil.
Did the then Detective Sergeant bring any special skill set to Police Scotland’s newly launched Economic Crime Unit? A background in forensic accountancy per chance? Was he on promotion ‘fast track‘ as a law graduate? No none of the aforementioned. Robertson brought to the table a hairy-arse, an abacus and a third degree knuckle shuffle. Police Scotland could save millions in office space rentals by decamping to their natural habitat viz their local Masonic Lodges. In the Freemasons cesspool of Police Scotland there is one golden rule:
“If you want to get ahead, swing the lead.”
Robertson swings the lead like a good’ un. Who needs a working knowledge of LLP and client privilege when one can intimidate witnesses with a lusty rendition of The Billy Boys? Robertson was up to his knees in Fenian Blood and per diem expense claims as he and Passepartout O’Neil went round the world in 80 days on a global wild goose chase. Whyte walked. As Charles Green remarked to me The Keystone Cops had nothing on Police Scotland. Robertson even turned a blind eye to arch criminal Dave King’s £25,000 reset of hacked information. Robertson’s personal code of conduct seems to be that no stone will ever be unturned if you are a fellow Billy Boy.
Mr Grier is pursuing £2m in damages. That’s a lot of china broken by Robertson’s raging bull. Paul Clark will soon step up to the crease with a claim for £5m
Meanwhile at the Court of Session yesterday David Whitehouse began pursuing Police Scotland as part of a £9m claim against the bare-nipple brigade and The Crown as represented by Scotland’s Lord Advocate. I’m really looking forward to counsel for Whitehouse rag-dolling Jim Keegan by asking whether he disclosed that he settled out of court a claim that he was trading whilst insolvent, and served a three years suspension from being a director, prior to taking silk. One is led to believe that Keegan is a bogus QC which is apposite as the case against Whyte and his co-accused was unequivocally bogus.
David Grier, in Scotland for today’s Glasgow Sheriff Court hearing, turned up on the Court Of Session benches where he was joined by Paul Clark. If all three are successful they will take down a cool £16m. Are you paying attention DCI Robertson? Is it ‘squeaky bum time‘ chez Robertson or have you again left too much depilatory cream in your builder’s crack? How crack-handed of you!
I’m indebted to Easyjambo and John Clark for their reports.
Whitehouse’s counsel Heriot Currie QC contended that there were no reasonable grounds for detention, as required by Section 14 of the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act1995. He argued:
1) That the arrest and detention of his client was unlawful because the arresting officer did not have personal knowledge of the suspected criminal activities carried out by DW at the time of his arrest.
2) That Police Scotland’s allegations, apparently based on three statements given by Whitehouse to Police Scotland, were not backed up by the actual statements themselves. i.e. there was no evidence in them to support the charges.
Counsel for Police Scotland, Ms Maguire QC, countered that she would be arguing that the Pursuer (Whitehouse) must show malice on the part of the police.
Currie rebutted that ‘malice’ had only had a causal effect on two cases from 1914 and 1930. He then referred to three case precedents to reinforce his argument in (1). I believe that Currie’s submissions apropos (1) are compelling.
On Point (2) Currie referred to a document with 49 pages of e-mails. He argued that there was nothing in Whitehouse’s statements to Police and in his electronic correspondence that justified his client’s detention.
To summarise, the unlawful attempt by DCI Robertson to shake the tree is the nub of proceedings. In his desperation to make a name for himself by making a case against Whyte, he crossed the line. Maguire’s argument is a squirrel.
Lord Malcolm, presiding, adjourned proceedings until 10.00 today.