Let's be clear - there were only three avenues open to the SFA following McBride's accusations. They could let the comments pass with no more than a denial; they could lodge a complaint with the Faculty of Advocates or they could sue him for defamation.
The first option might well be seen as an admission that the Association could not legally refute the claims of Scotland's leading QC. The second is their right; indeed it is the right of anyone to ask the Faculty of Advocates to consider the conduct of a QC, especially when they are directly affected. The last option - legal redress - is fraught with danger.
Defamation is notoriously hard to prove and, even if proven, there are public interest and "fair comment" defences that seemingly allow defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory for any complainant. For every Tommy Sheridan, there must be two dozen people in Britain who have seen apparently sound legal cases founder in court through the complexity of the law, its interpretations and defences.
It is also invariably a hugely costly exercise and one that is, probably unjustly, normally the preserve of those with money enough to lose. Stewart Regan's recent plea for less litigious relationships between clubs and the SFA is hardly consistent with a brazen announcement that the association is considering "whether to sue just Paul McBride for damages or whether to also sue other parties". That is a crass statement designed to gag media outlets - mainstream or independent.
With the established media, legal counsel will be to take no chances and it will be a surprise if we see any further comments with the strength that Hugh MacDonald demonstrated in The Herald. Oh yes, the gag will be passed from lawyers to Chief Executives to editors to journalists. A few letters will also be fired off (which don't come free either, Mr Regan).
But will MacDonald or The Herald find themselves in court? Will a Rangers player be banned for manhandling a ref?
Reading the coarsely worded and intemperate statement from the SFA, it also seems that the association may have responded to the media before fully considering the legal advice that they have sought.
It should not be lost on them that in a defamation case, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Yes, that's right. Paul McBride doesn't even have to prove the veracity of his statements to the media - the SFA must prove that what he said was untrue; that his comments were not in the public interest and that his remarks should not be deemed fair comment.
This is an organisation that is constantly in the public eye, with political and commercial interests affecting hundreds of thousands of Scots and businesses; an organisation that receives public money and officially represents the country domestically and on the international stage. Are remarks on the conduct of such a body in the public interest? Are criticisms fair comment? That would be for a court to decide.
It is, however, worth noting that a false claim of defamation could itself be actionable while malice on the part of either party - or an accusation of malice - would be seen as an aggravating factor.
For that reason, there are parts of the SFA statement that will not be repeated here, nor will there be a link to the statement. This small blog could barely be seen as impacting on the reputation of either party when such remarks have been so widely publicised but, nevertheless, it is bad practice to spread such remarks, if their accuracy is believed to be in doubt.
Suffice it to say that I will not be making or repeating insinuations that speculate on the motivations or professionalism of the QC and it would be wise for others with larger circulation publications to take a similar approach.
The formal complaint to the Faculty of Advocates is, in itself, not without risk, primarily to the SFA's reputation. As with a court case, the Faculty would request documents and hitherto unknown details of proceedings, the publication of which the SFA has been accused of resisting. McBride could also be reasonably expected to request the same documents for his defence.
This would be a time for stout hearts at the SFA. Remember that a complaint to the Faculty of Advocates would involved the finest legal minds in Scotland arguing over the conduct of one of its members - judgement of lawyers by lawyers for lawyers. And what would they do? They would do as lawyers do - pore over the minutiae of every dot and comma in every document; weigh every decision against ever other decision; statement against statement.
The result could be anything from the most complete vindication of the SFA, its office-bearers, its rules and practices to a dismantling of the same in forensic detail. Outsiders can only speculate as to where in the spectrum the final decision would lie.
Failure to fully cooperate with the Faculty would fatally undermine their case and invite questions as to why. Opening the doors to assist their complaint would bring the prospect of Glasnost and Perestroika the like of which Mikhail Gorbachev could only have dreamed of. In a court case, the stakes would be higher.
Oh, and for another twist, who do you think would represent McBride at his Faculty hearing? If I'm not mistaken a hot favourite would be one Donald Findlay QC, who McBride successfully defended at his own Faculty hearing some years ago. How about that for a headline!
Of course, at the heart of this is something even more clear than any allegations recently made against the SFA - mind-boggling incompetence. In Stewart Regan, the Association does seem to have someone with the background, skills and nous to tackle the job of Chief Executive of an organisation that is constantly in the public eye and with such a wide-ranging remit. But let's not forget that the appointment of his predecessor seemed to question the recruitment procedures at Hampden Park.
The same could be said of the role of Director of Communications. Such a position would be best suited to someone with at least ten years experience in a senior corporate communications role in the public sector or high-level business. It's a job for someone who can develop and implement a wide-ranging corporate communications strategy with a view to representing the SFA appropriately at all levels and to sense how the public, media and interested parties will react to what they see, hear or read.
It is not a job for a reporter who thinks that PR is a nod and a wink here, a bit of inside info there and the odd strident statement. That sort of person is used to having at least three pairs of eyes examine his output with any controversial statement "legalled" before publication. It would be remarkable if the SFA statement now so widely available in the public domain had been so scrutinised.
McBride is used to locking horns with fine legal minds in adversarial contest; prompting people to react to his questioning and verbal sparring in ways they did not plan; sometimes provoking them to make mistakes. With his strident statement to the BBC on Tuesday, he could scarcely have imagined that the response would be so intemperately worded or so ill-measured.
There will be many letters to and fro and cryptically worded statements when the legal teams are in place so a protracted battle may ensue. However, it really may be that the endgame is now in sight.
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment