Judge exercises discretion to grant application in Celtic Boys Club sexual abuse case

A judge has today as expected given permission for sex abuse survivors to launch a US-style “class action” lawsuit against Celtic Football Club.

Advocate Ian Mackay QC told Lord Arthurson on Monday that former Celtic Boys Club players should be allowed to sue the Celtic in the Court of Session. Now, twenty-two former Celtic Boys Club players have been granted permission by Lord Arthurson to proceed with the claim.

Mr Mackay represents the men who were abused whilst playing for the Celtic Boys Club, and as such believes that they are entitled to compensation – this action follows on from previous convictions of people with links to Celtic Boys Club.

Yesterday lawyers for Celtic FC had opposed the action. The club has previously said that the Boys Club was a separate legal entity to the team and that it shouldn’t be held responsible. As reported in the BBC today, Lord Arthurson confirmed his reason why the action should continue in court –

“Having considered parties’ position on the supposed permission application, I am satisfied that the relevant criteria in granting this application has been established and I can exercise my discretion to grant the application.

“The averments which the pursuers offer to prove set out a background in respect that each was a player with Celtic BC when they were subject to sexual assaults and when they were under the supervision and control of these individuals.”

Yesterday Advocate Ian Mackay QC stated his reasoning for the case to be heard when he said: “Celtic Boys Club was intimately connected to Celtic Football Club – it was branded as being closely connected to Celtic Football Club. Players played in Celtic strips and wore blazers which were virtually identical to those worn by Celtic FC players. Football kit, holdalls and training gear were provided by Celtic Football Club.

“The pursuers’ understanding was that they were playing for the boys club of Celtic Football Club. Celtic Boys Club trained at Barrowfield, the training ground of Celtic Football Club and Celtic Park as well as elsewhere.

“Celtic Football Club exercised control over who played for Celtic Boys Club because scouts recruited players who they considered were good enough to play for Celtic Football Club and diverted them to Celtic Football Club.

“The Boys Club was a nursery for senior team players. Celtic Boys Club was in effect what could be now known as the academy of Celtic Football Club. “Articles about Celtic Boys Club appeared regularly in the Celtic View, the club’s newspaper – and the club was referred to as being part of the Celtic family. “Celtic is vicariously liable for assaults.”

Meanwhile Roddy Dunlop QC, representing Celtic FC, told Lord Arthurson that the action shouldn’t be allowed to proceed, stating he didn’t believe Celtic would get a ‘fair trial’ due to documents which he viewed as being important to showing the boys club and Celtic FC were different entities were missing.

Today, Lord Arthurson said the issues being faced by Celtic were not so great as to force the action to stop, and he also passed a court order prohibiting the identification of the people who have brought the legal action, stating: “The common issue in the proceedings is the question of the vicarious liability of the defenders for the actions of these individuals. The court accordingly grants the permission application.”

The moral issue in this case is certainly worth mentioning without question. Although adults now, these survivors of abuse were children and lost much of that childhood as a result of the abuse they suffered. As such there is of course a fair argument to put forward that Celtic should seek to settle such a case and offer agreeable compensation, then set about themselves finding who was abused, offer the support they need and offer once again financial compensation. The difficulty with that of course is Celtic’s position is they are not responsible and the Boys club and Celtic were very much separate entities.

And on the subject of vicarious liability. Celtic – alongside the vast majority of other football clubs – operate very differently now than they did at the time. Celtic had some level of administrative staff at the club, however, there was no supporting infrastructure there to manage any ‘academy’ style set-up, which is the picture that is being painted. It simply didn’t exist.

And when it comes to a duty of care, then does that issue lie solely with Celtic? After all the SFA have the ultimate duty of care over the entirety of the game in Scottish football at all levels, including Boys club football – and we all know this disgraceful abuse was not limited to Celtic Boys club. Indeed the victim of sexual abuse at Rangers who was told to contact the liquidators as the current Ibrox club founded in 2012 has nothing to with the current club, has no such potential recourse as was given to the victims of Celtic Boys Club today.

It is worth mentioning that Celtic will almost certainly have an insurance policy in place, and that insurance company will more than likely be heavily involved in the case that Celtic are putting to the court – and how far it’s allowed to proceed. Perhaps there comes a time when the insurance company will not want this to go further, however this is a legal process and as such has to be treated as such.

The build up to this case also made interesting reading in that Mr Mackay representing the survivors requested the appointment of a senior lawyer to be a “representative party” in the action, meaning this person – unnamed at the time – would be the leader of the action on behalf of the players. It was claimed by Mr Mackay that this lawyer had become involved for “altruistic reasons” but asked Lord Arthurson for a legal order that would protect the lawyer’s anonymity, stating:

“Your Lordship might be aware from the media that following the defenders failure to achieve certain goals in the championship the director of the defender’s house was set ablaze – I think it may have been twice. There was at least one arson attack on his house.

“It was thought – maybe wrongly – at the time that those who were responsible were supporters – or those who thought were supporters of the defenders.

“Your Lordship that football clubs such as the defenders inspire support and tribal loyalty and that loyalty may induce supporters to engage in extreme acts. It is for his protection that the order is sought.”

This in itself raises questions, after all how many lawyers ever take on a case for “altruistic reasons”? They may well work for free initially, however the issue of financial recompense in a case where millions in compensation may well pay out seems a far from altruistic act.

Secondly the reasons for requiring anonymity already seem built on sand. Comparing the risk to Peter Lawwell’s and the attack on his property, is one thing, to make the jump to that attack being carried out by Celtic supporters is a hell of a conclusion to jump too, and unsubstantiated. After all there were similar attacks at the time on numerous prominent figures, including investors in theRangers, and this was likely more to do with organised crime rather than Celtic supporters given a similar approach was taken in many of those incidents.

There is an much credibility in that unbecoming argument put before the court as there was when theRangers new team bus was torched and Ally McCoist immediately jumped to conclusions and blamed it on Celtic supporters, only for the vandals who committed the crime to be later apprehended by the Police, and they had nothing to do with Celtic.

The subject matter for Celtic and the Celtic support is also played out in the stands, on social media as well as on forums and message boards. Take Follow Follow for instance and compare and contrast the 4 million views and 40,000 replies to a thread on the subject matter, meanwhile alongside, discussions on MyGers received 405 views and 47 replies, or on the ’Belgrade Away’ thread where there have been 558 replies and 17,000 views.

Such ‘interest’ in the subject matter is reflected in the sickening songs Celtic have to face from opposition fans inside Celtic Park and more notably on the road, as is the case on various social media platforms. It’s almost as if the court of public opinion has already placed the guilt upon Celtic before the club even has a chance to defend its position – is it possible in such an environment for Celtic to receive a fair hearing?

This is of course an emotive subject; we are dealing with human beings who had their childhoods and subsequently adult relationships impaired greatly as a result of their suffering. If Celtic are proven to be connected directly to that, then it is only fair financial compensation comes the survivor’s way, money they can use to access the support and help they may still need.

However, Celtic have made a strong argument here that Celtic and the Celtic Boys club are separate entities and that too should be allowed the balance the law offers it and a chance to set out their argument, although it seems, even at this early stage, the process appears weighted against the club, with falsehoods already being perpetuated particularly around the reasoning for the anonymity of the ‘representative party’.

Today’s judgement of course means all of this will now be heard in the Court of Session; however, it may well take years to reach a conclusion. In the meantime, all we can ask on both sides is a fair opportunity to state their case.

Niall J

About Author

As a Bellshill Bhoy I was taken to my first Celtic game in the summer of 1987. It was Billy McNeill’s return to Celtic Park as manager and Celtic lost 5-1 to Arsenal . I thought I was a jinx, I think my Grandfather might have thought the same. It was the finest gift anyone ever gave me when he walked me through Parkhead's gates.

1 Comment

  1. My opinion is the boys club was part of Celtic and if a compensation settlement can be reached it should be. Even if the club could prove the boys club was a separate entity ( they probably could in a legal sense ) is that the right thing to do ?. if as you allude to the insurance company might be involved behind the scenes matters nothing to me, the club should tell them they will look to settle and if it is not covered the club will pay. On what happened with peters house, I think it was to do with criminal elements trying to extort money out of the club, or players, the piece I read said they were trying the same thing with rangers players, peter got wind of it and alerted the police and the attack on his house was retaliation or they were trying to scare him, not sure if the piece was legit but it sounded plausible. The news about the legal rep is quite unusual, surprised the request was granted on hearsay in regards to Peters arson attack. it doesn’t matter who the lawyer is or their reason for taking the case. In times we are in where the club paid 4.5 million pounds for a dud like barkas, who if he refuses to leave and sit out his contract would cost us not too far off 10 million, we should try and do the right thing for child abuse victims. As for the pond life who wake up every day hoping to find out a child has been abused they have shone a light on who and what they are all about, and when they ask me when will the victims be paid, I ask them are they talking about the victims that died in their own stadium. Their club was found guilty in a civil case that was brought by one of the families, they were told to fix the stairway, said they would, then done nothing which resulted in the deaths of all those people, and not one paper or news channel of the time covered it, contrast that with the scandal of Celtic boys club.