Where’s our reward, say men cleared of da Vinci plot
Three of the men cleared by High Court jury say they will pursue reward for return of Leonardo masterpiece

(James Glossop/The Times)

Marshall Ronald said he was proud of the role he had played in securing the return of the painting

Charelene Sweeney

Prosecutors were facing a major legal embarassment last night after five men accused of attempting to extort £4.25 million for the safe return of a stolen Leonardo da Vinci masterpiece were cleared at the end of an eight-week trial.

In a further blow, three of the men have insisted they are still entitled to a reward for securing the Madonna of the Yarnwinder, stolen from the Duke of Buccleuch’s Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfriesshire, in August 2003.

Marshall Ronald, 53, a solicitor from Skelmersdale, Lancashire, said a financial “agreement” remained in place over the painting, while his clients, Robert Graham, 57, and John Doyle, 63, both private investigators from Ormskirk, Lancashire, said they had been offered money for handing it back.

Charges against the three men were found not proven at the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday. Glasgow-based solicitors Calum Jones, 45, and David Boyce, 63, were found not guilty.

During seven weeks of evidence, the court heard that Mr Graham and Mr Doyle, who ran an online business called Stolen Stuff Reunited, contacted Mr Marshall in July 2007 for legal advice over claiming a reward for the return of the precious artwork. They had heard through intermediaries that those holding the painting were prepared to release it for £700,000. As it had been taken in Scotland, Mr Ronald, in turn, sought advice on Scots law from Glasgow-based solicitors Mr Jones and Mr Boyce.

In August 2007, Mr Ronald contacted a London-based loss adjuster claiming he was acting on behalf of clients who wished to “negotiate the safe repatriation of the painting” in return for a “reward” or “finder’s fee”. The loss adjuster informed police and an undercover operation, deploying officers posing as representatives of the Duke, swung into action. It ended on October 4, 2007, when police raided the premises of Glasgow solicitor’s firm Boyds, which later merged to become HBJ Gately Wareing, where they found the painting. The news came too late for the 9th Duke of Buccleuch, who had died four weeks earlier.

The Crown alleged that the five had conspired to extort £4.25 million for the safe return of the artwork and claimed the plot was discussed and agreed during a meeting in Glasgow on July 30, 2007. The men were accused of acting with other unknown people to “menace” the late Duke, his son — the 10th and current Duke — and the painting’s insurers by “putting them into a state of fear and alarm” that the painting would be destroyed or damaged if they did not find the sum.

The jury of six men and nine women took just over eight hours over two days to reach their verdict. Although the cost of the trial is not yet known, it is likely to be in excess of £1 million. Each of the five men had their own defence team.

In a statement the Crown Office said it noted and respected the decision of the jury. “After consideration of all the facts and circumstances, Crown Counsel instructed that all five accused be indicted for a conspiracy to extort money from the Buccleuch family and others for the return of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder between July and October 2007,” it said.

“In repelling the no-case-to-answer submissions, the court held that there was sufficient evidence for the case to be put to the jury in respect of each of the accused.”

Outside the court Mr Ronald said he was proud of the role he had played in recovering the painting, but described the undercover operation as “contemptible” and said there should be an inquiry over how it was conducted.

He also revealed he planned to seek legal advice over recovering the reward for the painting’s return. “If the advice is we can pursue the matter, the matter will be pursued,” he said.

Mr Doyle said: “I think we’re entitled to everything for what we’ve done.

“I’m so stuck for words but I do believe that we are entitled to a reward.”

Mr Graham agreed. “We got offered a reward. We got the painting back. Where’s the reward?” he said.

Mr Graham and Mr Doyle now hope to turn their experience into a book.