Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Case against Malcolm Brinded as stated by retired Shell Group Auditor


From: William Campbell
Subject: Search Results The case against Malcolm Brinded – Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com
Date: 8 November 2017 at 15:19:56 GMT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], John Donovan [email protected]


Malcolm Brinded was appointed recently as President of the Energy Institute. The attachment covers a sworn deposition copied to a senior police officer at Grampian Police and the Scottish Justice Minister, and the Presiding Officer at the Scottish Parliament.  It is similar in tone and substance to a deposition made to the then Lord Justice General for Scotland in 2005.  This role is occupied by the most senior Judge within the Scottish legal system.

Suzanne Beard is the Head of Professional Affairs at the EI who monitors ethics and compliance at the Institute to ensure at all times members of the Institute uphold the good name of the Profession.  Sue has replied to my concerns that Malcolm has been open and honest about historic allegations made against him but I doubt very much if Malcolm has been as open and honest as he should have been. For clarity Beard should be made aware that Linda acts as counsel to the RDS Chairman Holliday.

It should also clarify that the RDS officials copied are relatively new to RDS, Chad replacing Jorma Ollila as Chairman, and Linda replacing Michiel Brandjes.

Ollila and Brandjes were party to and copied on all correspondence with the police much of which was also copied to the then Procurator Fiscal, a public prosecutor, and employee in Scotland of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).  Ollila and Brandjes who initially sent a letter to me in 2007 to the effect that they were satisfied with the internal investigation into Brinded’s conduct in 1999 were then provided the opportunity to reappraise their position from evidence of a transcript of a conversation, audio evidence, between myself and Jakob Stasholm, in 2005, Staushom was the Chief Internal Auditor. In this conversation , we discuss in emotional terms over a period of 30 minutes or so the results of the internal audit into Brinded’s conduct as described in the attachments. Thereafter, again in correspondence copied simultaneously to them and the police, Ollila and Brandjes accepted the case put to the police that Brinded had not notified them of the results of the investigation in 2005 carried out within the executive branch that found that Brinded was in the words of the then Legal Director acting as counsel for the CEO, a significant contributor through his behaviour in 1999, to the deaths on Brent Bravo on 11th September 2003.

By accepted I mean, in a similar fashion to the US fifth amendment, Ollila and Brandjes, given the opportunity to completely dismiss the claims failed to do so although, here we approach honesty and openness, they had informed me and the police that they would fully cooperate with any investigation into the claims made against Brinded.  They subsequently accepted without moral, ethical or most importantly legal objections the evidence passed to the police attached as appendices herein. The also accepted that the transcripts of the audio conversation were held by the police, and I extended the invitation to Brandjes to come to Aberdeen to listen in full to the taped conversation but he declined.  All this and much much more is documented. No one it appears wanted to verify this evidence, if Brandjes had heard the evidence then RDS would have been faced with a fate accompli, they could no longer maintain the public propaganda when in 2006 Brinded in a communique to the Upstream organisation strongly refuted the allegation from their Group Auditor that they had operated their installations in a dangerous manner where in this communique to me he rubbished my claims and threatened to take legal action against me.

You might find it ironical that at the time these words were issued to the masses of employees I was a highly respected, and much commended employee of RDS who within days of this public rebuke was offered an extension of employment as a consultant Group Auditor till 2008.  Again my contract document requested by the police and the Fiscal and are held as evidence on file. Forced to sack Brinded the whole issue would have uncovered what was a huge public scandal the implications of which are discussed in the attachments.

With respect to Helen Liddell, in 1999 the UK Energy Minister, and later the Secretary of State for Scotland I pleaded with Ollila to come clean, otherwise Shell would be making public the behaviour of this Minister in what amounted to her role in the corruption of the process where an independent Regulator of offshore health and safety was pressurised to halt any investigation by the HSE in 1999 into the widely published concerns of the workforce offshore re the so called Touch F All policy adopted offshore.

My understanding, thought not verified, but put to the Minister, was that she along with the Regulator was not informed of the findings of the internal 1999 audit by her close friend Brinded or otherwise she would not have interfered with due process.

In 2005, as a result of my Deposition to the Lord Justice General, an investigation into the conduct of the HSE in 1999 and 2003 etc took place.  This resulted in the removal of the then Head of The Offshore Safety Division and his principal Inspector.  The Procurator Fiscal who at the time in 2004 had failed to take the evidence provided to him seriously, and had failed to put this evidence before the Fatal Accident Inquiry was suspended then retired from his role.  In a campaign passing information to all MP’s in parliament, see sample in attachments, as a result the then CEO of the HSE in the U.K stood down.

Offshore safety would in future, to avoid future corruption, be handled by a joint task force of CPS and HSE officials in Glasgow and Lord Cullen was commissioned to review the law related to Fatal accident Inquiry in Scotland.  In future when Cullen’s recommendations were incorporated in law it would be an offence to purposefully withhold evidence relevant to such an Inquiry and if that was found to be the case a fresh Inquiry could be held.

The Energy Institute should rightly seek clarification from RDS that these depositions were factually accurate.  I doubt however if they will be so assured.  RDS do not want to open these festering sores if they can avoid it and certainly will not come to the defence of their erstwhile Executive Director who was I understand sacked in 2014.  This statement remains unchallenged also.

There is no statute of limitations in Scots Law, the passage of time is no restriction on criminal proceedings being brought, and evidence bundles reopened and the provided to you and the EI evidence stands unopposed by the then Shell Chairman and his Legal Counsel.

Bill Campbell
Sent from my iPad

Above is as sent, except for correction of typos and a correction involving the removal of one word. Copy of original available on request.
This website and sisters,,,, and, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comment Rules

  • Please show respect to the opinions of others no matter how seemingly far-fetched.
  • Abusive, foul language, and/or divisive comments may be deleted without notice.
  • Each blog member is allowed limited comments, as displayed above the comment box.
  • Comments must be limited to the number of words displayed above the comment box.
  • Please limit one comment after any comment posted per post.