Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.
Court clerks concealed Lord Bracadale’s recusal for a year.AN INVESTIGATION into the content of a Register of Judicial Recusals– maintained by the Judiciary of Scotland – has revealed court clerks concealed details relating to at least one recusal of a senior judge – and then secretly altered records a year later – and only after journalists made enquiries.
The chance discovery of one such unlisted recusal – by Lord Bracadale (real name Alistair Campbell QC) in an unidentified case during 2016 – came as journalists studied volumes of newly released court papers showing failures in the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service (SCTS) – who manage the Register of Judicial Recusals for publication by the Judiciary of Scotland.
However, when staff of the Judicial Office were confronted about the omission and asked why information relating to Lord Bracadale recusing from a case was not made public – it took nearly three weeks for spokesperson for the Judicial Office to come up with an explanation, claiming a “clerical error” had occurred, and that the information had since been applied to the register.
During March of this year, journalists presented the Judicial Office with a copy of a recusal signed by Lord Drummond Young which indicated Lord Bracadale had recused himself from a case during May 2016. Journalists then queried why the information did not appear on the Register of Recusals at that time.
It was not until the second week of April a spokesperson for the Judicial Office on 7 April 2017 offered an explanation to the media, which stated: “The register of recusals has now been amended to include the relevant entry. It was an oversight by a clerk which meant the necessary information was not passed on to the Judicial Office.”
The Judicial Office refused to answer further questions on the subject or identify if there were any further cases where recuals have not been recorded in the register.
The information eventually entered on the Register of Recusal now reads:
20/05/2016 Court of Session Lord Bracadale On the pursuer’s motion in relation to the judge’s previous decision to refuse the pursuer’s appeal at a procedural hearing
And a further query to the Judicial Office resulted in an email response from it’s then media chief Elizabeth Cutting which stated “As of today, 13 April, I am no longer working at the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.”
A request “for a note to be applied to the recusal register in relation to the addition of the recusal by Lord Bracadale” made by a journalist to the Judicial Office and Lord President’s Private Office – generated no further response or action.
Additionally, there was no further explanation provided by the Judicial Office as to why a year had elapsed before the information was correctly applied to the register, and only after the media had alerted the Judicial Office to the omission of the Bracadale recusal.
Legal observers have condemned the retrospective application of information to the Register of Judicial Recusals as “poor administration” and have questioned whether the information relating to Lord Bracadale’s recusal would ever have been added, had it not been for media enquiries to the Judicial Office.
Claims by a Judicial Office spokesperson of a year long “clerical error” significantly conflict with former Lord President Lord Gill’s evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on how the Register of Judicial Recusals was maintained by Court staff and clerks.
On 10 November 2015, Lord Brian Gill appeared before MSPs at Holyrood, and stated in the official record : “There are two points to make in answer to that. One is that the register of recusals is not voluntary. To the best of my knowledge, the clerks of court are scrupulously accurate in keeping the register and therefore, wherever there is a recusal, you may depend upon its being recorded in the register.”
The proposal, first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.
The move by Lord Gill to create the Register of Recusals was aimed at dissuading MSPs from continuing an investigation into the secretive world of judicial influence, interests, and failures to declare conflicts of interest in court.
However, the investigation continued, and is now in it’s fifth year.
Gill, who eventually gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in November 2015, – available to watch in full here – Evidence of Lord Gill before the Scottish Parliament 10 November 2015 – came in for criticism after he demanded MSPs come to a decision and close the petition on his say-so during the stormy evidence session..
Throughout the meeting, the retired Lord President angrily remonstrated with Committee members who asked him detailed questions on interests and the conduct of Scottish judges.
At one point, Lord Gill gave a misleading answer to the then MSP John Wilson – who quizzed the Lord President on judicial suspensions.
And, in responses to independent MSP John Wilson, Lord Gill dismissed media reports on scandals within the judiciary and brushed aside evidence from Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewers – Moi Ali & Gillian Thompson OBE – both of whom previously gave evidence to MSPs in support of a register of judges’ interests.
A statement issued by Lord Gill at the time of Watson’s suspension said: “The Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.”
In an angry exchange with MSP Jackson Carlaw, Lord Gill demanded to control the kinds of questions he was being asked. Replying to Lord Gill, Mr Carlaw said he would ask his own questions instead of ones suggested to him by the judge.
In angry exchanges, Lord Gill accused American judges of being elected by corporate and vested interests and said he did not want to see that here.
However, the situation is almost identical in Scotland where Scottish judges who refuse to disclose their interests, are elected by legal vested interests with hidden links to corporations.
After the hearing was over, Gill was branded ‘aggressive’ by the then Committee Convener over his evidence to MSPs.
On Thursday 29 June, the Public Petitions Committee at Holyrood will hear from Scotland’s current Lord President, Lord Carloway – who wrote to MSPs last November stating he was under the impression Holyrood had closed the petition.
Carloway later demanded the Committee provide him with a list of questions he was to be asked if he agreed to appear before the full Committee in public.
Since the exchanges last year, it has taken a further eight months to arrange Carloway’s appearance before MSPs next week.
The hearing at Holyrood with Lord Carloway comes in between a busy schedule for the Lord President – which saw Lord Carloway and many other members of the judiciary fly to various overseas destinationsincluding a £4K public cash funded trip to the USA for the Lord President, and handing out judicial jobs including a £180K a year seat on the Court of Session bench to controversial former Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland.
DATE COURT (TYPE OF ACTION) NAME REASON FOR RECUSAL
24.3.2014 Livingston Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Edington Sheriff drew to the parties’ attention a possible difficulty, namely the wife of one of the other resident Sheriffs was the author of a report contained with the process. The Sheriff asked parties if they wished him to recuse himself. The defenders, having considered the issue,made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse himself, which he then did.
8.4.2014 Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Veal Sheriff personally known to a witness
10.4.2014 Selkirk Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Paterson Sheriff had previously acted for a client in dispute against Pursuer
23.4.2014 High Court (Criminal) Lady Wise Senator had previously acted for a relative of accused
16.4.2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cathcart Sheriff personally known to a witness
13.5.2014 Haddington Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Braid Known to pursuer’s family
14.5.2014 High Court(Criminal Appeal) Judge MacIver Conflict of interest
20.5.2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Matthews Senator personally known to a witness
19.6.2014 Dingwall Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff McPartlin Sheriff presided over a trial involving the accused, where the issue to which the new case relates was spoken to by a witness
20.6.2014 Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Raeburn QC Accused appeared before Sheriff as a witness in recent trial relating to same incident
24.6.2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Crozier Sheriff personally known to proprietor of premises libelled in the charge
26.6.2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord President Relative of Senator acts for the respondent
27.8.2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Brailsford Senator personally known to husband of the pursuer
28.8.2014 Oban Sheriff Court (Civil & Criminal) Sheriff Small Sheriff personally known to a party
22.10.2014 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cowan Sheriff drew to parties’ attention that she was a member of the RSPB before commencement of a trial as the case involved an investigation carried out by the RSPB and many witnesses were RSPB officers. She invited parties to consider whether she should take the trial. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse herself, which she then did.
8.12.2014 Alloa Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Mackie Contemporaneous and overlapping proceedings comprising an appeal and a referral from the children’s hearing relating to children from the same family
16.12.2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lady Clark of Calton Senator personally known to parties of the action.
22.01.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Extradition) Sheriff MacIver Sheriff involved in case at earlier stage of procedure 30.01.2015 Dumfries Sheriff Court(Civil)Sheriff Jamieson Sheriff had previously dealt with the issue under dispute
06.02.2015 Greenock Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Fleming Previous professional relationship between Sheriff’s former firm of solicitors and the defender
09.02.2015 Glasgow High Court (Criminal) Lady Scott Due to a previous ruling made by the Senator in relation to a separate indictment against the accused
10.02.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Jones Due to a previous finding by the Senator in relation to an expert witness whose evidence is crucial to the pursuer’s case
13.03.2015 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cowan Accused known by the Sheriff as a regular observer of court proceedings from the public gallery
17.03.2015 Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Di Emidio Sheriff personally known to a witness
18.03.2015 Lerwick Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Mann Circumstances may give rise to a suggestion of bias
16.04.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Arthurson QC Personally known to a party of the action
12.05.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Boyd of Duncansby Senator was Lord Advocate when a successful prosecution was brought against one of the respondents
14.05.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff McColl Sheriff personally known to a party of the action
27.05.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court(Civil) Sheriff Crowe Sheriff had previously dealt a case in which the defender was a witness
29.05.2015 Glasgow Sheriff Court (FAI) Sheriff Principal Scott QC Sheriff Principal personally known to one of the deceased
04.06.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Glennie Senator an acquaintance of a party to the action
04.06.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Burns Previously acted as defence counsel in a criminal trial involving the pursuer.
24.07.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Maciver Sheriff personally known to a party in the case
11.08.2015 Banff Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Mann Sheriff personally known to a party of the action, having previously acted on behalf of the family while in private practice.
28.08.2015 Dundee Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Murray Sheriff personally known to a witness.
03.09.2015 Dumbarton Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Turnbull Sheriff previously acted for a client in a dispute against the pursuer
04.09.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Mackie Sheriff involved in a dispute against a party to the action
15.09.2015 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Stirling Sheriff previously considered and refused issues which the accused wished to revisit
01.10.2015 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Taylor Sheriff was privy to certain information which related to the accused’s credibility
08.10.2015 Lanark Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Stewart Accused made complaints against staff and sheriff
12.10.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lady Clark of Calton Senator an acquaintance of a party to the action
20.10.2015 Inverness Sheriff Court (Civil)Sheriff Sutherland Personally known to a party of the action
20.10.2015 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Crozier Personally known to a director of accused company
12.11.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Malcolm Senator acted as senior counsel for the defenders in a related action
18.11.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Boyd of Duncansby Relatives of Senator involved in the action
26.11.2015 Inverness Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Fleetwood Personally known to a party of the action
27.11.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lady Paton Her Ladyship was on the bench in a criminal appeal against conviction by the pursuer
09.12.2015 Wick Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Berry Complainer personally known to resident sheriff
22.12.2015 Lanark Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Stewart Personally known to both parties of the action
26/01/2016 Court of Session Lord Uist Judge dealt with same issue and same witnesses in a case being appealed
27/01/2016 Dumbarton Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Gallacher On the Pursuer’s motion in relation to a decision in a preliminary hearing
09/02/2016 Elgin Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Pasportnikov Sheriff previously presided over related case
25/04/2016 Ayr Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Montgomery Sheriff previously acted for defender as a solicitor
03/05/2016 Lanark Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Stewart Complainer previously represented by Sheriff’s husband
20/05/2016 Court of Session Lord Bracadale On the pursuer’s motion in relation to the judge’s previous decision to refuse the pursuer’s appeal at a procedural hearing
22/06/2016 Perth Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Clapham Pursuer known to sheriff
09/08/2016 Dunoon Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Ward Sheriff personally known to a witness
19/08/2016 Greenock Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Ward Accused known to sheriff from Sheriff’s time in private practice
23/08/2016 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Stirling Sheriff Stirling found against the accused company in a civil matter and wrote on same
13/09/2016 Court of Session Lord Pentland The Lord Ordinary previously acted for the first named defender
25/10/2016 Court of Session Lord Brailsford A close relative is employed by one of the parties involved in the case
10/11/2016 Kilmarnock Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Foran Sheriff personally known to a witness
17/11/2016 Dumfries Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Jamieson Sheriff previously presided over a related civil proof in another case in which parties were witnesses
18/11/2016 Court of Session (civil) Lord Glennie Earlier decision on a related issue might reasonably be thought to influence any decision in the present case
30/11/2016 Perth Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff McFarlane Sheriff acted for pursuers when practising as a solicitor
30/01/2017 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Crowe Sheriff previously presided over criminal matter involving accused, which might reasonably be thought to influence any decision in the present case
13/02/2017 Portree Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Taylor QC Sheriff previously dealt with a criminal case involving parties
23/02/2017 Inverness Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Fleetwood Sheriff presided over a jury trial involving parties
29/03/2017 Perth Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Wade QC The sheriff, in her previous role as advocate depute, was heavily involved in preparing the prosecution of one of the parties in the action
06/04/2017 Kilmarnock Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Foran A witness was a former client of the sheriff in previous role in private practice
04/05/2017 Elgin Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Pasportnikov Previous knowledge of the parties through a Children’s Hearing matter
16/05/2017 Banff Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Mann Sheriff personally known to relatives of the accused
12/06/2017 Glasgow Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Platt Sheriff personally known to a witness
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Herald and Sunday Mail newspapers, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.
But the huge increase in judicial jetting around the globe – which doubled in cost from £22,605.92 in 2015.16 to £43,354,91 in 2016/17 – flouts previous attempts by former top judge Brian Gill to “take control” of judges demanding to go on foreign trips to luxurious destinations, with hotels & golf clubs & ‘hospitality’ added to the mix.
And, chief among the big time spenders of public cash on air miles is the Lord President himself – Lord Carloway – who already earns a public salary of £222,862 a year.
Carloway – real name Colin Sutherland – who also goes by the title of Lord Justice General – took a taxpayer funded £4,189.96 jet flight to Washington DC on what the Judicial Office claim is a “UK/USA Legal Exchange” held in Philadelphia and Washington.
While his number two – Lady Dorrian – Scotland;s first ever female judge serving as Lord Justice Clerk earning £215,216 a year – racked up the most expensive flight on taxpayers in the past year – a £6,188.99 trip to attend the Commonwealth Law Conference held in Melbourne Australia.
Also added to the grand list of judicial jet setting across the globe by Scotland’s judiciary is a double overseas junket taken by Lord Matthews and Sheriff Norman McFadyen – who were travelling to the ISRCL – Halifax, Nova Scotia legal seminar in Canada.
Lord Matthews – a Court of Session Senator claimed £4017 costs for the trip, compared with Sheriff McFadyen’s £1842 bill to the public purse.
An investigation of this trip revealed Lord Matthews travelled in a separate business class seat compared with the Sheriff who was forced to fly premium economy class.
Lord Mulholland, as he is now known – took a two day trip on the taxpayer to the European Court of Justice meeting on the 18 – 20 Sept 2016 in Luxembourg, at a staggering cost of £1,216.34
Earlier reports also revealed Lord Gill enjoyed a two day trip during the twilight days of his short, if stormy three year term as Scotland’s top judge – to the Forum of Chief Justice of British Isles – held in the tax haven of Jersey. Lord Gill claimed £302.09 expenses on top of the £231.60 cost of travel to Jersey – taking the cost of his last ‘confirmed’ judicial overseas junket as top judge – to £533.69.
And a report in the Sunday Mail on June 2 2013 revealed Scottish judges spent over £83,000 on overseas travel junkets in three years – while top judge Lord Gill refused calls to appear before the Scottish Parliament to answer questions on the judiciary’s secretive financial interests & links to big business, banks & the professions.
The Sunday Mail featured an exclusive report on judicial air travel:
Lord Matthews was travelling to the same legal seminar in Canada but racked up a huge bill in first class while Sheriff Norman McFadyen went economy.
By Craig McDonald 14 MAY 2017 Sunday Mail
A judge ran up a £4000 taxpayers’ bill flying business class to a conference – while a sheriff who accompanied him sat in economy.
Judge Lord Matthews and Sheriff Norman McFadyen were travelling to the same legal seminar in Canada.
But Matthews claimed £4017 costs for the trip, compared with McFadyen’s £1842 bill to the public purse.
High Court judge Lord Matthews also filed £201 in expenses for the excursion to Halifax, Nova Scotia, last year.
Sheriff McFadyen, who sits at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, claimed no cash back.
The trip also appeared to breach judiciary guidelines issued in 2014 which said, as a “general rule”, only one judge or sheriff need attend each conference.
Another trip saw five High Court judges – Lords Brodie, Glennie, Doherty, Pentland and Lady Scott – attend a Strasbourg conference at a total cost of £4378.
It also cost £1408 to send four sheriffs – Corke, Reith, Mackie and Stewart – to a conference in Dublin.
The taxpayer coughed up £43,354 for foreign travel by the judiciary office last year. The figure was double the total of £22,605 in 2015.
Labour’s justice spokeswoman Claire Baker MSP said: “Questions should be asked about why one person is travelling at twice the cost of another.
“There will be legitimate reasons why the judiciary require to attend international events.
“However, this is an overall significant increase on the previous year and they need to be mindful that this is public money. All trips need to be proportionate.”
Scottish Tory justice spokesman Douglas Ross MSP said: “This is a huge increase in travel costs and needs to be explained.
“When guidelines state that one judicial member should be sufficient for each event, it’s questionable why so many have been travelling together.
“This is taxpayers’ money and shouldn’t be splashed out on needless flights.”
The judge and sheriff were attending the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law seminar between July 24 and 28 last year.
In 2014, the then Lord President, Lord Gill, issued guidance on overseas travel in which he stated “it should only be necessary for one judicial office holder to attend a conference overseas”.
Lord Gill said it would only “be in exceptional cases that I am likely to consider it necessary for more than one person to attend”. He added: “In all cases where funding is being sought, I will require a business case to be produced.
“I will need a clear justification for any overseas travel.”
Figures for judicial travel for the 12 months to March 31 showed a total of 38 trips were made overseas.
The biggest single claim was for a £6188 trip to Australia by Lady Dorrian to attend the Commonwealth Law conference in Melbourne.
The least expensive was when Lord Tyre managed an Academy of European Law trip to Frankfurt at a cost of just £84. The High Court judge did claim a further £57 in expenses for the trip last April.
Lord Tyre also attended events in Brussels, The Hague, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Warsaw, Madrid and Rome.
One of the most widely travelled of the judiciary last year was Edinburgh Sheriff Gordon Liddle.
He attended the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association in Georgetown, Guyana, at a cost of £3637 and a European Network of Councils for Justiciary event in Warsaw, Poland, costing £607.
Sheriff Liddle also attended events in Ljubljana, Slovenia, costing £383 and in Bratislava, Slovakia, costing £285.
A spokesman for the Judicial Office for Scotland said last week: “There will be occasions where it is appropriate to send more than one member of the judiciary to important legal conferences.
“Attendance at overseas conferences is only authorised by the Lord President where there is a clear justification.”
He added: “Lord Matthews flew business class, while Sheriff McFadyen flew premium economy/economy, which goes some way to explaining the difference in cost.
“Furthermore, Lord Matthews’ flights required to be booked closer to the date of departure as he was presiding over a trial.”
JUDICIAL JUNKETS – Judges cost taxpayers £43K in flights to ‘legal’ conferences, hotels with health spas, golf courses & hospitality in 2016/17:
26 – 27 Sept 2016 Lord Tyre – ENCJ Project Group Meeting – Rome £381.07 £104.93 £486.00
1 – 3 October 2016 Lady Dorrian – Opening Legal Year – Dublin £623.21 – £623.21
1 – 3 October 2016 Lord Doherty – Opening Legal Year – Dublin £623.21 £162.19 £785.40
3 – 14 October 2016 Sheriff L Drummond – FBIJCC Stage 2016 – Paris £3,185.32 £350.83 £3,536.15
16 – 21 October 2016 Sheriff O’Carroll – IAJ Conference 16 – 21 October 2016 – Mexico City £3,660.29 – £3,660.29
17 – 28 October 2016 Sheriff C Cunninghame – FBIJCC Stage 2016 – Bordeaux £1,899.73 £210.70 £2,110.43
20 – 22 November 2016 Lord Brodie – Bilateral between the European Court of Human Rights and the Senior Judiciary of Scotland – Strasbourg £740.14 £229.62 £969.76
20 – 22 November 2016 Lord Glennie – Bilateral between the European Court of Human Rights and the Senior Judiciary of Scotland – Strasbourg £817.23 – £817.23
20 – 22 November 2016 Lord Doherty – Bilateral between the European Court of Human Rights and the Senior Judiciary of Scotland – Strasbourg £817.23 £47.51 £864.74
20 – 22 November 2016 Lord Pentland – Bilateral between the European Court of Human Rights and the Senior Judiciary of Scotland – Strasbourg £827.43 £82.13 £909.56
20 – 22 November 2016 Lady Scott – Bilateral between the European Court of Human Rights and the Senior Judiciary of Scotland – Strasbourg £817.23 – £817.23
21 November 2016 Lord Tyre – ENCJ Executive Board meeting – Brussels £366.87 £87.16 £454.03
24 – 25 November 2016 Sheriff D Corke – 4 Nations Public Guardian Conference – Dublin £361.32 – £361.32
24 – 25 November 2016 Sheriff F Reith QC – 4 Nations Public Guardian Conference – Dublin £363.48 £39.65 £403.13
24 – 25 November 2016 Sheriff A Mackie – 4 Nations Public Guardian Conference – Dublin £298.19 £8.40 £306.59
24 – 25 November 2016 Sheriff N Stewart – 4 Nations Public Guardian Conference – Dublin £336.90 £336.90
8 – 9 December 2016 Lord Tyre – Attending ENCJ Independence & Accountability Project Team Meeting – The Hague £441.97 £63.21 £505.18
11 – 12 December 2016 Sheriff Liddle – ENCJ – Project Group Meeting – Bratislava £285.36 £22.15 £307.51
26 – 28 January 2017 Lord Boyd – Attending ECHR Judicial Seminar, Principle of international Law – Strasbourg £497.40 £32.53 £529.93
12 – 14 February 2017 Lord Tyre – ENCJ Executive meeting – Brussels £428.74 £30.39 £459.13
12 – 14 March 2017 Sheriff Liddle – ENCJ Project team meeting – Ljubljana £383.69 £26.78 £410.47
15 – 25 March 2017 Lady Dorrian – Commonwealth Law Conference – Melbourne Australia £6,188.89 £6,188.89
16 – 17 March 2017 Lord Tyre – ENCJ, Project meeting – Vienna £301.98 £12.25 £314.23
26 – 28 March 2017 Lord President – Judges Forum, 60th Anniversary of the signatures of the Treaties of Rome – Luxembourg £32.14 £32.14
30 – 31 March 2017 Lord Tyre – ENCJ, Digital Justice Seminar – Amsterdam £132.94 £132.94
Total cost of trips: £42,860.72 Total Expenses claimed: £2,323.82 Grand Total of Judicial Overseas costs to March 2017: £43,354.91
GUIDANCE BY GILL – Former Lord President Brian Gill’s guidance on judicial overseas junkets:
After several spats between members of the judiciary who were keen to take overseas junkets to luxurious destinations & enjoy tours, hospitality & golf instead of attending law conferences on taxpayers cash, Lord Gill attempted to curtail demands of greedy judges on the public purse.
Guidance issued by Lord Gill in 2014 stated:
I have been reviewing the arrangements to control expenditure to meet attendance at conferences by the judiciary, especially where the conference is taking place outwith the United Kingdom. I have also been considering the arrangements for the authorisation of all other overseas travel to be paid from public funds. With immediate effect the following arrangements are to apply to future requests.
Requests for funding for attendance at conferences and for all other overseas travel should be sought only from the Judicial Office . No request for support to meet attendance at conferences, or other overseas travel should be made to any other part of the Scottish Court Service.
In all cases where funding is being sought I require a business case to be produced by the judicial office holder or the judicial representative body that is seeking funding. The business case does not need to be long, but it must:
(i) identify the nature of the conference;
(ii) the number of judicial office holders it is suggested should attend;
(iii) why that number is necessary if it is more than one;
(iv) the benefit either to those attending or to the judiciary more widely from attendance at the conference;
(v) the likely costs of attendance ; and
(vi) the likely impact on the efficient administration of business.
The business case should be sent to the Executive Director of the Judicial Office for Scotland, Stephen Humphreys. He will assess whether funds are available to meet the costs of attendance and if so pass the business case to me.
I will then consider all requests and respond directly to the judicial office holder. I will need a clear justification for any overseas travel. As a general rule it should only be necessary for one judicial office holder to attend a conference overseas. It will only be in exceptional cases that I am likely to consider it necessary for more than one person to attend.
Where support is provided to attend a conference a report is to be prepared and sent to the Executive Director within one month of the end of the conference. The report will be placed on the Judicial Hub and the Judicial website. It is important that as many of the judiciary as possible are able to benefit from the investment of public money in attending the conference.
Lord President Lord Gill, July 2014
Previous articles on the judiciary’s use of public cash to fund judicial overseas junkets can be found here: Overseas travel of Scottish judges.
Cops declare business interests, judges conceal their interests.MORE THAN fifteen hundred officers from Police Scotland – Scotland’s single national Police force – supplement their public salaries with second jobs and business interests ranging from entertainment to finance, legal, property letting and private security related businesses.
Police Officers – who as first responders to issues of public safety concerns and reports of criminal activity – are required to declare their interests to Police Scotland. The information is then kept on a database which can be accessed via Freedom of Information legislation.
All police officer business interests are granted by the Chief Constable, which are based on their own particular circumstances and review dates are similarly set (based on individual circumstances).
The information relating to business interests of Police Officers is recorded on the HR system (SCOPE).
Police Officers in Scotland are required to conform to the provisions of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013 which state: “A constable must not have a business interest without the consent of— (a) the Authority, in the case of a senior officer; (b) the chief constable, in the case of any other constable, provided that, in the case of any such constable in whose case the chief constable has an interest otherwise than as chief constable, the chief constable must refer the matter to the Authority for it to consider whether to consent.”
The FOI request published by Police Scotland which also sought details of Police Officers ‘secondary employment’ drew a response stating the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013 does not recognise the term ‘secondary employment’.
The published response from Police Scotland goes on to state: “However, Regulation 5 of the aforesaid regulations outlines the provisions concerning any ‘business interest’ of a police officer.”
For Chief Officers, this permission is granted (under Regulation 5 of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013) by the Police Authority. The conditions and circumstances are outlined in this legislation which is available online, therefore section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 applies: information which the applicant can reasonably obtain other than by requesting it under section 1(1) is exempt information.
Information provided by Police Scotland revealed executive members (including the now resigned DCC Neil Richardson) business interests from 1 April 2014-31 March 2015.
Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick: Property letting, Member and Trustee of various Charitable Organisations
Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson: Property letting, Board Member for Scottish Institute of Policy Research Trustee/Vice President of various Police Associations
Journalists then requested further details from Police Scotland in a request for review of the FOI disclosure, requesting the organisations referenced in the initial disclosure be identified.
The subsequent response from Police Scotland revealed:
Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson: Trustee, The Police Treatment Centres charity; Vice President, Police Mutual Board Member; The Scottish Institute for Policing Research.
Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick: Member, Scottish Chief Police Officers Association; Trustee, The Rank Foundation (Charitable Organisation); Trustee, Salle Ossian Community Sports Club (Charitable Organisation); Advisory Panel Member, Dfuse (Charitable Organisation; Patron, Revolving Doors (Charitable Organisation)
In relation to the numbers of properties rented out by senior Police Officers, Police Scotland refused to release details on the numbers of properties.
Police Scotland said in their response to the Freedom of Information request: “In relation to the number of properties relating to each Deputy Chief Constable, I have decided not to provide this level of information requested by you as it is considered to be exempt in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act).”
“The number of properties which the respective Deputy Chief Constables hold as business interests is classed as personal information and as such Police Scotland believes that the disclosure of this information would cause unwarranted prejudice to the rights and freedoms and legitimate interests of the data subjects. Accordingly, release of this information into the public domain would breach the requirement to process personal data fairly, as laid down by the first data protection principle in Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998. This is an absolute exemption and does not require the application of the public interest test”“
Police Scotland also refused to provide any values for the properties rented out by senior Police Officers, claiming the force did not hold the information:
Police Scotland said in their response: “Finally, Police Scotland does not hold details on the value of each property, as there is no requirement to do so under Regulation 5 of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013.”
The omission of any property values in the data ‘held’ by Police Scotland make it difficult to determine whether individual officers rent out lower or higher value properties, and establish a value of property portfolios held by serving public officials such as top cops – who’s counterparts higher up the ladder in the criminal justice system and courts are known to own multi million pound property portfolios.
In comparison – while it is generally known there are Police Officers who own more than one property and those who are involved in multiple property lets, there are also members of the judiciary, Crown Office Prosecutors and their families who own much higher value property portfolios – collectively valued in the tens of millions of pounds.
While there is some information now in the public arena in relation to the letting empires of Police Officers and some other public servants, both the judiciary and Prosecutors are currently running scared from declaring their interests and wealth, using their significant power in the justice system to block release of details of their links to business and values of assets.
Alec Hippman, who was responsible for briefing MSPs about the troubled i6 scheme, landed a role in the Scottish Government in January 2016 after leaving the single force.
And in January 2916, the Sunday Herald newspaper revealed the then Chief Constable of Police Scotland Sir Stephen House set up his own company in the final weeks of his job as Chief Constable.
House formed Sarantium Solutions Ltd in October 2015 when he was heading towards the exit door of the single force.
Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013 – Business interests:
5.—(1) A constable must not have a business interest without the consent of— (a) the Authority, in the case of a senior officer; (b) the chief constable, in the case of any other constable, provided that, in the case of any such constable in whose case the chief constable has an interest otherwise than as chief constable, the chief constable must refer the matter to the Authority for it to consider whether to consent.
(2) If a constable acquires or is likely to acquire a business interest, the constable must forthwith give written notice of that interest to the chief constable or, in the case of a senior officer, the Authority.
(3) If a constable has a business interest and is appointed to the office of chief constable, deputy chief constable or assistant chief constable, the constable must forthwith give written notice of that interest to the Authority unless the constable has previously disclosed that interest to the Authority.
(4) An individual applying for appointment to the Police Service, other than an individual referred to in paragraph (5), must give written notice to the chief constable of any business interest which that individual has or is likely to acquire after appointment.
(5) An individual applying for appointment to the office of chief constable, deputy chief constable or assistant chief constable must give written notice to the Authority of any business interest which that individual has or is likely to acquire after appointment.
(6) An individual or constable is regarded as having a business interest if— (a) that individual or constable carries on any business or holds any office or employment for hire or gain (otherwise than as a constable) in the United Kingdom; (b) that individual or constable resides at any premises where any member of that individual’s or constable’s family keeps a shop or carries on any like business in Scotland; (c) that individual or constable holds, or any member of that individual’s or constable’s family living with that individual or constable holds, any licence, certificate or permit granted in pursuance of the laws relating to liquor licensing or betting and gaming or regulation of places of public entertainment in Scotland or has any pecuniary interest in such licence, certificate or permit; or (d) that individual’s or constable’s spouse (not being separated from that individual or constable), civil partner (not being separated from that individual or constable) or cohabitant (not being separated from that individual or constable) keeps a shop or carries on any like business in Scotland.
(7) For the purposes of this regulation— (a) “member of that individual’s or constable’s family” includes parent, son, daughter, dependant, brother, sister, spouse (not being separated from that individual or constable), civil partner (not being separated from that individual or constable) or cohabitant (not being separated from that individual or constable); and (b) “cohabitant” means a member of a couple consisting of— (i) a man and a woman who are living together as if they were husband and wife; or (ii) two individuals of the same sex who are living together as if they were civil partners.
COPS DECLARE, JUDGES CONCEAL:
Members of Scotland’s judiciary continue to wage a bitter five year campaign against proposals to require members of Scotland’s judiciary to declare their interests, and links to big business.
The salary scales of officers in Police Scotland– where all officers are required to declare their interests – show a Police Scotland constable can expect £24,204 per annum going up to £83,925 for a Chief Superintendent with 3 years experience to Assistant Chief Constables: £115,000, Deputy Chief Constables: £169,600 and the Chief Constable: £212,280
However – Scotland;s judges have no such requirement to declare interests, despite their huge judicial salaries skyrocketing from Sheriffs on £144,172 a year up to Sheriff Principals on £155,706 a year while judges of the Outer House of the Court of Session earn £179,768 a year, Inner House judges earning £204,695. The Lord Justice Clerk (currently Lady Dorrian) earns £215,695 a year, and the Lord President (currently Lord Carloway, aka Colin Sutherland) earns £222,862 a year.
The proposal to bring greater transparency to Scotland’s judiciary – Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary – first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Herald and Sunday Mail newspapers, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.
John Campbell QC – evidence to legal regulator contradicts judge. DOCUMENTS obtained by the media from a legal complaints investigation – reveal a senior QC was unable to produce substantive evidence against allegations he stripped out a £4m head of claim & legal and professional expenses without consulting his client.
In one lengthy explanation Campbell claims he did not act without instruction, however, the senior QC refuses to produce any evidence of said instructions.
In another exchange, the long time QC dismisses the appearance and evidence from a star witness Cabinet Secretary – Alex Neil MSP (SNP Airdrie and Shotts).
Campbell personally took the top politician’s precognition and had him set to appear on the first day of the proof, then failed to call the Cabinet Secretary in a move now raising serious concerns over the performance of the once ‘top’ rated Planning Law QC.
And, in a bizarre twist to the case the senior QC – now the subject of media coverage – claimed he had no professional relationship with Mr Nolan’s partner – even though evidence has since been published in the press Campbell demanded and obtained cash sums of £5,000 from his client’s partner.
In an attempt to answer allegations he removed a £4m head of claim & legal expenses from the high value damages action in the Court of Session on the last day of proof – the senior Planning Law QC gave the SLCC a laboured account of events without being able to back up his position.
An evidence review of court documents, including transcripts from the case, and now John Campbell’s response to the SLCC indicate Lord Woolman’s statement – that Nr Nolan “vastly” reduced the claim on his own – is incorrect.
Woolman’s opinion, of 17 January 2014 stated “In the course of the proceedings, Mr Nolan has greatly narrowed his claim. In June 2012, he deleted his conclusion for specific implement. At the close of the proof, he abandoned his claim for lost development value, which he had originally valued at £4 million. He also accepted that some elements of the claim for investigative costs are properly classified as litigation expenses.”
However, and in a move which now discredits key parts of the Woolman opinion – John Campbell failed to produce to legal regulators – any evidence of a consultation with his client or evidence that he obtained proper authorisation to strip out key parts of a £6m damages claim – rendering the judge’s now unfounded statements worthless.
A study of material from the SLCC complaint file handed to investigators at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveals a set of exchanges and written testimony handed to the regulator which show John Campbell QC acted on his own, and without instruction when he removed the £4m head of claim along with legal and professional expenses on the last day of a proof hearing.
The sudden, and unauthorised move by the QC stunned the court and even the judge – who had acknowledged on the preceding day Mr Nolan had a valid claim.
However, Mr Campbell’s own client – the well respected former National Hunt jockey & trainer Donal Nolan was kept in the dark by the senior QC and his assistant – Advocate Craig Murray of Compass Chambers.
Responding to allegations Campbell acted on his own, the QC claimed: ”I did not act without instructions. The Court adjourned while I took instructions on this very matter. Mr Nolan was not in attendance.”
“I asked that he be brought to Court. The Court’s Minute of Proceedings discloses that i sought and obtained an adjournment for that purpose. The same day, I wrote a Note for Mr Nolan.”
However, an email presented to the SLCC as part of the complaints file reveals a much different version of events where John Campbell writes in an email to Mr Nolan’s solicitor saying he does not want to see his client.
Campbell’s email to his client’s solicitor reads: “Melanie has given instructions to do without Steven Brown. I am content with those instructions. Craig is getting them in writing and l will write a Note of Advice. You DO NOT need to bring Donal through here this afternoon”
In reality, the ‘instructions’ Mr Campbell referred to in his email – never existed.
Advocate Craig Murray – mentioned in the email and who was serving as Junior Counsel – later denied he ever received any written instructions from Mr Nolan’s partner with regard to dealings with the witness referred to by Campbell.
And despite repeated requests by the pursuer for Mr Campbell and other members of the legal team to produce such written instructions to the SLCC investigation, none were forthcoming.
Campbell’s explanation goes on to say: “I also have a verbatim note of proceedings on that day, taken by junior counsel, which demonstrates quite clearly that I sought and obtained an adjournment to take instructions on this matter, and to have the pursuer himself attend. I can make that verbatim note available if the SLCC wishes to see it …”
However, the additional “verbatim note” referred to by John Campbell – was never produced despite repeated requests.
Campbell further attempted to justify his removal of the £4.1m head of claim.
John Campbell wrote: “Further, the decision to proceed without this part of the claim was fully explained, first to Mrs Collins, and then subsequently to Mr Nolan. It was endorsed by junior counsel, and understood by the solicitors. I am in no doubt at all that it was fully understood by all.”
However, a media investigation and study of the case file has concluded there is NO discoverable trail of consultation or any subsequent written or verbal authorisation for removal of the £4.1m head of claim between the QC, the Edinburgh Agents Drummond Miller, the solicitor in charge of the case or the client – Mr Nolan.
In the same letter to the SLCC, John Campbell attempted to blame the client’s solicitor for a failure to include the words “without prejudice” in a letter to Levy & Mcrae – the defender’s legal agents – even though it was Campbell himself who drafted the letter and had omitted to put in the words now under dispute.
Mr Campbell then claimed he discussed with his client – the possibility of capping the site at Branchal in Wishaw – the same site the defenders had accepted their dumping of the contaminated material had been unlawful.
Capping – a technical term of dealing with dumped material refers to layers of soil placed over the dumped material. However, if the material is contaminated, this method of dealing with hazardous waste renders a site unusable.
An interview with the client – Mr Nolan, has established no such discussion with Mr Campbell on the subject of ‘capping’ ever took place.
And expert testimony seen by reporters has revealed any ‘capping’ of the Branchal site would have rendered it worthless for future development.
In the same response to the SLCC, John Campbell claimed bombshell evidence from a North Lanarkshire Councillor – who alleged bribes or inducements had been offered for him not to give evidence in court – “was in the end irrelevant to the issues which the judge had to determine”.
The Councillor gave a precognition to Campbell’s Junior – Craig Murray of Compass Chambers. Murray is now an ad-hoc Advocate Depute for the Crown Office in the High Court. Also present during the Councillor’s precognition was Fiona Moore – head of litigation for Edinburgh law firm Drummond Miller.
Both Craig Murray and Fiona Moore have been asked questions by the press over their involvement in the case, however both refused to comment.
In respect of the evidence relating to bribery, legal insiders speculate if the court had heard the evidence of an attempt to bribe an elected councillor – it is most likely hearings would have been halted while a criminal investigation by Police Scotland took place, along with attendant media interest.
And, a recent press interview with the councillor has since established the offer of an inducement did in fact, take place, naming two individuals connected to companies involved in the court action.
Serious questions remain as to why this evidence relating to bribery was not introduced during the court case, and the motives of Mr Campbell in omitting such headline grabbing material from the court.
One witness who has since spoken to journalists said he felt Mr Campbell had an “alternate agenda” in the lines of questioning he had previously indicated would be asked compared to what questions Campbell eventually asked of witnesses in court..
On the point of calling a star witness in the case – Cabinet Minister Alex Neil MSP – John Campbell writes “The evidence of Mr Neil MSP was not required. I accept responsibility for not calling him”
However, it is likely the headlines generated by a Scottish Minister with the rank of Alex Neil – who was Cabinet Secretary for Health at the time – would have generated headline attention to his evidence which in turn may have led to developments in the case.
Papers obtained by journalists including a witness list from the case – have now established the Cabinet Secretary for Health & Wellbeing was to be called as a witness on the first day of the proof in Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
The move to call Mr Neil on the first day gave a clear indication of the importance placed on Mr Neil’s evidence.
However, the Cabinet Minister was kept waiting in the witness room for around four hours by senior counsel John Campbell – to a point where it became clear Mr Neil was not destined to appear that day.
Mr Neil then had to leave the court for a meeting, and was not called again by Campbell QC.
A study of evidence from Mr Campbell’s written explanation to the SLCC clearly indicates the senior QC never had any intention of calling Mr Neil despite all the plans made to do so and the expectation of his client.
Despite Campbell’s claim to the SLCC the evidence of Alex Neil was unimportant and not relevant to the case, it has now emerged John Campbell personally took Alex Neil’s precognition statement – an unusual move but one indicating the emphasis placed on testimony of such a high ranking politician.
Ultimately, the episode involving Mr Neil not being called as a witness could be viewed as symptomatic of John Campbell’s treatment of the case and his client.
Speaking to Diary of Injustice, Mr Nolan’s partner has indicated a clear and consistent line of dishonesty ran throughout their dealings with the Senior counsel.
Further material now handed to journalists on the case includes a copy of an audio interview with John Campbell QC, Advocate Craig Murray, Gregpr McPhail, the pursuer’s solicitor and the pursuer’s partner.
The explosive audio recording – in which Campbell admits taking instructions from Ms Collins – even though he claimed to the SLCC he had no professional relationship with her, is set to be submitted to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Faculty of Advocates in a revamped complaint against the senior QC.
And now, additional material passed to journalists which covers work done by Edinburgh law firm Drummond Miller on behalf of Mr Nolan – raises serious concerns as to their conduct and work carried out on behalf of their client.
In a letter dated 9 October 2014 from Fiona Miller – Head of Litigation for Drummond Miller – to Simpson & Marwick (now Clyde & Co) who were now defending John Campbell QC against the complaints raised in relation to his provision of legal services, Fiona Moore confirms “Many consultations and meetings took place between Mrs Collins and counsel which we [Drummond Miller] were not party to.” – blowing apart claims by Campbell to the SLCC he had no relationship with Ms Collins.
However, Fiona Moore then goes on to state to Simpson & Marwick “I trust this assists and that the complaint is successfully defended. If you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me.”
The tone of Fiona Moore’s letter raises serious questions over Drummond Miller’s relationship with their own client, Mr Nolan and the law firm’s apparent willingness to engage in a concerted attempt to thwart investigation of the complaints against the QC.
The firm’s willingness to side with their legal colleague came even though all parties had been aware Campbell was regularly breaking Faculty rules and ostensibly wanted to control the case on his own rather than use proper channels of solicitor, Edinburgh agents to speak to his client.
Yet when asked questions as to why Drummond Miller did not alert their client – Mr Nolan – to any potential conflict of interest between Lord Malcolm and the solicitor who represented the defenders – his son – Ewen Campbell, Drummond Miller partner Fiona Moore refused to comment.
With the complaints file now being available for study and full publication – there is a possibility of further complaints against Craig Murray and other legal agents involved in the case who sought huge fees and legal aid for their work being made to legal regulators.
A recent attempt to illicit comment from John Campbell QC failed, marking a consistent line of silence from the senior QC in response to questions from the press.
Asked for a comment, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission said it would give no further statement to the press on this case.
The Faculty of Advocates have also refused to speak to the press on Mr Campbell’s actions and their previous investigation which it has since been confirmed relied on a second, highly edited version of written evidence given by fellow Advocate Craig Murray – which Murray now contests ever existed.
Journalists are now studying a series of damning environmental reports from Court of Session papers – which accuse North Lanarkshire Council, and two construction companies – Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd and Graham Construction Ltd of being responsible for the dumping of contaminated material at Branchal.
The investigation has so far revealed John Campbell QC had sight of the material but failed to make proper use of the damning reports – raising concerns he was not presenting the full facts of the case as instructed by his client.
The reports – due to be published by the press in full – also raise serious questions about the conduct of Scotland’s environmental regulator – the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) – whose failures in this case could not be categorised as ‘accidental’.
BURNING QUESTIONS: QC fails to answer queries from Media
The QC at the centre of the cash for services scandal – John Campbell QC has consistently refused to talk to any media.
Campbell’s silence comes after publication of his own communications revealed the senior QC demanded sums of £5,000 at a time be paid to him in cash or cheque form – a breach of the rules as laid down by the Faculty of Advocates.
Journalists put the following questions to the senior QC, however John Campbell failed to reply to all requests for comment.
1. In a letter dated 5th of June 2014 sent to the SLCC you state to the SLCC that you had no professional relationship with Mrs Collins who is Mr Nolan’s partner. Any comment on this?
2. In a letter sent to Simpson Marwick dated 9th of October 2014 from Fiona Moore she states clearly that as you are no doubt aware , the case was in any event being run by Melanie Collins, Mr Nolan’s partner and that it was she who gave all the instructions in the case. This is clearly at odds with what you state to the SLCC. Any comments on this?
3. Returning to your letter to the SLCC you state you did not act without instructions Who gave you these instructions? Any comment on this?
4. Copy correspondence also received from the instructing solicitor to Ms Collins clearly states no instructions were ever given by him to remove this part of the claim. Drummond Miller also state they gave no instruction to drop any part of this claim. Any comment on this?
5.It is clearly evidenced by court transcripts that Mr Woods of DMHall was only in court to speak to productions D5 and D 10 which were valuations he prepared for the Heritable Creditor the Clydesdale Bank and nothing else. Any comment on this?
6. Again in your letter to the SLCC page 2 you state the decision to proceed without the blight claim was fully explained to Mrs Collins, Mr Nolan and Mr Falls when in fact I have now been passed an audio tape recording where you clearly state you removed this claim yourself without any instructions. Any comment on this?
7. Lastly, the emails you sent to Ms Collins asking for collections of £5k in fees at a time, again you stated you had no professional relationship with Ms Collins yet frequently broke Faculty rules by demanding collection of fees in cash to be provided by her. How can it be you claim no professional relationship with Ms Collins yet seek to engather fees? Any comment?
DO you have a complaint with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or Faculty of Advocates?
What is your experiences of dealing with the SLCC or the Faculty? Has your solicitor, advocate or QC demanded cash payments from you at any stage of a civil or criminal case? Tell us more about it in confidence,by email to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
During the ‘bombshell’ inquiry into the Crown Office – an organisation once dubbed ‘the most corrupt institution in Scotland’ by a Cabinet minister – the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee heard claims COPFS staff suffered from shortage of resources,weak morale – including more than average levels of sick leave, claims of overwork.
MSPs also heard grips from the Lord Advocate – James Wolffe QC and his team over the level of public cash thrown at the infamous Edinburgh based Crown Office which now stands at a whopping £112.5million a year – according to figures in the Scottish Government’s own budget for 2016.
The report – into the ‘crime fighting’ Crown Office – which refused to prosecute the driver of the Glasgow bin lorry which left six people dead and injured 15 others in the centre of Glasgow – concludes: “On the whole, the public should have confidence that it is a rigorous and fair prosecutor. “However, the service remains under considerable pressure. There can be no room for complacency.”
The Committee’s inquiry also identified room for improvement in a number of Crown Office functions, including the support given to victims and witnesses – who are often poorly treated by COPFS staff.
However – during 2014 it was reported a senior manager in the Crown Office was suspended after openly criticising the treatment of crime victims.
John Fox, 47, made postings on an internal staff forum accusing his bosses of putting victims of domestic violence at risk. His criticism emerged days after the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed how victims of crime felt betrayed by Scotland’s justice system and were demanding reforms.
Mr Fox was formerly in charge of the 100-strong Victim Information and Advice Service (VIA), responsible for helping to improve services to crime victims and their families across Scotland. One of their tasks is to inform victims of domestic violence about the release from custody of the person charged with attacking them.
In some cases, victims of crime and witness have since alleged Crown Office employees told outright lies.
And, a recent investigation by the media reported key Crown Office employees hold secret criminal convictions for serious offences. The investigation, assisted by documents obtained by Freedom of Information legislation published here: Prosecutors own crime gang revealed also found some victims and witnesses to crime had been threatened by Crown Office prosecutors and staff.
In a period of just two years – from November 2013 to November 2015 – the Crown Office admitted it retained records showing 15 cases reported to COPFS containing allegations of criminal offences by COPFS staff. Court proceedings were taken in 11 cases, three cases were disposed of by non-court disposal and no proceedings were taken in one case.
The charges brought against staff include assault and vandalism; road traffic offences; threatening and abusive conduct; breach of the peace; Misuse of drugs and offences against the police; data protection offences and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
The Holyrood enquiry was apparently not handed any of this information. The inquiry did not take steps to act upon it and quiz COPFS representatives, despite reports being available in the media and to the inquiry – for some time.
Much of the inquiry’s focus on staff morale heard claims the Crown Office was underfunded and overworked, however figures revealed in a Freedom of Information request for the immediate three years after the collapse of several high street banks & huge cuts to public services – revealed successive Lord Advocates have spent over £572,307,16 on paying supposedly hard up staff everything from mortgages, relocation, rental costs and even phone bills, council tax and personal legal bills.
During financial year 2008/2009, payments made by COPFS for housing, rent or relocation allowances, or help with mortgages to 32 employees were: £212,500.76.
During financial year 2009/2010, payments made by COPFS for housing, rent or relocation allowances, or help with mortgages to 38 employees were £242,586.59.
During financial year 2010/2011, payments made by COPFS for housing, rent or relocation allowances, or help with mortgages to 26 employees were £117,220.14.
The cash expenses & junkets claims from COPFS staff continue, with figures released in another Freedom of Information request revealing a whopping £137,744.43 spent on further staff perks and junkets in 2014-2016. The FOI revealed:
During financial year 2011/2012, payments made by COPFS for housing, rent or relocation allowances, or help with mortgages to 16 employees were £85,513.21.
During financial year 2012/2013,payments made by COPFS for housing, rent or relocation allowances, or help with mortgages to 8 employees were £38,711.35.
During financial year 2013/2014, payments made by COPFS for housing, rent or relocation allowances, or help with mortgages to 5 employees were £13,519.87.
The cash expenses & junkets claims from COPFS staff continue, with figures released in another Freedom of Information request revealing a further £28,090 spent on further staff mortgages, rent , phone bills, legal bills and other perks and junkets in 2014-2016. However, these figures are now thought to be in dispute – and of a much higher sum than was originally quoted by the Crown Office. Nevertheless the FOI revealed:
Payments made by COPFS for housing, rent or relocation allowances, or help with mortgages, for COPFS staff including Procurators Fiscal from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2016, were made by 33 COPFS employees, totalling an extra £28,090.
A separate Freedom of Information request revealed the hard-up Crown Office media unit spent over £376,168.06 in one year alone on media relations – this despite the Lord Advocate’s staff of 6 full time media staff and one part time employee – operating a policy of “no comment” to journalists – who are in increasing numbers of cases told to put their request for comment in a Freedom of Information request.
And, an investigation by the Sunday Mail newspaper in 2011 established the Lord Advocate had authorised massive bonuses for Crown Office staff who pocketed bonus payments of more than £580,000 in just two years.
Figures released via Freedom of Information requests revealed 419 COPFS employees shared payouts totalling £326,844 in 2009-2010, while 518 COPFS staff were handed £253,330 for 2010-11.
In 2009-2010, eight employees of the Crown Office received Bonuses of up to £20,000 while a further 15 COPFS employees received bonuses of up to £8,000.
In the same year up to 200 members of staff received bonus pay-outs of up to £500 while a further 200 COPFS employees were paid bonuses of up to £1000 each.
The allegedly hard up Crown Office spent more than £57,000 of taxpayers’ cash last year alone flying staff across the globe. Hong Kong, Mauritius, Taiwan and New York were among 15 exotic destinations visited by Crown Office employees. And since 2012, they have taken off on a total of 109 international flights to places like South Africa, Australia and Malta.
The Crown, led by Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, racked up £29,504 on 39 international flights to meetings and conferences last year and £27,603 on 143 domestic trips.The number of overseas flights has remained fairly steady over three years at 36, 34 then 39. But domestic flights have increased sharply from 97 to 131, then 143 last year.
Amsterdam was the most common destination, with 30 trips since 2012. The Dutch city is a major travel hub and close to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Flights to Washington DC and Malta were in connection with the ongoing probe into the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
While the information has been available in the public arena for some time, COPFS representatives appearing in front of the Justice Committee did not face any lines of questioning of the massive cash spends on personal junkets, mortgages, rent and other bills accumulated by staff who managed to have them all paid off by taxpayers.
The Justice Committee also had to make do without attendance of Scotland’s top judge and other members of the judiciary after Lord Carloway issued a letter to all branches level of the judiciary informing them of his decision to refuse to give evidence to the Justice Committee’s probe into the Crown Office.
Lord Carloway – who earns £222,862 a year for his role as Lord President & Lord Justice General – said the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service (SCTS) should give evidence to the Justice Committee, rather than individual members of the judiciary – even retired ones
Carloway’s letter went out to every high court judge, the Sheriffs’ Association and the Scottish Justices Association (SJA) – which represents Justices of the Peace.
After Lord Carloway’s decision to refuse to attend the Justice Committee was made known – the SJA pulled out of its scheduled appearance in front of MSPs.
The report found that Scotland’s public prosecutor is coping in its core role of steering trials through the courts to an appropriate outcome, but the level of adjournments and postponements is unacceptably high and inadequate communication is a key problem.
It recommends that the COPFS develop more efficient and effective ways to update people whose attendance is no longer required at a trial.
It also says the COPFS should consider concerns raised about the erosion of prosecutors’ autonomy and discretion, the lack of preparation time and the consequences for morale.
Justice Committee convener Margaret Mitchell said: “An effective Crown Office is fundamental to an effective criminal justice system in Scotland.”
Ms Mitchell continued: “The committee heard many concerns during our inquiry. Across the board, witnesses identified possible improvements which could be made to how COPFS works – and better serve justice and the public. This report, its findings on the service’s strengths and weaknesses, and its recommendations are a considered, cross-party view following six months of work. These findings must be taken into account by COPFS management and the Scottish Government. There is no room for complacency, and the committee will be keeping close watch on developments.”
Focussing on areas of Crown Office operation, the following excerpts are reproduced from the Committee’s final report:
Digital strategy
110. The “vision” of the Digital Strategy, published in 2014, is “to have modern, user-focused justice systems which use digital justice technology to deliver simple, fast and effective justice at best cost”. It is estimated by the Scottish Government that full implementation of the strategy across the entire justice sector (including the administrative and civil spheres) could save some £20-25 million per annum. The strategy sets out three objectives—
allow people and businesses to access the right information at the right time, principally by expanding online the amount of available information about the justice system. This objective also includes a commitment, by the end of 2017, to enable victims of crime to track their case online;
fully digitised justice systems;
make data work for us, ie collect and use data including stakeholder feedback to develop a more efficient and responsive justice system.
111. It is the second of these objectives that appears to have most potential to unlock efficiencies in the prosecution system, particularly in tandem with complementary reforms envisaged under the Evidence and Procedure Review. It includes plans for—
a “digital evidence vault” enabling the secure storage of all digital evidence in civil and criminal cases;
greatly increased use of live video links to reduce the need for accused, victims and witnesses to have to come to court in all instances;
the serving of more court documentation (eg arrest warrants) digitally; and
disclosure by the COPFS of all evidence to defence agents electronically.
112. The strategy also envisages the police being equipped with body-worn cameras and the integration of all legacy force ICT services within Police Scotland. The Committee notes the potential impact of these objectives on the prosecution of crimes, although they are not within the direct remit of this inquiry. Scrutiny of these issues is within the current work programme of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing
and on
Evidence and Procedure Review
113. Lord Carloway’s March 2015 Evidence and Procedure Review concluded that the conduct of criminal trials needs to change because the process had not kept pace with entry into a digital age. The main recommendations related to—
child and vulnerable witnesses: as much as possible, taking evidence from them should be removed from the courtroom setting;
digital evidence: audio and video witness statements should ordinarily be admissible. This was seen as paving the way for the elimination of written witness statements, in most cases, in the future;
modernising criminal trial procedures: in essence, shifting the weight of trial preparation to earlier in the process, in part through greater judicial case management. Trial dates should only be fixed when it is clear that the case will be ready to run on the relevant date.
114. This was followed by a February 2016 “next steps” paper, setting out proposals on which the SCTS is currently working.158 These are intended to build on Lord Carloway’s three main recommendations and to align with relevant objectives in the digital strategy. The overall vision is of a more streamlined criminal justice system, with far less evidence having to be led in the courtroom.
115. As set out in the preceding section, the Lord Advocate and Crown Agent both indicated the COPFS’s readiness for reform, and said they saw real opportunities for progress, particularly in relation to the work of the Evidence and Procedure Review.The Crown Agent said the goal was to crystallise as much evidence as possible in advance of the actual trial.160 Amongst other things, this would greatly reduce the need for witnesses to attend trials – and the non-attendance of witnesses is one of the main causes of churn.
116. The Cabinet Secretary also set out his strong support for the Review. However, he referred in addition to a need for a “cultural change” on the part of all stakeholders if the full benefits of the Review were to be realised. He indicated that legislation would be required at some point to implement elements of the Review.
and on ‘Specialist Prosecutions’ MSPs heard evidence from a former COPFS Prosecutor linked to events in the David Goodwillie rape case – where the victim was forced to sue her assailant through the civil courts after the Lord Advocate refused to prosecute the footballer.
Specialist prosecutions
167. The Committee sought views on whether the COPFS had the appropriate skillsets it needed to carry out its prosecutorial role. This includes prosecuting the wide range of different crimes that the COPFS may encounter, ranging from historic child sexual abuse to corporate accounting fraud. As noted elsewhere in the report, the COPFS has moved towards greater specialisation in recent years, setting up offices dealing with sexual offences, serious and organised crime, and international cooperation, amongst others. The Committee notes that, in a relatively small jurisdiction such as Scotland, there are limits to this approach. There may be some types of case that only come before the criminal courts a handful of times in a few years, but which are of a particular complexity. It is hard to build up specialist expertise in such cases. Derek Ogg QC, a former head of the COPFS sexual offences unit told the Committee that, if there is considered to be a lack of in-house specialism to prosecute particularly complex crimes coming before the High Court, this could be addressed by borrowing that expertise; recruiting “locum” advocates depute with experience in that field for the duration of the case.
168. Some submissions expressed the view that the COPFS did not always have the specialist skillsets needed to prosecute certain types of crime as effectively as it should, for instance corporate or regulatory offences.HM Revenue and Customs gave positive evidence about its working relationship with the COPFS in the prosecution of crimes in which it was involved, although it indicated that the COPFS’s relative under-resourcing in some areas, for instance technology, sometimes put it under strain.
Centralised policy-making and local autonomy
184. The COPFS is a national service aspiring to achieve consistently high standards across Scotland. It is in the public interest that both accused and victims should expect the same professional standard of prosecution wherever their case calls. There was a consensus in evidence that the COPFS has become a more centralised organisation in recent years. Some evidence broadly welcomed this, but the Committee also heard views that this process had gone too far; to the point where it was impacting negatively on the COPFS’s effectiveness as a public prosecutor. Whether the COPFS was striking the right balance between pursuing centrally driven policies and letting local prosecutors take their own decisions emerged as one of the key themes of the inquiry.
Specialisation and central case-marking
185. A closely related issue is that of specialisation. In effect, specialisation is a form of centralisation, as it means that a small group of specialist prosecutors will tend to determine national approach to prosecuting particular crimes wherever they occur.
186. Specialisation has included the setting up a case-marking unit around 15 years ago. Local fiscals no longer mark cases at the initial stage of the prosecution. Instead, there are two centres – at Paisley and Stirling – where practically all cases are now marked. As the Committee understands it, the case marking process may involve not only a determination as to whether or not a case should be prosecuted, but further instructions on how to handle the case, for instance whether to accept plea bargains and, if so, on what basis.
Other types of specialisation
187. The setting up of a national sexual crimes unit at the COPFS in 2009 was welcomed by many stakeholders. They thought it had led to such cases (which now constitute around 70% of all High Court cases) being better handled at least at a strategic and policy level, with the views and interests of victims and their advocates better taken account of. This was the view of organisations including Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis. Susan Gallagher of Victim Support Scotland told the Committee that her organisation’s experience of centralisation – or specialisation – as it applied to victims was largely positive; it was when the Victim Information and Advice service had become more decentralised that inconsistency had crept back in.As noted above, the setting up of a specialist wildlife crime unit was also welcomed by stakeholders as having helped professionalise the COPFS’s approach to these offences.
Views from COPFS representatives
199. The FDA, representing fiscals, took a balanced view of the move towards a more centralised and more specialist service in recent year, recognising that it had its advantages and disadvantages. However, it was overall considered to have been positive. In relation to case-marking, the union’s Rachael Weir told the Committee that she considered it had been beneficial because it had led to greater specialist expertise in case marking being built up.
200. As noted elsewhere in the report, the Lord Advocate publicly affirmed his confidence in COPFS staff as the organisation’s “greatest asset” and expressed his “absolute trust and confidence in the judgment of those who prosecute on my behalf up and down the country”. However, the COPFS also made clear in its evidence to the Committee that one of the drivers of the move towards centralisation had been a desire to achieve greater consistency, and a higher quality public service overall.Overall, nothing in the COPFS’s evidence indicated to the Committee that the COPFS was minded to fundamentally reconsider its approach, in the light of views that had been expressed. The Lord Advocate cited learned authority from the 19th century that it was his role to ensure “the due and equal distribution of criminal justice”, so that all may have equal protection under the law, in order to underline that the concept of achieving consistency in prosecution policy was not a new one. It was his view that the current system did allow for some flexibility—
The system can accommodate matters that are of concern in local areas. Indeed, in their reports, the police might identify a particular issue as being a matter of concern. I can put it in this way: through having a national approach, we can ensure that, where there is justification for a variation from the norm to be applied in a particular locality, that is done consistently and does not depend on the views of a particular individual in a particular local area.
201. The Crown Agent said that previous less centralised models had run into problems of their own, such as some courts sitting until late evening. He said that the current system had brought greater professionalism and consistency. Inasmuch as it had probably brought down the number of court sittings, it may have reduced overall costs, although that was not, he stressed, the main reason behind the policy.In relation to the comments of the GBA and others that the current decision-making approach to individual cases can appear opaque and unnecessarily hierarchical, the Crown Agent acknowledged that there was, or had been an issue, explaining that recent internal reforms had led to the number of “approval levels” for ongoing cases being rationalised, with the grade for approval reduced to a local level.
Diversions and local knowledge
202. The Lord Advocate explained to the Committee that teams at the two central case-marking centres are organised by reference to Scotland’s six sheriffdoms. He argued this helped enable case-markers to develop local knowledge of particular areas. In relation to diversions from prosecution, the Lord Advocate said he had reflected on the evidence and posed an open question as to whether it indicated a lack of consistency across the country on the availability of diversion schemes as much as any perceived lack of local knowledge on the part of case markers.
203. Supplementary written evidence from the Crown Agent queried SACRO’s evidence that there had been a trend away from referrals to restorative justice schemes, arguing that it was not strongly supported in the follow-up information SACRO had itself provided to the Committee. The COPFS’s own statistics had indicated a gradual rise in the number of diversions from prosecution over the course of the current decade.The Committee notes that it would require further analysis to determine the extent to which diversions by case markers appear to have had outcomes that could be described as successful.
204. The Crown Agent’s written evidence also queried the JPs’ evidence to the Committee, which he interpreted as being to the effect that—
…prosecutors issue direct measures to avoid the expense of prosecuting cases in court. This is inaccurate and contrary to the Lord Advocate’s policies on decision making. The Scottish Parliament has given prosecutors a range of powers to take action against offenders and we seek to make effective use of all these powers.
205. Both the COPFS and the SCTS referred to statistics indicating that around 80% of direct measures consisting of fines or fixed penalties end up being paid.
206. The Committee notes the COPFS’s view that a drive towards increased centralisation and specialisation is likely to have helped it become a more efficient and professional organisation. The setting up of specialist prosecution units (for instance in relation to sexual offences) has been broadly welcomed. However, evidence has made clear that some trade-offs have been involved. It has been concerning to note evidence that local fiscals may sometimes find themselves running cases against their own professional judgment. The Committee also notes views that increased centralisation may have had an effect on morale and job satisfaction in local offices.
207. The Committee seeks clarification from the COPFS that consideration of the autonomy and decision-making capacity of local fiscals is being taken forward in its current “Fair Futures” programme being developed in consultation with its staff.
208. The Committee notes views that the centralisation of case marking has led to an erosion of knowledge as to the availability of local schemes and programmes where case markers are considering alternatives to prosecution. The Committee asks the Scottish Government to consider whether, if these perceptions are valid, Community Justice Scotland could be invited to address them in its ongoing work to develop a new model for community justice delivery.
209. More generally, the Committee asks the COPFS and Scottish Government as to what monitoring there is of the effectiveness of diversion from prosecution and whether and how the results of that monitoring are fed back to the COPFS for continuous improvement purposes.
Now, turning to the recommendations of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – funding of the Crown Office comes into sharp focus, despite evidence of massive waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers cash on Crown Office staff:
Recommendations: Resources and funding of the COPFS
The COPFS, in common with agencies across the public sector, has faced significant challenges as a result of a prolonged period of flat-lining budgets. This looks set to continue into 2017-18. The Committee notes the Lord Advocate’s remarks that he considered his 2017-18 budget to be a “sound settlement” that will enable him to continue to provide a fundamentally effective prosecution service.
For the most part, the COPFS has coped in this tougher financial environment as well as can be expected, and its frontline staff deserve credit and recognition for their resilience under sometimes difficult circumstances. It would be unreasonable for the COPFS to continue to rely on the resilience of its staff indefinitely. The Committee considers that change is necessary before the risks that are undoubtedly embedded in the prosecution system, as presently constituted, begin to crystallise.
The Committee agrees with evidence from the COPFS and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that more efficient ways need to be found to manage the whole prosecution process. Whilst the COPFS is the single most important organisation involved in managing the prosecution process, it cannot achieve this reform on its own. The Committee notes that it is expected that change will be primarily driven by the cross-agency Justice Board, on which the COPFS is represented, and expects the Lord Advocate and Cabinet Secretary to provide the necessary backing for the Board as it proceeds in implementing key elements of the Justice Strategy
The Lord Advocate and Crown Agent have acknowledged in evidence that there is a need to address staffing concerns dating back several years. Above average numbers of staff on short-term contracts, on sick leave, or in long-term temporary promotions are danger signs. The Committee is pleased the current leadership appears to recognise this, to be listening to staff, and to be looking for ways to deal with these issues. The Committee will continue to maintain a watching brief on this issue and requests an update on staffing matters from the COPFS when it responds to this report.
In relations to matters such as job satisfaction and work-life balance, returns from staff surveys in recent years have been concerning. The Committee notes some evidence that, in these areas, the organisation might now be making progress. The Committee also notes evidence and public statements from the Lord Advocate that he has confidence in the judgment of his prosecutors and trusts them to take decisions in his name. However, it is still very early days and, in this context, indications that the COPFS may have to shed around 30 staff in 2017-18 to deal with real-terms budget cuts are worrying. It is difficult to see, given the current pressures staff are under, how further losses are sustainable. The Committee seeks clarification from the COPFS on the operational rationale for job losses and where they will fall.
The Committee also warns the COPFS against an over-reliance on digital solutions to deliver greater efficiencies.
Efficiency of the prosecution service
“Churn” – adjournment and delay of cases scheduled for trial – is one of the main sources of frustration for anyone having to engage with the prosecution process. The Committee accepts that a degree of churn is inevitable and unavoidable, but evidence received over the inquiry indicates that it remains unacceptably high.
The Committee accepts that the problem of delay and inefficiency in the prosecution process cannot be solved by the COPFS acting on its own. The Committee also accepts that churn is a part-consequence of the COPFS’s limited staffing resources, but calls on the COPFS to find methods of mitigating it. For instance, it should be within the capacity of the COPFS to develop more efficient and effective means of notifying those whose attendance is no longer required at a trial. The Committee asks the COPFS and the Scottish Government to take this forward within the Justice Digital Strategy.
The Committee notes evidence that 80% of Crown motions to adjourn arise because of the non-attendance of witnesses. Giving evidence in a trial is a civic duty and failure to do so can be deemed a contempt of court. The Committee accepts that there can be understandable reasons why witnesses do not attend a hearing, but seeks clarification from COPFS and Scottish Government as to: what measures are in place to encourage and, if necessary, ensure witness attendance; the extent to which these measures are being used; and whether alternative approaches are being considered over and above whatever may emerge in due course from the Evidence and Procedure Review.
No blame can be attached to witnesses for non-attendance when they have not in fact been cited to attend court. The Committee is concerned by evidence that the process is sometimes unreliable. The Committee asks the Scottish Government, COPFS and SCTS whether it accepts this evidence and, if so, what measures are being considered to address this, including for instance, the Sheriffs’ Association suggestion of a dedicated COPFS unit to issue citations.
Proposals set out in the Evidence and Procedure Review and the Justice Digital Strategy are welcome and, in some cases, long overdue. Aspects of current criminal law procedure could rightly be described as archaic. The Committee notes the potential for considerable savings to be made if far fewer witnesses are required to attend court and are able to give their evidence in other ways.
However, the Committee notes with concern that the timetable for implementation of some aspects of the Digital Strategy has slipped, with some targets already missed. The Committee further notes that there appears to be no public timetable for implementing the Evidence and Procedure Review.
The Committee asks for a progress report from the Scottish Government in respect of each main element of the Review and the Strategy, setting out the timescale, the anticipated effect on the prosecution process, and where possible, the projected cost saving in relation to each such element.
The Committee also asks for an update from the Scottish Government as to what legislative changes it envisages may be required to unlock the full potential of the Evidence and Procedure Review and the Justice Digital Strategy, and what plans it has in respect of these.
The Committee seeks further information from the Scottish Government as to how proposals to encourage increased judicial case management in the context of criminal proceedings will be progressed and what additional support, if any (eg training), it envisages the judiciary may require in this modified role.
The Committee also seeks further information from the Scottish Government as to whether additional funding will be required to fully implement the Digital Strategy and the Evidence and Procedure Review and, if so, whether these have been costed and what proportion of these costs fall on the COPFS.
Given acknowledged difficulties with the delivery of major IT projects in the public sector, the Committee is concerned that there should not be an over-reliance on information technology to drive reform in the criminal justice system.
Proposals set out in the Evidence and Procedure Review and the Justice Digital Strategy are welcome and, in some cases, long overdue. Aspects of current criminal law procedure could rightly be described as archaic. The Committee notes the potential for considerable savings to be made if far fewer witnesses are required to attend court and are able to give their evidence in other ways.
However, the Committee notes with concern that the timetable for implementation of some aspects of the Digital Strategy has slipped, with some targets already missed. The Committee further notes that there appears to be no public timetable for implementing the Evidence and Procedure Review.
The Committee asks for a progress report from the Scottish Government in respect of each main element of the Review and the Strategy, setting out the timescale, the anticipated effect on the prosecution process, and where possible, the projected cost saving in relation to each such element.
The Committee also asks for an update from the Scottish Government as to what legislative changes it envisages may be required to unlock the full potential of the Evidence and Procedure Review and the Justice Digital Strategy, and what plans it has in respect of these.
The Committee seeks further information from the Scottish Government as to how proposals to encourage increased judicial case management in the context of criminal proceedings will be progressed and what additional support, if any (eg training), it envisages the judiciary may require in this modified role.
The Committee also seeks further information from the Scottish Government as to whether additional funding will be required to fully implement the Digital Strategy and the Evidence and Procedure Review and, if so, whether these have been costed and what proportion of these costs fall on the COPFS.
Given acknowledged difficulties with the delivery of major IT projects in the public sector, the Committee is concerned that there should not be an over-reliance on information technology to drive reform in the criminal justice system.
Effectiveness of the prosecution service
The Committee agrees with the Lord Advocate that the COPFS is, overall, “effective, rigorous, fair and independent” in the prosecution of crime. The evidence received indicates that, in general, Scotland is fundamentally well served by the COPFS in its core role as public prosecutor. However, the same evidence also makes clear that there should be no room for complacency and that the various shortcomings stakeholders have identified must be addressed.
The Committee acknowledges that the criminal justice system has not always prioritised domestic abuse as it should have or treated it with the seriousness it deserves. It was necessary for a clear message to be sent by public agencies working in the system that domestic abuse is unacceptable and would be tackled robustly, in order to give victims confidence that their case would be taken seriously. The COPFS/Police Scotland Joint Protocol on domestic violence has played an important role in that process. The Committee notes the differing views it has received during this inquiry as to the COPFS’s application of the protocol, notes the Lord Advocate’s response to it, and asks the COPFS and the Scottish Government to reflect further on the views that the Committee heard.
The Committee calls on the COPFS and Scottish Government to note evidence as to the quality and consistency of prosecution of those summary cases in relation to which special considerations do not apply by way of Lord Advocate’s guidelines to prosecutors or in the Joint Protocol on domestic abuse. Such cases include instances of antisocial behaviour, crimes of dishonesty or less serious violent crimes. The evidence suggests that these are sometimes under-prioritised.
The Committee acknowledges the COPFS’s evidence that it intends to build stronger relationships with third sector stakeholders in the prosecution of wildlife or environmental crime. The Committee asks the COPFS to respond to views heard in evidence that recommendations in the Scottish Government’s 2008 report Natural Justice, particularly in relation to post-prosecution debriefings, have not been fully implemented, and to set out its plans to address this.
The Committee is concerned by evidence of very low prosecution rates for failure to hold employer’s liability insurance, noting that the consequences of failing to be properly insured can be devastating for individuals and families. The Committee welcomes the COPFS’s commitment to explore the reasons behind the low number of referrals with relevant reporting agencies and requests an update from the COPFS.
The Committee seeks the COPFS’s view on whether there is merit in recruiting locum prosecutors to prosecute High Court cases turning on complex and specialist aspects of criminal law such as corporate fraud or health and safety breaches and, if so, whether this is part of its current practice.
The Committee is concerned by evidence that the courts are sometimes being asked to take decisions on bail without access to the full range of relevant information. This may lead to decisions being made that are not necessarily in the public interest, for instance to refuse bail on the basis of the accused’s homelessness. Whilst the safety of the public and the integrity of the prosecution process must be the paramount considerations, the public interest is not served by individuals being remanded when more suitable alternatives may be available. The Committee asks the COPFS and Scottish Government, on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service, to respond to this evidence.
The Committee notes the COPFS’s view that a drive towards increased centralisation and specialisation is likely to have helped it become a more efficient and professional organisation. The setting up of specialist prosecution units (for instance in relation to sexual offences) has been broadly welcomed. However, evidence has made clear that some trade-offs have been involved. It has been concerning to note evidence that local fiscals may sometimes find themselves running cases against their own professional judgment. The Committee also notes views that increased centralisation may have had an effect on morale and job satisfaction in local offices.
The Committee seeks clarification from the COPFS that consideration of the autonomy and decision-making capacity of local fiscals is being taken forward in its current “Fair Futures” programme being developed in consultation with its staff.
The Committee notes views that the centralisation of case marking has led to an erosion of knowledge as to the availability of local schemes and programmes where case markers are considering alternatives to prosecution. The Committee asks the Scottish Government to consider whether, if these perceptions are valid, Community Justice Scotland could be invited to address them in its ongoing work to develop a new model for community justice delivery.
More generally, the Committee asks the COPFS and Scottish Government as to what monitoring there is of the effectiveness of diversion from prosecution and whether and how the results of that monitoring are fed back to the COPFS for continuous improvement purposes.
Victims and witnesses and the COPFS
The Committee supports the principle that the COPFS prosecutes in the public interest and not directly in the interests of individual victims of crime: it is not “the victim’s lawyer”. The Committee understands that this may sometimes lead to difficult decisions being made that victims find painful. However, the Committee considers that the principle is key to protecting the independence and integrity of the prosecution service.
The Committee considers that there is no inherent contradiction between putting the public interest first during the prosecution process and putting victim care at the heart of criminal justice system, In particular, victims have a right to be listened to and to be treated with respect and sensitivity. Their views matter and they should be consulted, whenever possible, at appropriate points in the prosecution process.
The Committee considers that an effective, efficient and fair COPFS in everyone’s interests; accused, victims and witnesses alike. The Committee is therefore concerned by evidence that a lack of preparation time means that time limits in solemn trials are being “routinely” exceeded and seeks the COPFS’s response.
The Committee also asks the COPFS to respond to evidence that its general policy is not to seek the withdrawal of warrants for arrest of an accused for non-attendance, even where there may be exculpatory or mitigating factors. The Committee accepts that non-appearance for a court hearing is a serious matter but asks the COPFS to respond to concerns that, if this is its policy, it may impact disproportionately on vulnerable people.
The Committee asks the COPFS and Scottish Government to clarify what information (if any) public agencies must provide to families and dependents of accused people and what measures are in place to ensure that the information is provided. The Committee seeks clarification from the COPFS and Scottish Government as to what measures are in place to ensure that family members or vulnerable adults accused or convicted of a crime are contacted and notified.
The Committee considers that the safety and mental welfare of victims, balanced against the accused’s right to a fair trial, should be at the forefront of consideration during the prosecution process. The Committee asks the COPFS and Scottish Government to confirm whether it is their understanding that Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 imposes legal duties on the COPFS, and other agencies, in relation to the hostile cross-examination of witnesses during a criminal trial and, if so, to clarify what practices and policies are in place to ensure that relevant legal requirements are met.
The Committee welcomes the Victims’ Code for Scotland and considers that the pamphlet should be available to all victims at their first point of contact with the criminal justice system. The Committee seeks clarification from the COPFS and Scottish Government as to current practices in relation to making the Code available.
The Committee welcomes ongoing work under the Evidence and Procedure Review to reform the way in which children give evidence during a trial but repeats its earlier concern that there is no publication date for the review’s findings.
The Committee notes that the aspiration is to make taking evidence from children in a courtroom setting the exception rather than the norm. Any reforms must continue to allow the defence to challenge and test the evidence. The Committee looks forwards to considering detailed proposals as they emerge.
The Committee welcomes the additional funding that the Cabinet Secretary provided for the victim fund, which assists families of murder victims, in the 2016-17 financial year. The Committee asks the Scottish Government to keep the fund under review to ensure that it is adequate.
The Committee considers that the evidence taken from victims of crime set out serious failings by the criminal justice system, of which the COPFS is a key component, to provide the confidence necessary for these victims to participate in court proceedings. These failings including a lack of communications, misinformation, delays and adjournments, have resulted in some of these victims concluding that they would never have reported the crime in the first place. The Committee considers that this is unacceptable and must be addressed as a priority, and repeats its view that it is imperative that the COPFS finds more effective methods for passing on accurate up-to-date information about trials in real time to all stakeholders, victims especially. The Committee acknowledges that the reasons for adjournments in criminal trials are complex and that the COPFS bears only partial responsibility for them.
The Committee asks the COPFS to clarify the extent to which it takes into account the vulnerability of victims and witnesses, and the risk to them of a prolonged or delayed prosecution process, in determining the prioritisation of cases, in the light of evidence that delays in hearing cases can disproportionately damage the mental welfare of vulnerable adults.
The Committee recognises the valuable role played by the Victim Information and Advice Service, and that there has been praise for the contribution of VIA staff members in evidence. The Committee recognises that the COPFS’s resources are finite and limited and prevent it providing as much assistance as it would like. At the same time, there are lessons for the COPFS as a whole to learn as to the way it sometimes communicates with victims of crime and with other prosecution witnesses.
Reforms under the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 have significantly widened the duties owed to victims and witnesses and have been widely welcomed. The COPFS, in common with other public agencies, is still adjusting to these changes. The Committee is concerned by evidence appearing to indicate that some of the key rights secured by that legislation are not yet a reality for victims and witnesses in their journey through the criminal justice system. The Committee asks the COPFS and Scottish Government to respond to this evidence, and to evidence that victims and witnesses are not always aware of their rights.
The Committee welcomes the Lord Advocate’s acknowledgement that the COPFS might benefit from examining the process of giving evidence from the victim’s perspective in order to see whether it could be improved.
The Committee is concerned by evidence that vulnerable witnesses did not always obtain the special measures that they had requested and that where some special measures (for instance, screens) were provided, they were not always adequate. Evidence that victims and witnesses did not always feel secure outwith the courtroom setting during the trial process is also concerning. The Committee notes that, as well as potentially affecting victims’ and witnesses’ mental welfare, this might affect the evidence they give, or in extreme cases lead them not to give evidence at all.
The Committee recommends that the COPFS carry out an audit of victims and witnesses entitled to special measures in order to determine (a) whether they are aware of their rights to ask for special measures, (b) whether reasonable requests for non-standard special measures are being met, and (c) the extent to which the provision of special measures actually assisted the individual in providing evidence and, if not, what lessons could be learned from this.
Under the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, the COPFS is required to take reasonable steps to enable victims and their families to avoid the accused during a trial. The Committee seeks clarification from the COPFS as to how it exercises that duty in practice and whether it makes victims and their families aware of its existence.
The Committee was concerned by evidence as to the lack of contact between victims and prosecutors during trial preparation, leading in some cases to a perception from victims that the Crown was not well prepared when it came to the trial. The Committee notes the explanation provided by the COPFS as to why, in the vast majority of cases, it is no longer considered appropriate to precognose victims and witnesses. However, the Committee also notes evidence that precognition by the Crown, amongst other things, may help evidence be agreed earlier, and thus help cases resolve more quickly, which is one of the main aims of the Evidence and Procedure Review. The Committee asks the COPFS to respond to this evidence.
Evidence received over the course of this inquiry shows a divergence between the intentions of the COPFS and the experience of many victims. Victims can be re-traumatised by what can come across as a mechanistic process that does not always appear to have their interests at heart. Victims and witnesses are sometimes made to feel like an afterthought. This is a system-wide problem but the COPFS, as the key organisation within the prosecution process, bears its share of responsibility. Any comprehensive solution must also be system-wide.
The Committee notes Dr Lesley Thomson’s Review of Victim Care in the Justice Sector in Scotland. Whilst welcoming the Review as a valuable contribution to the current debate as to how best to cater for victims within the prosecution process, the Committee considers that many of its conclusions have been voiced before but not acted upon.
The Committee requests a detailed response from the COPFS and the Scottish Government as to the main conclusions in the Review, including which recommendations they propose to accept, and what legislative reforms may be necessary in the light of this. The Committee further requests from the COPFS and Scottish Government a timetable for implementing recommendations in the Review. The Committee also seeks their views on the Review’s proposal that victims should have access to a single point of contact providing advice and support during their journey through the criminal justice process.
The Committee notes that the number of referrals to the VIA service has risen sharply (by around 45% in seven years) and that the Thomson Review estimates an additional 4000 referrals per annum in future thanks to recent legislative reforms. The Committee considers that without additional resource for VIA, there will almost certainly be adverse consequences for its ability to work effectively.
The Committee calls for the COPFS to audit the work VIA currently undertakes in order to come to a view on where the main demands on its services come from and whether there are areas of unmet need.
The Committee makes these recommendations in the context of what it recognises as an ongoing debate as to the future role of the VIA service. The Committee considers that obtaining more information on VIA’s current workload and on unmet need may help clarify next steps in relation to that debate.
The Inspectorate of Prosecutions
The Inspectorate of Prosecutions in Scotland has an important role to play in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the prosecution system and the Committee supports its work. The inquiry has laid bare the Inspectorate’s very low public profile, even amongst criminal justice stakeholders. Whilst the Inspectorate is not a public-facing complaints-handling organisation or an advocacy body, it requires the input of informed experts and stakeholders to add value to its scrutiny work.
The Committee is therefore concerned at the lack of stakeholder awareness of the Inspectorate’s output, given that its reports have touched on matters of genuine public interest.
The Committee notes the Inspectorate’s assurances that it recognises its low profile as a concern and proposes to address it. The Committee requests an update from the Inspectorate as to what work is planned and would welcome the Scottish Government’s view on what the Inspectorate proposes.
The Committee notes that it helps the Inspectorate to have ex-COPFS staff working on its investigations. They bring with them a wealth of knowledge about how the service works that is likely to add to the quality of its output. However, the Committee considers that the Inspectorate has not currently got the balance quite right. This applies particularly to the practice of recruiting most assistant inspectors from the COPFS on secondment.
The Committee notes the Inspector’s assurances that she has never been influenced to change a recommendation in her reports. However, perceptions matter, and current arrangements contribute to a perception that the Inspectorate may not be as independent from the COPFS as it was intended to be. The Committee requests the Scottish Government to reflect on these views and to respond to them.
Finally, the Committee asks the Inspector to take into account conclusions and recommendations about the COPFS made elsewhere in this report when considering her next programme of inspections.
LET’S DO JUSTICE DIFFERENTLY – JAMES WOLFFE QC
At a meeting on 17 January 2017, MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee took evidence from Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC – who told MSPs ongoing reviews suggested a “need to do criminal justice in really quite a different way”.
In the months since James Wolffe made this statement to MSPs, Wolffe has embarked on a public relations offensive in order to bring the thorny question of the removal of corroboration – a safeguard against miscarriage of justice – from Scotland’s criminal justice system – in order to secure what COPFS agents believe would be a vastly higher conviction rate – if the requirement of two independent sources of verification for evidence was dropped.
Appearing in sympathetic press, Wolffe has made known he now sides with the abolishment of corroboration and a wholesale change of the way criminal prosecutions are handled in Scotland.
However, critics say the Crown Office cannot be trusted with such radical alterations to Scots Criminal law – pointing to high levels of corruption at the Crown Office including staff who themselves hold criminal records for serious offences, and the widely known fact COPFS is heavily compromised by criminal informants, as well as legal staff who have tipped off other crooks including lawyers & financiers linked to major criminal investigations.
And – moves to drop corroboration in the past have been condemned as little more than a policy move to allow Prosecutors to make up evidence as they go along in Criminal Trials.
Legal figures from across Scotland have indicated it is their view that if corroboration were removed from the Criminal justice system, trials would be likely to see an increase in all kinds of dodgy statements & evidence used by desperate prosecutors out for a conviction at any cost.
Evidence from Police Officers too has been widely criticised by several members of the judiciary who contend officers have knowingly given false, and at times corrupt evidence in Scotland’s Sheriff and High Courts of Justiciary.
Legal insiders have since tipped off the media the Crown Office has conducted an internal consultation on how to ‘reinvigorate’ moves to abolish corroboration and return the issue to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – where MSPS previously concluded only two years ago that corroboration must remain as part of Scotland’s justice system.
The Justice Committee’s decision came from an impassioned address by Lord Brian Gill, who rightly supported the retention of corroboration as a safeguard to ensure the right to a fair trial across the spectrum of Scotland’s criminal justice system.
The Justice Committee – then under the chair of MSP Christine Grahame MSP, had previously heard from anti-corroboration protagonists Lord Carloway – who is now Scotland’s top judge, and the then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland – who Carloway has since appointed to a £180k judicial post at the Court of Session.
The Justice Committee remained unconvinced of the merits of abolishing corroboration after hearing from Carloway, Mulholland and a plethora of other groups & vested interests.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe is also facing serious questions to answer over his role in a growing scandal around cash bungs and payments to members of the Faculty of Advocates – while Wolffe was Dean of Faculty.
An investigation into the payments – which breach Faculty rules -, and evidence of alleged malpractice by the QC was covered up while Wolffe was Dean of Faculty.
Now, the case has re-entered the headlines as calls grow for a full investigation into legal regulators including Wolffe’s Faculty of Advocates – who dismissed the complaint without even looking at it.
Video footage of two appearances by Crown Office agents including the Lord Advocate – James Wolffe QC, follow:
Committee convener Margaret Mitchell said the probe had “unearthed some serious concerns”.
She said: “From the amount of time wasted through trials not proceeding on schedule, to the workload of prosecutors and the support offered to the victims and witnesses who appear at court. “The justice committee will publish its conclusions in due course, but we hope that the Lord Advocate will have listened to the legitimate concerns raised so far.”
Conservative justice spokesman Douglas Ross pressed the Lord Advocate on whether there would be “an overhaul of the justice system” in light of concerns raised.
Mr Wolffe said he acknowledged the challenges COPFS faces, saying “significant reform” was ongoing, with a process review suggesting “the need to do criminal justice in really quite a different way”.
Crown Agent David Harvie, the professional head of the service, said there was a “very strong argument for system change” within the justice system, and “a need and an opportunity for transformational change”.
Staff surveys have noted that 40% of Crown Office staff don’t wish to stay in the service in the long term – although Mr Wolffe argued that this is “considerably higher” than the average in the civil service, saying things were moving in the right direction. He also argued that there should be no lack of confidence in the fundamental work of COPFS, with a conviction rate of 80% in cases prosecuted.
Mr Harvie said the “vast majority” of individuals were provided with a good service, although he said he “accepts and regrets” that some had been failed.
In response to further questions about staff issues, Mr Wolffe said “we are not complacent about it”, but added that “there is encouragement to be taken” from staff surveys. He said the service had “come a remarkable distance” in his lifetime, from a position where the criminal justice system paid no regard to the needs of witnesses.
The Lord Advocate highlighted communication and support for victims and vulnerable witnesses as a particular area of focus for ongoing improvements, with ambition to deal with evidence from children and vulnerable people in a different way.
Ms Mitchell said there was a “fundamental problem” over communications with victims of sexual assault in particular, with Mr Harvie agreeing this was an issue worthy of “significant reflection” and further work.
Under the current budget draft, the Crown Office budget is maintained in cash terms, which equates to a real-terms cut.
Mr Harvie told members that £1.5m of savings had been targeted, with half of the sum coming from staff costs.
He said “probably around 30” jobs would be cut, by not replacing staff who leave or retire. The other half of the savings will come from areas like expert witness costs and pathology, although Mr Harvie conceded there was a “risk” that some could also come from staffing – albeit “not a significant risk”.
Mr Wolffe previously appeared at Holyrood to give evidence about the draft budget, at which point he argued the Crown Office had adequate resources to fulfil its role.
Concluding MSPs probe of the Crown Office, Justice Committee convener Margaret Mitchell said: “An effective Crown Office is fundamental to an effective criminal justice system in Scotland.The committee heard many concerns during our inquiry. Across the board, witnesses identified possible improvements which could be made to how COPFS works – and better-serve justice and the public. These findings must be taken into account by COPFS management and the Scottish government.”
Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC said: “It is gratifying that the committee has concluded that COPFS is an effective, rigorous, fair and independent public prosecutor.It states that, in general, the public in Scotland is fundamentally well-served by the COPFS in that core role. That is, in large part, a tribute to the professionalism and commitment of the staff of the service. The committee has made a number of recommendations and I will wish to take time to reflect on all of those recommendations.”
Have a problem with the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service? Tips to tell on cases, prosecutions or presentation of dodgy evidence? Tell us more about it in confidence,by email to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Lord Carloway – offer to give evidence accepted by MSPs. SCOTLAND’S top judge is set to appear before the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee after MSPs accepted an offer he made to give evidence in connection with calls to create a register of judicial interests contained in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.
Lord President Lord Carloway – who earns £220,655 a year and counts among his titles that of “Lord Justice General” as head of Scotland’s judiciary – made the offer in a detailed letter offering some concessions to MSPs which has now been published by the Scottish Parliament.
In his letter to MSPs, Lord Carloway said: “I indicated in previous correspondence that I felt I could add little more to the views previously expressed. That remains my view. However, if the Committee wishes me to provide this evidence orally, I will do so.”
However, while Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) gave concessions to calls for expanding an existing “register of recusals” in which judges are now required to publish details of cases in which they step aside, the top judge maintained his grim opposition to judicial transparency and the creation of a register of judges’ interests for members of Scotland’s elite, wealthy judiciary.
Carloway’s offer to give evidence was further welcomed by Angus MacDonald MSP (SNP, Falkirk East) – who proposed taking up Lord Carloway’s offer to give evidence to the long running, and widely supported proposal to create a register of judicial interests.
Mr MacDonald said: “I have followed this petition from day 1 – I think that it was lodged in December 2012 – and have deliberated on it for more than four years. It is encouraging and refreshing to note that the Lord President has offered to provide oral evidence to the committee, given the difficulties that we had with arranging for the previous Lord President to give evidence to us. We should take up Lord Carloway’s offer.”
Members of the Committee unanimously backed Mr MacDonald’s proposal to call in the top judge.
The Public Petitions Committee has since indicated an invitation will be issued to Lord Carloway to attend a future hearing to give evidence.
At the same meeting, the Committee Convener Johann Lamont MSP (Scottish Labour, Glasgow) informed members the Committee had received a request from former Cabinet Secretary Alex Neil MSP (SNP, Airdrie & Shotts) to appear before the Committee.
Ms Lamont and members of the Committee backed the request from Alex Neil, who will join the hearing when Lord Carloway attends the Petitions Committee at a date to be decided.
The proposal to bring greater transparency to Scotland’s judiciary – Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary – first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.
The meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee is reported, with video footage here:
The Convener: The next petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, which calls for the introduction of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. When we last considered the petition, we agreed to seek further information from the Lord President and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. Responses have been received from both and we also have submissions from the petitioner and a member of the public, Melanie Collins.
Members will recall that, when we wrote to the Lord President, we repeated our invitation to him to provide oral evidence, which he has now indicated that he would be willing to do. We express our gratitude for that.
Do members have any comments on further action to take on the petition?
Brian Whittle: I am glad that the Lord President has agreed to give evidence. That seems like what we should do next.
Angus MacDonald: I have followed this petition from day 1—I think that it was lodged in December 2012—and have deliberated on it for more than four years. It is encouraging and refreshing to note that the Lord President has offered to provide oral evidence to the committee, given the difficulties that we had with arranging for the previous Lord President to give evidence to us. We should take up Lord Carloway’s offer.
The Convener: We should also note that Alex Neil MSP has expressed an interest in speaking to this petition but is unable to be here today. It might be that he could attend the meeting with the Lord President. Angus MacDonald is right that this is a step forward.
Do we agree to invite the Lord President to give evidence at a future meeting, and see what comes out of that?
Members indicated agreement.
Lord Carloway’s impending attendance at the Public Petitions Committee was featured in “The National” newspaper.
The report also carried concerns from members of the legal profession they may be next in having to fill out registers of interest for clients to inspect.
SCOTLAND’S most senior judge Lord Carloway, the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General, is to be quizzed in public by MSPs for the first time on the issue of a register of interests for judges.
The head of the Scottish judiciary will appear at a future meeting of the Public Petitions Committee which has been investigating the matter since December 2012 after legal campaigner Peter Cherbi called for a public register of judges’ interests.
Also appearing before the committee will be Alex Neil MSP, the former Scottish Government minister who recently told The National: “I don’t see why judges should be operating to a standard that’s inferior to that which MSPs have to follow.”
Previous Lord President Lord Gill refused to appear in public before the committee, but did give evidence later, arguing against a register.
At the latest committee meeting, deputy convener Angus MacDonald, SNP MSP for Falkirk East, said: “Having followed this petition from day one and having deliberated on it for over four years, it’s encouraging and refreshing to know that the Lord President has offered to provide oral evidence to the committee, given the difficulties that we had with the previous Lord President.”
The National understands the main fear among senior legal figures is that the register would eventually be extended to advocates and possibly even solicitors, and that judges would also have to declare their shareholdings in companies, thereby indicating their personal wealth.
In a letter to the committee, Lord Carloway stated: “One possible inhibitory effect on the administration of justice is that judges may start to decline positions on important public bodies such as these if that requires the disclosure of financial interests.
“In the same way, a register of judicial interests may have a damaging effect on judicial recruitment. You may be aware that, partly because of major changes to pension arrangements, difficulties have arisen in the recruitment of the senior judiciary. Revealing personal financial information is likely to act as a further powerful disincentive.”
He added: “I am concerned that, at a time when online fraud is becoming increasingly sophisticated, a dissatisfied litigant, or a convicted person, may choose to retaliate by these means. A register of judicial interests may provide a starting point for that.”
However, the official Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Gillian Thompson, wrote to the committee saying: “I recognise that every judicial decision leaves a party that is dissatisfied and that a complainant may feel he or she did not get a fair hearing because the decision went against them.
“Although I have no evidence to support my view I do believe that if court users felt that judges were transparent in their publication of interests there might be a drop in such complaints.”
Petitioner Peter Cherbi said: “I am delighted MSPs have taken up Lord Carloway’s offer to give evidence on the widely supported proposal to create a register of judicial interests.
“As the Petitions Committee have also decided to invite Alex Neil MSP to the same meeting, I am hopeful of significant lines of questions being put to the Lord President on failures within the judiciary to recuse themselves and declare interests when it counts in court.
“Perhaps, if Lord Carloway realised the extent of support for the register, and the public’s expectation of transparency within the judiciary as well as all other branches of government, he will do the right thing and create the register of interests using his power as Lord President, giving Scotland a chance to teach the rest of the UK a thing or two in judicial transparency and declarations of interest.”
SCOTLAND’s top judge has said he will strengthen the rules on judicial ethics amid concerns over the system for declaring conflicts of interest.
Lord Carloway has agreed that publishing details of when judges and sheriffs have declined to “recuse” themselves [stand down] from cases may provide “additional transparency”.
However, he has stopped short of supporting a full register of interest on the grounds that criminals could use the information to target his colleagues.
Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee has for four years been considering whether judicial office holders should be compelled to publish details of their outside interests.
Under the plan, judges would be required to declare details of shareholdings, directorships and membership of bodies.
The previous Lord President, Lord Gill, was against the proposals as he feared judges’ privacy could be compromised by “aggressive media or hostile individuals including dissatisfied litigants”.
He also initially refused to give oral evidence in front of MSPs – citing a legal exemption – before eventually appearing after he left office.
However, on Gill’s watch, the Judicial Office for Scotland (JOFS) introduced a register of recusals which reveals when judges and sheriffs came off a case due to a potential conflict of interest.
Since 2014, there have been over 70 instances declared on the JOFS website, but campaigners believe the disclosure requirements do not go far enough and want a mandatory register of interest.
In a letter to the Public Petitions committee, Carloway has signalled he will beef up the register: “I would have no difficulty with the proposition that the register of recusals could be extended to cover instances when a judge has recused himself, and when he has declined to do so. The additional burden, which will fall upon the clerks of court, should not be great, and I agree that this may provide additional transparency.”
He has also agreed to provide oral evidence to MSPs, if they still feel it is necessary, but he stepped up his criticism of a register of interest.
He wrote: “All senators and all sheriffs exercise a civil and criminal jurisdiction. I am concerned that, at a time when online fraud is becoming increasingly sophisticated, a dissatisfied litigant, or a convicted person, may choose to retaliate by these means. A register of judicial interests may provide a starting point for that.”
He added: “One possible inhibitory effect on the administration of justice is that judges may start to decline positions on important public bodies such as these, if that requires the disclosure of financial interests. In the same way, a register of judicial interests may have a damaging effect on judicial recruitment.”
Peter Cherbi, the campaigner who introduced the petition to Holyrood, said: “I welcome Lord Carloway’s agreement to my earlier suggestions to MSPs to include further details on recusals and whether a judge recuses themselves or not.”
However, he added: “A register of interest for Scotland’s judges would be a significant step forward in helping court users and legal teams ensure fair hearings of cases in our justice system. Lord Carloway could take the next step and authorise the creation of such a register.”
Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw said: “It seems that the judiciary may now be ready to respond to the calls made for some time and come into line with other elements of public life when it comes to declaring interests. It’s a move that’s been resisted for too long, and people are growing impatient about the ongoing prevarication.
“We want Scotland to be as transparent a place as possible and, while progress has been made in areas like politics, it’s essential that is matched elsewhere.”
A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: “The Lord President intends to amend the register of recusals to include details of cases where a judge has declined to recuse, and this change will be implemented as soon as the necessary guidance is drafted and issued”.
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Herald and Sunday Mail newspapers, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.
An investigation by the Sunday Mail newspaper has revealed John Campbell QC (67) of Hastie Stable & Trinity Chambers – sent emails to his clients demanding the cash be handed over “in any form except beads” to pay for legal services provided to his client – the well respected former National Hunt jockey & trainer – Donal Nolan.
Campbell QC then collected the cash stuffed envelopes from clients in locations such as restaurants, a garage specialising in servicing Bentley cars, and on a site at Branchal in Wishaw.
The Branchal site became the subject of a court case against Advance Construction Ltd – who later admitted in court they dumped highly contaminated material at the North Lanarkshire site.
John Campbell QC emailed his demands for cash. “I’m writing to confirm that we agreed at our meeting on Friday that we will meet in Dalkeith on TUESDAY morning, when you will give me £5000 towards the fees of your legal team” … “Please let me know if it’s OK to meet at the Mulsanne Garage, which is at 137 High Street, and what time would suit you?”
The reference to the “legal team” within Campbell’s email confirms other legal figures who were part of the same team received payments from the cash collected directly by Campbell.
One member of that team is ad-hoc Advocate Craig Murray – of Compass Chambers. Murray has previously refused to answer any questions on his role, or disclose how much cash he received from John Campbell.
Another email from Campbell QC to his clients, seeking another £5K – reads: “Tomorrow, I am looking forward to a serious talk with you and John, but I need to collect £5000 from you, in any form (except beads!)”
However, the demands for cash payments by the QC are a direct breach of rules of the Faculty of Advocates who forbid their members from demanding cash and bungs for legal services – even though the practice is well known to occur in both criminal and civil cases.
Section 9.9 of the Faculty of Advocate’s Code of Conduct states: “Counsel should not under any circumstances whatever discuss or negotiate fees with or receive fees directly from the lay client.”
Further rules from the Code of Conduct state clearly that fees to QCs and Advocates acting as counsel can only be collected by solicitors, and then paid over to clerks and Faculty Services.
“Normally Counsel’s fees are negotiated between the clerk and the solicitor. All fees should be paid to Counsel’s clerk.”
Additional guidance designed to cover over any direct payments ‘collected’ by Advocates states: “If any fee happens to be paid direct to Counsel, Counsel must account for it forthwith to his or her clerk.”
However, an ongoing investigation into a series of invoices issued by the Faculty of Advocates has since revealed at least one of the invoices – which had no date – was sent to the client’s solicitor.
The move by the Faculty to issue an undated invoice is now subject to allegations this is an attempt to cover up the dates of a cash collections by John Campbell.
It can also be revealed some of the payments to Campbell in cheque form were made out to to Oracle – a firm founded and co-owned by John Campbell QC and John Carruthers.
Mr Campbell and solicitor advocate John Carruthers set up Oracle Chambers in the mid 2000’s in order to create – as they claimed at the time – “a more modern, commercially responsive organisation” than they felt was provided by Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Faculty of Advocates.
Former Cabinet Minister Alex Neil MSP (SNP Airdrie and Shotts) – who is backing his constituents in their quest to obtain justice, has now called for a full probe into the allegations against Campbell.
The Sunday Mail Investigation report on John Campbell QC:
A couple claim one of Scotland’s leading QCs breached strict guidelines and asked for legal fees to be paid direct to him in cash.
Melanie Collins and partner Donal Nolan said they made the unusual payment after John Campbell told them he needed “£5000 from you in any form”.
Melanie said she and a friend met Campbell, who once represented Donald Trump’s Scottish business, in a restaurant in Dalkeith where she handed over the sum in banknotes.
She said she paid the QC – one of Scotland’s top planning law experts – three further sums of £5000 in cash at other meetings.
The method of payment is a breach of strict guidelines issued by the Faculty of Advocates – the professional body all advocates and QCs belong to.
The couple’s MSP last week called for a probe into the payments.
Campbell wrote in an email to Melanie on October 10, 2012: “Tomorrow, I am looking forward to a serious talk with you and John but I need to collect £5000 from you in any form.”
The man referred to is solicitor advocate John Carruthers, who assisted in the case.
Four days later, Melanie received another email from Campbell which said: “I’m writing to confirm that we agreed at our meeting on Friday that we will meet at Dalkeith on Tuesday morning when you will give me £5000 towards the fees of your legal team.”
Melanie, 62, a former land developer, of Bonkle, Lanarkshire, said: “I and a friend met with Mr Campbell at a restaurant in Dalkeith where I gave him an envelope containing £5000.
“There were three other occasions when I paid him £5000 cash in envelopes.
“One was at the Dakota hotel in Lanarkshire, one was at my home in Bonkle and one was a site in Cambusnethan in Wishaw relating to the court case. Looking back it might seem odd – but I had never had any dealings with a QC before and just assumed this was the way they worked.
“I paid two further cheques, one to Mr Campbell and one to a law firm, of £5000 and £4000. The total was £29,000.”
The payments related to a civil case Donal initially planned against a construction firm in 2011. The case was heard at the Court of Session in 2013.
Melanie said: “We won the case but were awarded £20,000. Our total legal fees were in the hundreds of thousands.”
She reported the cash payments claims to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in 2014.
The SLCC said at the time: “The complaint has been considered carefully by the SLCC. It has been decided … will not be investigated as it has not been made within time limits, for the reasons set out in the attached determination.”
The couple’s MSP, Alex Neil, the SNP member for Airdrie and Shotts, said: “All these allegations have to be investigated.
“If there has been malpractice at any stage this has to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Donal and Melanie’s problem up until now is that they’ve not been listened to when they have made the complaints.”
The SLCC could not be contacted for comment.
The Faculty of Advocates’ guide to conduct states: “Counsel should not under any circumstances whatever discuss or negotiate fees with or receive fees directly from the lay client.”
Their disciplinary tribunal can hand out fines of up to £15,000. A member can also be suspended or expelled from the faculty.
The Faculty of Advocates refused to comment last week.
Campbell, 67, said: “I have no comment to make.”
FEATURE:
John Campbell QC:
The case in which Campbell represented Mr Nolan is that of Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd, a high value damages claim in the Court of Session.
A media investigation recently revealed Inner House judge Lord Malcolm (Colin Malcolm Campbell) sat on the case no less than eight times while his son held an interest and represented the defenders – Advance Construction Ltd.
There is no recorded recusal by Lord Malcolm in the case, even though he stood aside during 2012 after he ‘realised’ his son may have been a ‘potential witness’.
Court papers obtained by journalists have since revealed alarming inconsistencies in hearings which cast doubt on the conduct of legal figures in the case – spanning eight Court of Session judges – one (Lord Malcolm) a member of the privy Council, several Sheriffs, high profile QCs and Levy & Mcrae – the Glasgow law firm now subject to multi million pound writs in connection with the £400million collapse of a Gibraltar based hedge fund – Heather Capital.
At the time the case began, during late 2011, Advance Construction Ltd were represented by a judge – the now suspended Sheriff Peter Black Watson, and the son of a judge – Ewen Campbell – who both worked for Levy & Mcrae.
It was only discovered well into hearings in the case that Ewen Campbell was the son of the judge Lord Malcolm, who sat on the case a total of eight times, and unprecedently returned to the case after stepping aside, to hand over £5K lodged by a third party for an appeal.
And, it can be revealed a recent key ruling in the Court of Session delivered by the same Lord Malcolm – scrapped a 30 year policy of regulating service & conduct complaints against members of the legal profession by the Law Society of Scotland & post 2008 – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).
Among the complaints to be taken advantage of by Lord Malcolm’s ruling and subsequently closed by the SLCC was the complaint against John Campbell QC – which included evidence presented to investigators in relation to Campbell’s demands for cash payments.
The complaint against Campbell also included allegations and evidence in relation the QC’s conduct and service in the proof heard by Commercial judge Lord Woolman.
During the second last day of the proof, Lord Woolman stated the pursuer – Mr Nolan – had a claim as the he had lost the use of his gallop and grazing.
Campbell then acted on his own – and significantly altered Mr Nolan’s claim in the Court of Session – removing Mr Nolan’s £4m head of claim. Unusually, John Campbell also removed a claim for legal and professional expenses.
There is no trace of any legal instruction from Mr Nolan to undertake this course of action in court, nor was there any consultation with Mr Nolan’s solicitor – who would have to had provided Mr Nolan with legal advice in relation to any proposed alteration of the claim by John Campbell QC. Similarly there is no trail of any communications between Mr Nolan’s solicitor, the Edinburgh Agents and Mr Campbell.
When a complaint against John Campbell QC was lodged with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, enquiries established the legal regulator heavily relied on a letter from Craig Murray to exonerate the aging QC.
However, enquiries by journalists have established two versions of Craig Murray’s letter now exist. Both versions of the same letter were used by legal regulators to exonerate Mr Campbell from investigations by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Faculty of Advocates.
Refusals by Murray to clarify the two separate versions of his letter have raised questions and concerns over his status as a prosecutor working for the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), amid claims he enjoys success prosecuting criminal trials in the High Court of Justiciary.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe has yet to act on the allegations involving Campbell and Murray.
James Wolffe is now caught in a conflict of interest situation given his role in the matter of the Faculty of Advocate’s investigation of Campbell and their failure to act after evidence of the cash demands were presented during Wolffe’s time as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.
Investigations into the case are set to continue amid growing calls for a full probe of Mr Campbell’s activities, and demands for Lord Carloway to act to preserve public confidence in the judicial and legal system in relation to decisions taken by members of the judiciary and certain events which took place in the Court of Session.
Has your solicitor, advocate or QC demanded cash payments from you at any stage of a civil or criminal case? Tell us more about it in confidence, by email to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Have a tip or a story about a lawyer, a judge, the legal profession, Judiciary, Crown Office, a Court case, issues of Justice or Injustice, information on corruption in public bodies, politics & Government?
Contact the Diary of Injustice team. Send news & items for investigation & publication to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Exclusive Report: Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper reveal Prosecutors based at Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have been charged with a string of criminal offences over crimes ranging from violence to misuse of drugs, making threats and offences against Police Officers.
The top judge claimed justice could grind to a halt in a constitutional calamity if judges were forced to declare their vast wealth, property owning interests, professional links and other financial affairs – just like politicians, members of public bodies, local councillors are required to reveal. Read more here:LORD NO-WAY: Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal
Crime Flies Crown
Exclusive Report Exclusive Report: Prosecutors based in Edinburgh at the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) - are now spending as much time in the air jetting between international destinations than chasing some of Scotland’s biggest crooks, tax dodgers, gangsters & serial offenders.
Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper show Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland and his team of staff jetting off to 39 international destinations including Hong Kong, Mauritius, Taiwan South Africa, Australia, Malta, San Francisco, and New York – all visited by Crown Office employees on taxpayer funded air junkets. Read more here: CRIME FLIES: Crown Office jet set junket racket
The proposals, backed by cross party MSPs during a debate in the Parliament’s main chamber on 9 October 2014 - Debating the Judges - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
The documents, released to Justice Diary – reveal the latest lists of shareholdings & interests of Scotland’s top judges - who are fighting to prevent the public from scrutinising their hidden wealth.
Need a Lawyer?
Yes, sometimes we all need a lawyer. Whether the reason is criminal defence or civil law & litigation, or help against injustice, an unaccountable judiciary, adversarial institutions & public bodies or challenging poor legislation, there are always some things which can be done much better with a lawyer, than without.
But, be careful where you tread. Think first, before you spend your assets on the legal profession, unless you have clear goals, a time line to stick to, and make sure your solicitor plays by the rules as much as you should adhere to in your dealings with the justice system and your legal representatives.
With no gain or favour in mind, and under strict rules of no interference with solicitor-client relationships once established, Diary of Injustice & Scottish Law Reporters can occasionally recommend legal representatives to those in need of assistance with the law, legal aid, and defence in times of justice & injustice.
To find out more, or to state your case, provide details in confidence and ask for a legal agent, email scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Trust a Lawyer?
Media Report: RESEARCH conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – the body charged with investigating solicitors in England & Wales, shows there is strong support in the rest of the UK for a move to make the SRA fully independent of the Law Society of England & Wales. Unlike Scotland, where the Law Society of Scotland ‘fronted’ regulation model – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) – continues to be driven by former Law Society staff - the English based Solicitors Regulation Authority wants a complete break from the over arching power & influence of the legal profession’s representative body – to enable it to conduct fully independent regulation of legal practitioners. Read More here:A QUESTION OF TRUST: Should solicitors be independently regulated? UK public say “Yes”.
Crime Society
Crime Society: The powerful Law Society of Scotland – the lawyer’s trade union body which controls self regulation of Scottish solicitors – is facing calls to be stripped of any role in regulating the legal profession.
The Scottish Sun’s The Big Read: Law and disorder reports: CRITICS are calling for an end to the secretive “old boys’ club” which sees Scots lawyers police themselves. It took the Law Society of Scotland four years to give police details of its probe into an alleged mortgage fraud linked to solicitor Christopher Hales and MP Michelle Thomson. But legal experts insist this would not have happened if we had the same system of outside supervision that operates down south.
To be the Judge
The Big Read:The Scottish Sun investigatesthe selection of Scotland’s most senior judge. The position of Lord President – with a salary of £220,655 a year, including perks, international travel and unrivalled power to challenge even the Scottish Parliament - is responsible for leadership of the entire Scottish judiciary in addition to chairing the Board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Lord President is the most senior judge in Scotland, with authority over any court established under Scots law, apart from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
In response to questions from MSPs, JCR Gillian Thompson said: “I do not see that there is a reasonable argument to be made against people who are in public service—I might go further and say, in particular, people who are paid by the public pound—providing information, within reason, about their other activities.” Facing further detailed questions from the committee, JCR Gillian Thompson remained of the view judges should declare their interests including business activities, shareholdings and more – in a publicly available register of judicial interests.
The top judge came unstuck after he opposed the declaration of judicial interests, wealth & connections to big business. Prior to retirement, Gill waged a bitter two year battle with Scottish Parliament MSPs who are investigating proposals to create a register of judicial interests.
Media Report: Aninvestigation has revealedParliament House – the seat of power for Scotland’s judiciary and the nation’s highest, most expensive, elusive and pro-big business courts – has been lost to Edinburgh City Council after it was revealed Scottish Ministers gifted the land titles to the Faculty of Advocates after a £58m public funded refit of the sprawling court complex. Media attention to the land grab and questions in the Scottish Parliament have prompted Edinburgh City Council to demand the courts be returned to public ownership.
In a speech to the Commonwealth Law Conference 2015 in Glasgow, Lord Gill went on to joke about protesters being lucky they are not dragged away by Police. Gill took further shots at politics, judicial independence and democracy before fleeing the legal gathering with Lord Neuberger and other judges after they learned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was booked to speak at the event.
Judging the Judges
Media report: Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), Moi Ali has published her final and highly critical Report of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer 2013-2014 on how judges handle complaints against other judges. The stinging attack on Scotland’s judiciary, reported here: Judging the Judges reveals details of allegations against judges including alleged racial bigotry, bullying, lying, omitting details from records, conflicts of interest, and even making secret recordings of meetings.
Register for Judges
Media ReportMSPs overwhelmingly supported a petition urging the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges. The 90 minute debate, held on Thursday 09 October 2014 in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber saw msps round on secretive judges who refuse to disclose their hidden wealth, secret links to big business & even criminal records. Read more about the proposals for judicial transparency put forward in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and watch video clips of MSPs debating a judicial interests register at InjusticeTV
Bank of Legal Aid
Revealed: TIMES ARE TOUGH but not for Scotland’s legal profession as it was revealed the Scottish Legal Aid Board handed over more than One Billion Pounds of public money to lawyers since the 2008 financial market crash. The Billion pound Bank of Scottish Legal Aid is there to help out Scotland’s ‘struggling’ lawyers looking for a second car, fishing rights, sending kids to posh private schools, or a third buy-to-let property.
Judge Air Miles
Exclusive Report: JET-SETTING judges spent £26,000 of taxpayers' cash on overseas trips last year, a Scottish Sun on Sunday investigation can reveal. Top beaks flew out to destinations including Russia, Israel, Switzerland, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Qatar. The most expensive was a £5,800 trip to Canada by Scotland's second most senior judge, Lord Carloway. Lord Gill - who is the Lord President - also spent five days on a £2,800 trip to Doha, Qatar, where he gave speech on judicial ethics.
Judge Rich List
Exclusive Report: DISCLOSURES of judges personal shareholdings obtained under Freedom of Information legislation from the Scottish Court Service reveal a startling snapshot of the wealth of several key members of Scotland’s judiciary who sit on a powerful quango which controls Scotland’s courts. The declarations of the seven judicial members of the Scottish Court Service Board – including Scotland's top judge, the Lord President & Lord Justice General Brian Gill who earns £220K a year - reveal judges benefit financially from shareholdings in companies who provide services to the courts & justice system, companies convicted of criminal offences & involvement in ‘industrial’ espionage against China, banks fined for international financial market manipulation, and companies involved in bribes, bid rigging, and tax dodging.
Judge Recused
Exclusive Report: SCOTLAND’S top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill has been forced to stand aside from hearing an unidentified case in the Court of Session because a relative who turned out to be Brian Gill jr, one of Lord Gill’s sons, represented a party involved in the court action which court officials are keeping secret.
Investing Judges
Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Scottish Sun on Sunday newspaper has revealed a top judge holds shares in a firm hit with a £13.9million proceeds-of-crime bill for bribing Saddam Hussein's regime,The Scottish Sun on Sunday can reveal. Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop 62, has a stake in Glasgow based Weir Group, hammered in 2011 for paying kickbacks to land contracts in Iraq. He also has shares in mining giant Rio Tinto, whose executives admitted bribery in China four years ago. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Benched Judges
Exclusive Report: The Sunday Mail newspaper reports Scotland's judges are coming clean when they have to step away from court cases because of a conflict of interests. Scotland’s top judge has decided that for the first time the public can see online why judges and sheriffs have stood down from hearing criminal trials and civil actions. It comes after the Sunday Mail told of MSPs' anger that the Lord President Lord Gill had dismissed calls for a judicial register of interests and snubbed invitations to discuss his position at a Holyrood committee, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Judges Revealed
Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Sunday Herald newspaper reveals a senior sheriff presided over a court hearing involving Tesco at the same time as he held shares in the multi-national supermarket giant. Sheriff Principal Dunlop QC did not absent himself because having shares in a company that is party to a court action does not require a member of the judiciary to step down from a case. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Private Judge
Media Report: Top judge Lord Gill met petitions committee members behind closed doors to discuss Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and conflict of interests, but no minutes were taken. The Sunday Mail reports Scotland’s top judge met two MSPs in private after twice snubbing requests to give evidence in front of their committee. The judge is opposed to the transparency call and has previously refused invitations to attend the Scottish Parliament and face questions in public on his opposition to judicial transparency and the creation of a register of judicial interests. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Media Editorial: The Sunday Herald newspaper says in an editorial Judges should not be above scrutiny. The Lord President, who is the country's top judge, is against requiring his colleagues to list their financial interests (as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary) but he seems to have recognised political concerns about a lack of transparency.To this end, he is investigating the possibility of compiling a register of "recusals", which means examples of judges ceasing an interest in a court case due to a perceived conflict. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Judge fears register
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Scotland’s top judge Lord Brian Gill has twice refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to answer questions on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. Fearing transparency, Lord Gill is hostile to plans to ask judges to declare their interests in a statutory register of interests, fearing openness will reveal judges who own hidden undeclared wealth, offshore investments, have undeclared paid relationships with law firms & big business, and also reveal judges who have criminal records. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
No Justice unseen
Media Editorial: The Sunday Mail newspaper says Senior judge's refusal to give evidence to MSPs shows a lack of transparency, says Mail Opinion on calls for judicial transparency in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. It was an opportunity for Scotland’s top judge to go to Parliament and talk about how our legal system works and might work better. It would have added, as the public relations executives and politicians like to say, a little transparency. Instead, his refusal has only hardened the suspicion that our judges live and work in a bubble smelling of horse hair wigs, vintage port and even more vintage attitudes. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Guilty Judges
NEWS SPECIAL: Coverage of the Annual Report 2012-2013 of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer reveals Scottish judges are slammed for secrecy, anti-transparency views & how they investigate complaints against other judges.Moi Ali, appointed by the SNP’s Justice Secretary as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewersaid: “I think fundamentally the problem is the legislation. “The way it’s created, it’s about self- regulation so you have judges judging judges’ conduct. There isn’t really an independent element.”. Read more HERE
Judicial Snub
Exclusive Report : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill refuses to attend Scottish Parliament to give evidence and explain his opposition to Petition PE1458: A Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. MSPs expected the £214,000-a-year judge to appear in person to explain why he was opposed to the transparency motion. But the 71 year-old rejected their request, insisting he had given a full written response and had nothing more to add
Judicial Complaints
REVEALED : Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer gave evidence to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament stating her office has no powers to properly investigate complaints against Scottish judges and that the judicial office regularly block access to files and information relating to complaints. In England & Wales, it is done very differently. Read more HERE
Investigate Judges
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Scotland’s judiciary are refusing to cooperate with the independently appointed Judicial Complaints Reviewer over complaints made against Scottish judges. Scotland’s top judge also stands accused of regularly blocking independent access to key documents relating to allegations made against judges. Read more HERE
Pleading Judge
Exclusive Report : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill claims judges are exempt from declaring their full financial & other interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary A register could be created by the Scottish Parliament or by the Judicial Office for Scotland, which incorporates the Lord President’s office. Typically, such registers reveal details of hospitality, gifts, property ownership, shareholdings and personal or financial connections to outside organisations.
Criminal Judges
If you think Scotland's judges are honest, think again. An investigation reveals the true extent of their undeclared finances & interests. Read more HERE. Investigations have revealed Scotland's Judges have secret criminal records, massive wealth, unchecked influence, & murky investments along with connections to offshore tax havens, all of which go undeclared as there is no register of interests for the judiciary.
Travelling Judges
Exclusive Report: Scotland's judges have racked up thousands of air miles on overseas trips, including jaunts to the US, India, Morocco and Malaysia. Taxpayers paid £83,644 to send judges and sheriffs and their partners around the world in the past three years revealed in this document. The Lord President also travels to Taiwan, South Africa & other countries yet refuses to travel 700m to the Scottish Parliament to face MSPs questions about judges’ secret undeclared interests.
EU Justice Report
A MUST READ REPORT by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals the Scottish justice system as the most unproductive, yet most expensive in the entire European Union. Scottish lawyers take tens of millions more in legal aid representing a population of 5 million than Italian lawyers who serve a population of 60 million. The report also reveals Scots judges are paid the highest in Europe, Scottish Sheriffs taking home an average taxpayer funded salary of £120K plus, while others in Scotland’s judiciary are paid £200K plus expenses.
Justice in Dock
Exclusive Report : A report published by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals Scottish lawyers take home a lavish £161million in legal aid payments on a tiny client base compared to other EU countries’ lawyers. The EU REPORT also shows that Scotland disciplines a tiny number of lawyers compared to countries of similar size, and that Scotland’s sheriffs & judges top the EU pay league. A large proportion of alleged criminals reported to prosecutors in Scotland are also escaping justice while lawyers scoop up legal aid fees for dealing with cases which never make it to court.
Civil Courts Review
The Scottish Civil Courts Review of 2009 authored by the then Lord Justice Clerk, now Lord President Lord Brian Gill, castigated Scotland’s Civil Justice System as being Victorian, costly, and unfit for purpose, yet years on from the review, little of the proposed reforms have been implemented due to pressure from vested interests in the legal world, and a lack of political will to deliver access to justice to all Scots.
The ‘independent’ lawyer run Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has lurched from scandal to scandal, and proved to be even worse at regulating complaints against Scottish solicitors than the Law Society of Scotland. Clients of Scottish solicitors who are forced to make complaints to the SLCC should read our previous reports on how the anti-client regulator may treat their case.
MasterPolicy Report
Exclusive Report: A Research Report from the University of Manchester School of Law, commissioned by the SLCC on the Law Society of Scotland’s two discredited client compensation schemes, the Master Insurance Policy & Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund reveals the extent of suicides, illness, broken families and financial ruin among clients who fall victim to rogue solicitors and attempt financial claims in order to recover funds & assets embezzled or stolen by their lawyers. The research report concludes the Law Society's Master Policy is set up “to allow solicitors to sleep at night”, so they can go on to ruin other unsuspecting clients. Read the full shocking story HERE
Name & Shame
If you are making a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates about your solicitor or legal representatives, one of the best things you can do is tell the media about it & name your crooked lawyer.
Send your complaint details to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com and get some publicity on your side to protect you and others from rogue lawyers.
Suspended at large
Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed twice suspended but still working as a solicitor John G O'Donnell has impersonated a deceased lawyer as part of an elaborate fraud, while staff at the law firm he worked at said nothing to clients. The Law Society of Scotland did nothing to prevent O’Donnell continuing his reign of scams against clients even after he was twice suspended & made bankrupt. O’Donnell was only found out after one of his clients, saw his photograph in an earlier Sunday Mail newspaper investigation..
Citizens Advice ?
Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed a lawyer who works for the Citizens Advice Bureau is being probed after it’s claimed he targeted vulnerable clients for a crooked legal firm. A client involved in a rent dispute turned to CAB lawyer Gilbert Anderson, who is based at Hamilton Sheriff Court on a taxpayer funded salary. But the ex-Royal Marine sent the client and a friend into the clutches of twice suspended solicitor John G O'Donnell , who does not have a practicing certificate.
If YOU believe YOUR LAWYER is committing legal aid fraud or is breaking the law, read more HERE and tell your story to us at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Legal Aid Claims
Read more about how one Kilmarnock lawyer Niels S Lockhart walked off with well over HALF A MILLIONPOUNDS of YOURLEGAL AID MONEY in TWO YEARS and escaped prosecution after an investigation by the Scottish Legal Aid Board found evidence of dodgy claims. Dirty deals between the Law Society of Scotland and the secretive Legal Defence Union let him off the hook while his clients ended up ruined.
If YOU suspect YOUR lawyer is doing the same to you and your legal aid case is going nowhere, tell us at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Crown Office
An investigation reveals Scotland’s Prosecutors have been caught up in their own BONUS CULTURE where fat cash hand-outs at the end of the year worth tens of thousands of pounds and sly Press Releases short on facts seem to be more important than catching real crooks and delivering on protecting the Scots public.
One of Scotland’s most famous Crooked Lawyers, Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso in the Scottish Borders. Read the MEDIA COVERAGE of the case, details which the Law Society of Scotland and several Edinburgh law firms tried to bury.
If you have a similar experience with Stormonth Darling Solicitors, or any other corrupt law firm, we want to hear about it at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
McKenzie Friends
Click on the Saltire to read more about the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts.
