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.
Richard Dennis, Kenneth Pattullo face probe. AN ONGOING probeof a case linked to Scotland’s top judge Lord Carloway – has revealed a Trustee acting in a sequestration of a couple who won a court action – relied on his appointment on the basis of a typo in a court document – to go on to strip the couple of all their assets.
And – files now reveal Kenneth Pattullo was paid £20,000 by offshore vulture fund Promontoria – to sell off a firebombed farm and home belonging to a couple who initially won the Court of Session case then lost out when their counsel – John Campbell QC deliberately removed most of their claim after Lord Woolman said Mr Nolan had a case against the building company – Advance Construction Scotland Ltd .
In documents now disclosed to journalists, Nicola Donnelly – a senior manager at Begbies Traynor in Glasgow – admitted in an email to the couple that Promontoria – a vulture fund which bought loans & mortgages from banks including the Clydesdale – paid Trustee Kenneth Pattullo £20,000 – to sell properties belonging to Melanie Collins, and Donal Nolan – which were once valued in the millions – for the sum of £655K.
Records from the very unusual sequestrations of both Ms Collins & Mr Nolan – show their properties were seized by Mr Pattullo of Begbies Traynor on behalf of Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd – after the building company lost a Court of Session action raised by Mr Nolan in which Advance Construction admitted dumping toxic waste on land owned by the retired National Hunt jockey.
However, after Begbies Traynor had retained the properties on their books for four years – during which time the Clydesdale Bank sold their interest in the properties to Promontoria – the titles suddenly changed hands only a few days after PoliceScotland were called in to investigate a targeted firebombing of Mr Nolan’s farm – which saw four horses die after being torched with petrol by unknown persons.
The couple say Police Scotland believe the targeted arson attack is connected to events related to the court case and the ‘extremely motivated’ bankruptcy which then followed.
Records of land titles obtained from Registers of Scotland reveal Morningside Farm – the target of the firebombing – was sold by Kenneth Pattullo to an Andrew Kenneth Hill of Carluke, Lanarkshire on 22 May 2019 for a purchase price of £380,000 – some five days after the targeted arson attack.
Meanwhile the home of the couple – a house with land – in Newmains, Wishaw, was sold by Mr Pattullo to a “SIPS Homes Scotland Ltd” on 20 May 2019 with a purchase price listed as £255,000
Companies House reports that SIPS Homes Scotland Ltd was created on 4 March 2019 with a registered office at Crossway, Donibistle Industrial Estate, Dalgety Bay, Fife, United Kingdom, KY11 9JE – and has three directors – Mark William Dalziel, Caroline Ann Hynds and Patrick Leaonard Hynds.
A section of land at Branchal, Wishaw – belonging to the retired jockey was sold by Mr Pattullo to the same “SIPS Homes Scotland Ltd” for £20,000 on 4 June 2019.
Begbies Traynor were asked to confirm if Mr Pattullo was in charge of the properties as Trustee – during the events of the targeted arson attack, but they refused to comment.
Susan Reid of Harrogate based Appeal PR – who claim to handle all Public Relations for Begbies Traynor in Scotland stated: “Sorry to be unhelpful, but unfortunately Begbies Traynor is unable to give any information about personal insolvency cases. However, the information is a matter of public record, so you should be able to find it from official sources.”
The sequestrations of both Mr Nolan and his partner – Melanie Collins – after they had effectively won the Court of Session claim against Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd – came about after John Campbell QC stripped out most of their financial claims for damage & legal expeses – after Court of Session judge Lord Woolman told the couple they had a case against the building company for loss of the use of the use of their property.
Commenting on Campbell’s move – the judge said he had never seen this happen in a case previously – and a probe of events has established John Campbell had not sought permission or consultation with his client to strip out the financial damages and legal expenses claims.
Mr Nolan and his partner Ms Collins were then targeted by Advance’s lawyers Levy & Mcrae – who then turned around Advance’s loss in court – and the building company’s admission of dumping toxic waste on Mr Nolan’s land – to go after the couple for hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal expenses.
Levy and Mcrae then petitioned the court for sequestration of Ms Collins on 30 March 2015 – and Mr James Robb (now at Brechin Tindall Oatts solicitors) sought sequestration of Ms Collins and the appointment of the Accountant in Bankruptcy as Trustee in her estate.
The interlocutor from Hamilton Sheriff court dated 30 March 2015 reads as follows:
The sheriff, having heard parties’ solicitors, on the opposed motion of the Petitioner, having
considered the foregoing petition, together with the productions, and being satisfied that the
petition has been presented in accordance with the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, and that:
* proper citation has been made to the debtor
* the requirements of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 relating to apparent insolvency have been fulfilled.
Sequestrates the estate now belonging or which shall hereafter belong to the debtor Ms Melanie Collins before the date of the debtor’s discharge and Declares the same to belong to the debtor’s creditors for the purposes of the said Act;
Finds the respondent liable to the petitioner in the expenses as taxed, Allows an accountant thereof to be given in and Remits same, when lodged, to the auditor of court to tax and to report;
and Appoints Accountant in Bankruptcy, 1 Pennyburn Road,Kilwinning KA136SA
to be trustee; the whole estate of said Ms Melanie Collins at 07 January 2015 is vested in and now belongs to said trustee, for the benefit of the said debtors creditors
According to financial experts, the appointment of the AIB as trustee in a sequestration is a normal move – and leads to the AIB handing the case to one of their agents – which in this case – was given to auditors KPMG.
However, after KPMG took on the sequestration, and began their work – lawyers acting for Advance approached Sheriff T Millar of Hamilton Sheriff Court – and claimed there had been a typo (administrative error) in their original petition appointing the Accountant in Bankruptcy as Trustee for Ms Collins.
In a closed hearing at Hamilton Sheriff Court on 2 April 2015 – Levy and Mcrae asked Sheriff Millar to swap out the AIB & auditors KPMG for their own preferred Trustee – Kenneth Pattullo of Begbies Traynor.
The interlocutor for the hearing before Sheriff Millar reads as follows:
The Sheriff, having seen and considered the letter of 2nd April 2015 from Levy and McRae Solicitors and it having been noted that an administrative error has been made on the interlocutor of 30th March 2015 in that the Accountant in Bankruptcy was appointed as trustee in error; Allows amendment of said interlocutor by appointing Kenneth Pattulo of Begbies Traynor (CentralLLP), FinlayHouse,10-14 West Nile Street, Glasgow, G12PP as Trustee in the Sequestration of Melanie Collins in place of the Accountant in Bankruptcy
However – according to both financial and legal experts – there was no error whatsoever in the original application to appoint the Accountant in Bankruptcy in the sequestration of Mr Nolan’s partner – Ms Collins.
And – a legal expert has said the court did not actually have the power to amend an error in a petition, rather the court could only ammend an error if the Sheriff had erred in his original decision to appoint the Accountant in Bankruptcy – which is standard practice in sequestrations,
When asked for more information on what happened in this case, and why Levy and Mcrae were able to force s Sheriff to swap the Accountant in Bankruptcy as Trustee for their own choice of Trustee – Mr Pattullo – Hamilton Sheriff Court have consistently refused to provide substantive explanations to these events and a number of addition, unusual rulings related to the sequestration of Ms Collins.
Now, Ms Collins has been told she should approach the court to recall her sequestration, on the basis the court had no power to alter the original Trustee – the Accountant in Bankruptcy – to that of Levy and Mcrae’s preference – Mr Pattullo.
However, in what has now become a battle to secure legal representation to recall the sequestration – multiple law firms have initially worked on the case, confirmed the events at Hamilton Sheriff Court are in error and should be addressed – but later the same law firms have mysteriously withdrawn from acting for Ms Collins after receiving ‘briefings’ or ‘communications’ from those with a vested interest in the case – including Begbies Traynor – the Trustees appointed by Levy and Mcrae.
In the latest attempt to recall the sequestration, Ms Collins approached solicitor Alan Cox of law firm Barton and Hendry in Cumbernauld.
Notes of a meeting between Mr Cox and Ms Collins reveal the solicitor took on the work, and wrote to Begbies Traynor.
However, in an email – dated 15 August 2019 – from Nicola Donnelly – a senior insolvency manager at Begbies Traynor to solicitor Alan Cox of Barton and Hendry – Ms Donnelly told Alan Cox in no uncertain terms that no matter who his clients approached for help – including elected politicians – there would be no change in how events would unfold – which have since led to the sale of all the couple’s properties.
In the email to Alan Cox, Nicola Donnelly states: “I would comment that your clients have instructed previous solicitors [as you are aware] and made complaints to the AiB and their MSP previously as they dispute the validity of the sequestrations. The position obviously will remain the same irrespective of how many different organisations are contacted to act on their behalf.”
Nicola Donnelly also added in her email to Mr Cox: “Eviction actions and forced asset sales are steps taken by a trustee as a last resort. Unfortunately, your clients continued lack of cooperation resulted in the trustee having no other option other than to initiate eviction actions.”
However, an ongoing media investigation has now established the eviction actions referred to by Nicola Donnelly – were undertaken by Addleshaw Goddard – a law firm where Alexander Sutherland – the son of Scotland’s top judge – Lord Carloway was based – but Carloway – real name Colin Sutherland – concealed this conflict of interest in his evidence to the Public Petitions Committee during which he faced questions from Mr Nolan’s MSP – Alex Neil.
After solicitor Alan Cox was contacted by Begbies Traynor – like all other solicitors engaged by the couple to attempt a recall sequestration – Mr Cox later said he could no longer assist in the case.
It should be noted, after Ms Collins was sequestrated in April 2015 – her partner – Mr Nolan – was then targeted by Levy and Mcrae on behalf of Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd in an action at Hamilton Sheriff Court on 1 September 2015.
In the action to sequestrate Mr Nolan – Levy and Mcrae hired Mr Gavin Walker QC – currently of Axiom Advocates – to attend Hamilton Sheriff Court with instructions to seek the appointment of Mr Pattullo to seize the assets of Mr Nolan – despite the fact he had won the Court of Session claim against Advance Construction for dumping toxic waste on his land.
The couple are now seeking new legal representatives to take on their request to recall the sequestration of Ms Collins, and the Accountant in Bankruptcy has been asked to launch an independent investigation of events in the sequestrations of Ms Collins and her partner, Mr Nolan.
The following questions on this case were put to the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) and it’s boss – Richard Dennis:
Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on these targeted incidents of a criminal nature on Ms Collins & Mr Nolan and their farm – which led to the death of four horses and the couple being placed in a state of alarm and fear for their life?
Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on the transfer of the titles and sale of the Morningside Farm property, and the fact these titles changed hands to persons of interest – during or only after the targeted fire attack?
Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on the sale of this land and the main home & land at Bonkle to SIPS Homes (Scotland) Ltd, and how this sale came about?
Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on why Mr Pattullo and Begbies Traynor have not interacted with the couple and their legal agents on various and numerous occasions?
Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on the transactions in relation to the securities held by the Clydesdale Bank – during the sequestration of Mr Nolan & Ms Collins, and when the security was transferred during the sequestration from Clydesdale to Promontoria?
Can you clarify what are the AIB & Mr Dennis’ responsibilities and liabilities – regarding the actions of trustees, agents administering sequestrations, companies & individuals employed by, and acting on their behalf.
Cam you also clarify what are the AIB & Mr Dennis’ responsibilities and liabilities regarding any investigation process into the activities of trustees acting in sequestrations.
Can the AIB confirm if Mr Kenneth Pattullo and Begbies Traynor were the trustee in the sequestration of Mr Donal Nolan, and also the sequestration of his partner Ms Melanie Collins – during the dates of 17/18 May 2019 – these dates correspond to targeted fire attacks (currently under investigation by Police Scotland) which were made on Mr Nolan’s farm at Morningside, Wishaw.
Richard Dennis – the Accountant in Bankruptcy – has refused to issue any comment on the above questions put to his office.
CASE BROKE ALL JUDICIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES:
Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 is the same case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary – notably where Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC) failed to disclose on multiple occasions – the fact Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campell – represented the defenders in the same court.
Since the sequestration of Mr Nolan and his partner took place after the conclusion of their court case – the couple have been the victim – of what some view as revenge for daring to take on a company with public contracts who illegally dumped hazardous waste on their land, where this same company was and is represented by law firms directly linked to senior figures in Scotland’s judiciary.
Mr Nolan and his partner have been evicted from their own home, lost their farm and land.
It is also worth noting the Nolan v Advance (Scotland) Ltd case drew in a series of sheriffs and judges – from not easily explained hearings at Hamilton Sheriff Court involving Sheriff Millar, Peter Watson & Levy & Mcrae – and Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campbell – to Court of Session judges including Lord Brodie, Lord Menzies, Lord Woolman, Lord Bracadale (and a concealed recusal) and Lord Hodge – who later prevented the case being appealed to the UK Supreme Court without declaring he had already ruled on the case while in Edinburgh on multiple occasions.
A recent development in the ongoing media probe of this case saw publication of a witness statement from Advocate Ewen Campbell – Lord Malcolm’s son – which directly contradicts evidence given by Lord Carloway – to the Public Petitions Committee and MSP Alex Neil in a hearing on 29 June 2017.
A further development saw a court-sourced witness statement of solicitor and ex-Sheriff Peter Black Watson to the Court of Session – which confirmed Watson employed the son of Lord Malcolm in the case to represent the client – Advance Construction Scotland Ltd – which ended up being heard by Lord Malcolm – who concealed his link to his son during multiple court hearings.
During the evidence session – Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil on the Court of Session case – where judge & Privy Councillor Lord Malcolm (real name Colin Campbell QC) – heard a land contamination case – up to EIGHT TIMES while his own son represented the defenders – Advance Construction Scotland Ltd in the same court room.
In response to questions from the MSP, Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) furiously claimed that Lord Malcolm’s son DID NOT have any “active involvement with the case whatsoever.”
However – the witness statement dated May 2013 – signed by Ewen Campbell – covering the time Campbell worked for Glasgow law firm Levy & Mcrae – contains a written admission Mr Campbell confirming he did in-fact represented the construction company, alongside lawyer Peter Black Watson – who was at the time a Sheriff and partner at the same law firm.
Further material sourced from the Court of Session, including digital evidence in relation to the ongoing media probe of Nolan v Advance – will be published in upcoming articles.
Ex-Sheriff Watson statement confirms judges’ son on conflict case.COURT PAPERS obtained in an ongoing probe of claims made by Scotland’s top judge at Holyrood – now reveal Peter Watson – a judicial colleague of Lord Carloway – ran the case for a construction company at the centre of a land contamination scandal linked to Court of Session judges who concealed conflicts of interest in court.
The court-sourced witness statement of solicitor and ex-Sheriff Peter Black Watson to the Court of Session – confirms Watson employed the son of Lord Malcolm in the case to represent the client – Advance Construction Scotland Ltd – which ended up being heard by Lord Malcolm – who concealed his link to his son during multiple court hearings.
The new material is a further blow to Lord Carloway – who demanded MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee accept his version of events in that there was no active involvement of Lord Malcolm’s son in the case whatsoever – a claim also contradiced by a witness statement from Lord Malcolm’s son: Ewen Campbell – Witness Statement – Nolan v Advance Construction
In the opening lines of Watson’s witness statement – ex Sheriff Peter Watson states: “I have been instructed by Advance Construction (Scotland) Limited (“Advance”) in relation to Mr Nolan’s action against the company. I have been running this case and acting on behalf of Advance since. I was approached by Advance in relation to defending an action raised against them by the Pursuer in this case Mr.Donal Nolan and accepted those instructions.”
Critical to the ongoing probe of Lord Carloway – Watson goes on to confirm he asked Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campbell – to work alongside him in representing Advance Construction.
Watson states: ”Throughout these proceedings, I have been assisted by Mr. Ewen Malcolm Campbell and latterly, Mr. James Anthony Robb. During their involvement, both Mr Campbell and Mr Robb were also enrolled solicitors employed by the firm.”
Curiously, at no point in Mr Watson’s witness statement to the Court of Session does he refer to himself as a Sheriff and member of Scotland’s judiciary. Instead, Mr Watson refers to himself as “Professor Peter Black Watson”.
However, the admission by Watson that he employed Lord Malcolm’s son on a case in which Lord Carloway claimed Ewen Campbell had no active involvement – raises more questions of the Lord President’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee at a crucial hearing during their six year probe of judicial interests and the creation of a register of judges’ declarations of interests.
At the time of the case – Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 – Peter Watson was a Sheriff on the judicial bench alongside Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) – and Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC).
An earlier investigation of this case revealed when Lord Woolman (who heard the proof after the case was passed to him by Lord Malcolm) – stated in court papers that Mr Nolan had a case, John Campbell QC removed – without instruction – most of his client’s own case including over £4million and a claim for legal costs – after he had discussions with the current vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates – Roddy Dunlop QC.
During the evidence session – Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil on the Court of Session case – where judge & Privy Councillor Lord Malcolm (real name Colin Campbell QC) – heard a land contamination case – up to EIGHT TIMES while his own son represented the defenders – Advance Construction Scotland Ltd in the same court room.
In response to questions from the MSP, Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) furiously claimed that Lord Malcolm’s son DID NOT have any “active involvement with the case whatsoever.”
However – a witness statement dated May 2013 – signed by Ewen Campbell – covering the time Campbell worked for Glasgow law firm Levy and Mcrae – contains a written admission Mr Campbell confirming he did in-fact represented the construction company, alongside lawyer Peter Black Watson – who was at the time a Sheriff and partner at the same law firm.
During the hearing, Alex Neil – MSP for Airdrie & Shotts – asked Lord Carloway: “If, in any case—without referring to a specific case—a close relative of a judge is participating in the case, rightly or wrongly, the perception is that there may be a degree of prejudice.”
Mr Neil said there were concerns the reputation of the judiciary should be protected and added: “I would argue that, certainly in at least one case recently, which we have referred to briefly, the perception is that there may have been unfairness and prejudice in the way in which the matter was conducted, particularly as the judge concerned was involved in the case not once but on a number of occasions.”
In response – a clearly flustered Lord Carloway claimed no such events had taken place.
Carloway took a strong line against the questions, and replied to the MSP stating: “I disagree entirely with your analysis of that particular case and I repeat what I said earlier. The case that you refer to did not involve the judge’s son having any active involvement with the case whatsoever.”
However – on page one of the released witness statement of Ewen Campbell – Mr Campbell confirms he did work for the defenders – Advance Construction.
Ewen Campbell states: “In September 2011 I was asked by Professor Peter Watson (witness) to assist in a new case in which we were to act for Advance Construction (Scotland) Limited (“Advance”).”
Ewen Campbell goes on to admit he worked on the case for nearly a year: “I assisted with this case until Friday 15th June 2012. At this point I ceased assisting Professor Watson as I was informed by Senior Counsel that I was a potential witness in the matter.”
Within the statement, Lord Malcolm’s son – who Carloway told MSPs had no involvement in the case – goes on at length to document numerous on-site visits he undertook at the behest of Carloway’s then judicial colleague – ex Sheriff Peter Watson, and on behalf of the client – Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
In just one example, Ewen Campbell states: “At approximately 4 p.m. I left Levy and McRae’s offices and attended at Branchal Road. I was driven by Ian Butler, a colleague at Levy Sc McRae. On arrival at the site I observed that a number of vehicles were at the gate of the site. Mr Butler and I therefore parked our vehicle just round the comer from the entrance of the site.”
Ewen Campbell is later forced to account for allegations a Grangemouth based firm – IKM Consulting Ltd – employed by Levy and Mcrae as their ‘experts’ in the case – dumped contaminated materials at a site owned by the pursuer – Mr Nolan.
Despite Lord Carloway’s abrupt statement that Lord Malcolm’s son did not have “any active involvement with the case whatsoever” – Ewen Campbell goes on to say in his witness statement he personally talked to a legal representative of the pursuer – and talked the solicitor down from his client’s initial allegation IKM Consulting Ltd dumped contaminated material during their on-site activities for Levy and Mcrae & Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
Ewen Campbell states: “I contacted [solicitor] regarding this who detailed that his clients had originally stated to him that IKM had dumped contaminated materials on the site but after further questioning reduced the allegation to having dumped soil like materials on site.”
Bizarrely, Lord Malcolm’s son adds within his statement he did not instruct IKM Consulting Ltd to dump any materials during their on-site activities under his supervision.
Campbell also admits to accepting additional instructions to work on the case in which Carloway claimed he played no active role in.
Ewen Campbell further stated: “Before I ceased assisting Professor Peter Watson in relation to this case, I was instructed on a number of occasions to prepare and send letters and emails to those acting on behalf of Mr Nolan.”
It should be noted that despite Ewen Campbell’s ‘account’ of events around the IKM Consulting incident – Advance Construction were subsequently forced to admit in the Court of Session before Lord Woolman that they had in-fact illegally dumped contaminated materials on Mr Nolan’s land.
The video footage and transcript of Alex Neil’s questions to Lord Carloway can be found here:
Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP): I apologise for being slightly late. I had to go to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee. I apologise in advance if I cover ground that has already been covered.
Lord Carloway, as an issue of principle, do you think that it should be left only to a judge to decide whether they are going to recuse themselves, or should you or the keeper of the rolls be able to insist on recusal if you believe that there is a potential conflict of interest?
Lord Carloway: The short answer is that I do not believe that there is any problem with the current system, which is that the judge, who knows what his connection is to the case or the parties to it, should make the initial decision. That decision is made in open court, when the parties are present, and it is subject to review on appeal. In other words, if somebody is dissatisfied with that decision and if the litigant eventually loses the case, the decision will come before three judges who will review whether it was correct. If it was incorrect, the decision on the case would fall.
Alex Neil: The person bringing the case to court may not be aware of any conflict of interest that the judge may have and may never find out that there was one, but the judge may well have been influenced by a particular interest. Surely that is not right. If there is any potential conflict of interest, surely there should be a declaration or commitment by the judge, making an explicit statement that there is no conflict of interest. People may not have the resources to appeal, for example. Is the system not balanced against people who come to court for justice?
Lord Carloway: No, it is not. I go back to something that I mentioned earlier, which is very important. Scotland does not have a corrupt judiciary. The matter has been examined by independent persons, notably the GRECO anti-corruption body that operates under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which examined the UK judiciary, including the Scottish judiciary. It was clear that, fortunately, we, as distinct from many other countries, do not suffer from corruption in the judiciary. For that reason, it did not consider that a register of interests was necessary. If one introduces such a measure, one has to be satisfied that it is necessary and also that it is proportionate. If one analyses its proportionality, one has to look at what exactly we are guarding against. If the situation were to be that there was corruption in the Scottish judiciary—which we would discover at some point or another—of course we would have to consider measures to prevent that, one of which might be a register of certain interests. Until such time as it is demonstrated that there is corruption in the Scottish judiciary, I am entirely satisfied that there is no requirement for a register of interests and that it would be positively detrimental to the administration of justice, particularly in relation to the recruitment of judges and especially at the higher level of the judiciary.
Alex Neil: I want to draw a parallel with the register of interests that members of the Scottish Parliament have to sign and regularly update. That came about not because of any allegations or belief that the system was corrupt or that members of the Scottish Parliament are corrupt. In the 18 years that we have been here, I have not heard one allegation of corruption. The register is there not because of allegations of corruption but to ensure that there is no prejudice. If I participate in a debate and I have an interest that I have not declared, I will be open to an allegation not of corruption but of prejudice. Because there is a register of interests and because I have to declare interests in a debate or in a committee meeting such as this one, there is a transparency to ensure that I do not act in a prejudicial fashion.
To go back to the case that Mr MacDonald cited as I came in—the case of Advance Construction and Donal Nolan, in which Lord Malcolm’s son was involved as a lawyer for one of the parties—the issue there was not an allegation of corruption but one of possible prejudice or perception of prejudice. That is a very good example of why either a register of interests or a more robust system of recusal—or perhaps both—might serve the judiciary very well.
Lord Carloway: I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s actions were entirely honourable and that he acted in accordance with the code of judicial ethics. I am not sure what is—
Alex Neil: Have you investigated it?
Lord Carloway: I am aware of the background to it.
Alex Neil: No, but have you investigated it?
Lord Carloway: I have read the papers that it involves.
Alex Neil: With all due respect, Melanie Collins and Donal Nolan have written to you on numerous occasions, and at no time have you replied to them, let alone met them, so you have not heard the other side of the case.
Lord Carloway: I am sorry, but I am not aware of letters to me by those particular persons.
Alex Neil: Your office—
The Convener: Alex, let us be careful that we do not get into anything specific on that.
Alex Neil: Yes—absolutely. My point is about how Lord Carloway can reach that conclusion if he has not heard the other side.
Lord Carloway: I have read documents emanating from the persons that you have mentioned. As far as I am aware, they were not addressed to me, but I could be wrong about that. The position is that I am aware of the circumstances of the case. I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s conduct was entirely correct in the circumstances. That is part of the problem that you have perhaps highlighted. That case has nothing to do with a register of pecuniary interests. The suggestion is that we should start registering what our relatives are doing, where they are working and matters of that sort, which I suspect would go way beyond even what is expected of politicians.
Alex Neil: No—we have to register what close relatives do.
Lord Carloway: Can I deal with the difference between MSPs and the judiciary, which I think I dealt with earlier this morning? It is quite a different function. A politician is by nature someone who is not independent in the sense that the public expect the judiciary to be. That is not a criticism; it is a reality. As a generality, judges do not deal with the type of issues that politicians deal with. Politicians have executive power. They are dealing with major economic interests of one sort or another. As a generality, judges are not dealing with that type of thing. They are dealing with issues that are usually between private individuals but can be between private individuals and Government or others. Judges are not dealing with the type of issues that politicians are dealing with such as planning inquiries and so on at a local level or major economic development in society as a whole.
The need for independence in the judiciary is different from the kind of independence that a politician requires, because with a politician it is primarily, as Alex Neil has pointed out, about issues of a pecuniary nature. Those are not the issues that arise in most of the recusal cases with which we are concerned. What we are concerned with as judges is that we appear to be independent of all connection with the case. It is not a question of having a pecuniary interest.
If one looks at the register of recusals in the past year, I do not think that any of them were to do with pecuniary interest at all. They were to do with social connections with people—whether someone is a friend; whether a party to the litigation is a friend of a friend; and matters of that sort. Those are the types of situations that are raised by people in the practical reality of litigation and those are the issues that are being dealt with. Unless you are suggesting a register of one’s friends—and presumably, therefore, one’s enemies—the real issue with recusal in the judicial system would not be addressed.
The Convener: Last question, please, Mr Neil.
Alex Neil: If I can just finally draw the parallel between our register and what has been talked about in terms of either recusal or financial interest, MSPs—as individuals and collectively—do not have executive power per se unless they are ministers, but what is very important is the perception of fairness and the perception that justice is being carried out.
If, in any case—without referring to a specific case—a close relative of a judge is participating in the case, rightly or wrongly, the perception is that there may be a degree of prejudice. It might be very unfair, but the point is to try to ensure that the excellent reputation of the judiciary down the years in Scotland is retained. That reputation is not just for not being corrupt, which we all accept—we are not accusing anybody of corruption. The perception of fairness and the perception of not being prejudiced are also extremely important. I would argue that, certainly in at least one case recently, which we have referred to briefly, the perception is that there may have been unfairness and prejudice in the way in which the matter was conducted, particularly as the judge concerned was involved in the case not once but on a number of occasions.
Lord Carloway: I disagree entirely with your analysis of that particular case and I repeat what I said earlier. The case that you refer to did not involve the judge’s son having any active involvement with the case whatsoever. We have very clear rules in our statement of principles of judicial ethics on how to deal with such matters and it is made very clear in that statement that if a relative is the advocate in the case before one, the modern approach is that the judge should not hear the case, or one could put it another way round—the relative should not be presenting the case. Whichever way it happens to be put, the situation that we had 20 or 30 years ago, when it was commonplace for the relatives of judges of one sort or another to be advocating the case, no longer exists.
That practice no longer exists not because it was thought that there was any actual problem with the decision making but, as you say, because of a perception of unfairness. There is a clear judicial rule about that and I am not aware of any case in which it has been breached. I myself have been in a situation in which my son was involved in a firm that was litigating before me. In such a case, the judge would be expected to declare it and the parties would then decide whether to take the point. However, if they took the point and the relative just happened to be a member of the same firm operating in a different department, I would not encourage the judge to recuse himself.
The Convener: There are no final questions, so I thank you very much for your evidence. It has been helpful to clarify many of the issues that you presented to us in written evidence and to have an opportunity to explore some of the issues around prejudice, for instance.
ADVANCE SHERIFF AT COURT: Ex-Sheriff Peter Watson resigned from judicial bench in 2018
Peter Black Watson a former partner in Glasgow based law firm Levy and Mcrae – who was named in a £28million writ linked to the collapse of bust hedge fund Heather Capital – resigned his commission as a part time Sheriff on 10 October 2018.
The information was released by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in response to a Freedom of Information request in 2019 – SCTS – Sheriff Watson resignation
The SCTS stated: “I can advise that Mr Peter Watson resigned his commission as a part-time sheriff on 10 October 2018. Mr Watson did not hear any cases between the lifting of the suspension on 12 July 2018 and his resignation. Mr Watson has not submitted any claims for expenses, nor attended any events, nor carried out any judicial functions, since the suspension was lifted.”
Watson’s resignation came less than three months after Lord Carloway had lifted Mr Watson’s record suspension from judicial office of over three years – imposted by Lord Brian Gill in February 2015
Mr Watson was suspended from the Judiciary of Scotland on February 16, 2015 – after the then Lord President, Lord Brian Gill, was informed by a journalist of the claims in the case against Levy and McRae, and specifically against Watson, over Heather Capital’s collapse in 2010.
The move came after allegations surfaced in a £28million writ naming part time Sheriff Peter Black Watson – and his former law firm Levy and Mcrae, and a number of individuals under investigation in connection with the collapsed Heather Capital hedge fund.
In response to queries from the media in February 2015 on the contents of the writ – the Judicial Office subsequently issued a statement confirming Lord Brian Gill had suspended Sheriff Peter Black Watson (61) on 16 February 2015.
The suspension came after Gill demanded sight of the writ.
Responding to the Lord President’s request, Watson then offered to step aside temporarily – while the litigation concluded – however a Judicial Office spokesperson 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.”
A statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland read as follows: Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.
“On Friday 13 February the Judicial Office was made aware of the existence of a summons containing certain allegations against a number of individuals including part-time sheriff Peter Watson.
The Lord President’s Private Office immediately contacted Mr Watson and he offered not to sit as a part-time sheriff on a voluntary basis, pending the outcome of those proceedings.
Mr Watson e-mailed a copy of the summons to the Lord President’s Private Office on Saturday 14 February.
On Monday 16 February the Lord President considered the matter.
Having been shown the summons, 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.
Mr Watson was therefore duly suspended from office on Monday 16 February 2015.”
Later in July 2018. a statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland on the continuing suspension of part-time sheriff Peter Watson stated:
Following the extra judicial settlement of the Heather Capital action in which part-time sheriff Peter Watson was named as one of the defenders, the Lord President has lifted the suspension imposed upon him in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. Sheriff Watson will resume part-time judicial duties with effect from 12 July 2018.
Sheriff Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.
Watson’s former law firm – Levy & McRae, was one of several companies being sued by Heather’s liquidator, Ernst & Young, after the fund’s collapse in 2010.
Watson was also a director of a company called Mathon Ltd – a key part of the Heather empire.
The collapsed hedge fund Heather Capital – run by lawyer Gregory King was the subject of a Police Scotland investigation and a FIVE YEAR probe by the Crown Office.
The Crown Office later admitted there would be no prosecutions in the cases of the four individuals – lawyers Gregory King & Andrew Sobolewski, accountant Andrew Millar and property expert Scott Carmichael – who were charged by Police Scotland in connection with a Police investigation of events relating to the collapse of Heather Capital.
Peter Watson now has his own law business, PBW Law.
Watson, and his former law firm named in the Heather Capital writ – Levy and Mcrae – also represent the Scottish Police Federation.
Responding to queries from reporters, a spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: “The action, in which suspended part time Sheriff Peter Watson was among the defenders, has settled. An interlocutor to that effect has been issued. The Lord President will consider what, if any, steps now require to be taken.”
Watson subsequently resigned from the judicial bench.
Despite EY’s withdrawal of the £28million claim against Levy and Mcrae & Peter Watson, detailed claims in the Court of Session revealed the following:
[21] In the Levy Mcrae case:
On 4 January 2007, HC transferred £19 million to its client account with LM (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).
On 24 January 2007, HC transferred £9.412 million to its client account with LM (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).
The money was intended to be loaned to a first level SPV Westernbrook Properties Ltd (WBP) for onward lending to second level SPVs (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).
On 9 January 2007, LM transferred £19 million to a Panamanian company (Niblick) owned and controlled by Mr Levene:the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print).
By a memorandum dated 17 March 2007, HC’s auditors KPMG “identified a number of concerns relating to the documentation provided in respect of these loans”.Further work and information was required (Condescendence 5, page 13 of LM reclaiming print).
On 29 March 2007, LM transferred £9.142 million to Hassans, solicitors, Gibraltar, under the reference “Rosecliff Limited” (a company controlled by Mr King):the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print).
In April to June 2007, amounts equivalent to the loans thought to have been made to WBP (including accrued interest) were “repaid” to HC via Cannons, solicitors, Glasgow.The directors were unable to ascertain the source of these repayments (Lord Doherty paragraph [7]).
Approaches made by HC to Mr Volpe and Triay & Triay, a firm of solicitors in Gibraltar, were met with a total lack of co-operation (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]).
At a board meeting on 6 September 2007, “KPMG could not approve HC’s accounts … Santo Volpe had executed certain loans to SPV companies where non‑standard procedures had been followed which meant that inadequate security had been given for some loans … Gregory King stated that the loans to the SPVs had been repaid in full in May 2007” (Condescendence 5, page 13 of LM reclaiming print).
By email to a non‑executive director of HC (Mr Bourbon) dated 7 September 2007, Mr McGarry of KPMG referred to the previous day’s board meeting, and expressed concerns about the situation.He asked for further information, namely “all possible evidence regarding the movement of monies out of Heather Capital into these SPVs and onwards to whatever purpose the funds were applied – ie, sight of bank statements, payment/remittance instructions, certified extracts from solicitors clients’ money accounts etc”.(It should be noted that, contrary to HC’s averment in Condescendence 5 at page 13C‑D of LM reclaiming print, the email did not restrict the inquiries requested to “explaining what information was required from Santo Volpe”:the request was much broader.)
In October 2007 the non‑executive directors of HC met with the Isle of Man Financial Services Commission (FSC) to discuss “the issues” (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]).A director also disclosed the suspicious activity and Mr Volpe’s obstruction to the Isle of Man Financial Crime Unit (FCU), who said they would investigate (Condescendence 5 page 14 of LM reclaiming print).The auditors KPMG carried out an additional full scope audit.
By letter dated 18 October 2007, FSC wrote to the directors of HC setting out further information which they required.
By letter dated 26 November 2007 Mr King advised the HC board that “some sort of fraud had been deliberately introduced with invalid land registry details on a number of the loans”.He stated that he had applied pressure to Mr Volpe and Mr Cannon, whereupon there had been “full repayment of the loans with relevant interest” which meant that “investors were secure”.
On 17 December 2007, KPMG signed the accounts and added a completion note using language such as “The risk of fraud increased to high as a result of the documentation issues surrounding the SPVs, where some form of fraud appeared to have been attempted”.In their audit report opinion, they stated “We have been unable to verify where funds advanced to the SPVs were invested.In addition, we were supplied with false documentation in relation to the SPVs which appears to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead us.Given these loans were repaid in the period, we consider that the effect of this is not so material and pervasive that we are unable to form an opinion on the financial statements [opting instead for express qualifications that loan and security documentation could not be validated] … There is uncertainty as to where the monies lent to the [SPVs] were then subsequently invested … Investigations continue to determine what party (or parties) were involved in and were accountable for these events, and whether any action should be taken against them …” (Lord Doherty paragraph [9]).
By letter to HC dated 4 January 2008, KPMG gave serious warnings about their inability to validate loan and security documentation, and lack of evidence as to the purpose for which the money advanced to SPVs was applied.In their words:
“ … Our report is designed to … avoid weaknesses that could lead to material loss or misstatement. However, it is your obligation to take the actions needed to remedy those weaknesses and should you fail to do so we shall not be held responsible if loss or misstatement occurs as a result … [Having explained the disappearance of the funds and the apparent repayments, on which legal advice had been received, KPMG warned] … these matters are extremely serious … an attempted fraud appears to have been perpetrated … We would recommend that the Board continue their investigation into this matter and formally document their decision as to whether or not to inform the criminal justice authorities …”
FIRM FIRM SLAPPED WITH COURT SUMMONS – Top legal outfit in megabucks lawsuit
Practice is linked to bust hedge fund – Briefs with ties to big business and high-profile clients
By RUSSELL FINDLAY Scottish Sun 15 February 2015
A TOP law firm has been hit with a multi-million pound writ linked to a finance company at the centre of a fraud investigation.
Legal practice Levy & McRae — which acts for footballers, politicians, cops and newspapers — faces the claim over its role in connection with £400million investment scheme Heather Capital.
It’s claimed millions of pounds went missing following the collapse of the hedge fund. And The Scottish Sun told last week how four men — including tycoon Gregory King — have been reported to prosecutors probing the allegations.
King, 46, ran Heather subsidiary Mathon, where Sheriff Peter Watson — a former senior partner at Levy & McRae — was also briefly a director.
The Court of Session summons was served on the firm six months after he left the legal firm.
Watson is one of the country’s most high-profile lawyers and spent 33 years with Levy & McRae before quitting to set up his own business.
The visiting Strathclyde University professor sat on an expert panel created by former First Minister Alex Salmond to look into media regulation in Scotland.
Watson also acted for former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini after she was harassed by a campaigner who was later jailed.
‘Their clients are a who’s who of Scotland’ And he includes ex-Glasgow City Council chief Steven Purcell among his list of clients, as well as senior police and prison officers.
The legal expert, 61 — chairman of Yorkhill Sick Kids’ Hospital charity — has also acted for former Rangers owner Sir David Murray.
And a Gers supporters’ group closed down its website following legal threats from Watson, who was working for under-fire directors Sandy and James Easdale.
A source said: “Watson and Levy & McRae are very well known and their clients are a who’s who of Scotland.”
Investors from around the world sunk their cash into Gibraltar-based fund Heather Capital, which launched in 2004.
Some of the cash was loaned to Mathon to bankroll developments across Scotland. But many of the Mathon-funded plans did not happen — and some of the cash was not repaid.
Liquidator Paul Duffy of Ernst & Young has been battling to recover investors’ cash since 2010 and is suing Heather’s auditors KPMG for negligence over their role. Isle of Man court documents — acquired by The Scottish Sun — claim Heather was operating a “Ponzi” scheme to dupe investors.
They alleged that as early as December 2006, senior KPMG staff feared that Heather Capital “may have been perpetrating a fraud”.
And in August 2007, KPMG employee Raymond Gawne told a colleague that he was “very uncomfortable” acting for the fund which “may have acted in a criminal manner”.
The claim also alleges that millions of pounds of loans passed through the client account of Glasgow lawyer Frank Cannon who acted for Heather. KPMG senior executive David McGarry sent an email to Gregory King stating: “Frank Cannon has been uncooperative, either in providing some form of explanation for all of the security documentation prepared by his firm, or in agreeing to facilitate access to Cannon’s clients’ money account”. McGarry added he did not accept “that this is due” to Cannon.
Watson declined to comment on the writ and Levy & McRae and Cannon did not respond to our requests for comment.
The Police Scotland report naming Mr King and his associates Andrew Sobolewski, Andrew Millar and Scott Carmichael is now being considered by the Crown Office.
A spokesman for Ernst & Young confirmed: “Heather Capital, via Ernst & Young, has made a claim against Levy & McRae.” And a KPMG spokesman said: “The passages in the plaintiff’s summons provide a selective and misleading picture and are drawn out simply to seek to make what is a wholly unsubstantiated case.
“The allegations are completely unfounded and are being fully contested by KPMG.”
GREGORY KING MARBELLA-based former Glasgow Academy pupil, 46, was a lawyer and taxi firm boss before launching Heather Capital in 2004. Family business dynasty includes nightclub boss cousin Stefan King.
PETER WATSON GREENOCK-born solicitor advocate, 61, carved out a fearsome reputation as a media lawyer during 33 years at Levy & McRae. He also dishes out justice as a part-time sheriff across Scotland.
KING’S £400million hedge fund Heather Capital loaned millions of pounds to Glasgow-based Mathon, of which Watson was briefly a director.
TOP lawyer and part-time sheriff Watson has acted for a string of high profile celebrity, political, sport and media clients in a glittering legal career:
Watson’s clients included Alex Salmond, Stephen Purcell, Elish Angiolini, Yorkhill Hospital Board, Rangers Chiefs.
and a further development reported by the Scottish Sun on the suspension of Sheriff Peter Watson:
By RUSSELL FINDLAY 25th February 2015, Scottish Sun
A SHERIFF was suspended after he was linked to a collapsed finance firm at the centre of a massive fraud probe.
Peter Watson, 61, was barred from the bench by judges’ boss Lord President Lord Gill following an inquiry by The Scottish Sun.
Watson, whose past clients include ex-First Minister Alex Salmond, was briefly a director of Mathon, a company run by Glasgow bookie’s son Gregory King, 46.
It received millions in loans from King’s hedge fund Heather Capital which crashed owing a seven-figure sum.
Watson’s suspension came 24 hours after we revealed Heather liquidators Ernst & Young filed a multi-million court demand against his former law firm Levy & McRae.
Lord Gill, 73, can suspend sheriffs and judges if it’s “necessary for the purpose of maintaining public confidence”.
Watson forged a fearsome reputation as a media lawyer over 33 years with Levy & McRae before he left the firm six months ago.
King is one of four men named in a police report which is being considered by the Crown Office.
The Judicial Office for Scotland said last night: “Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on February 16.”
Watson subsequently resigned from the judiciary later in October 2018 – which was confirmed in an FOI response from the Judicial Office in 2019.Earlier reports on the Heather Capital writ, and subsequent collapse of prosecutions in the collapsed £400M hedge fund can be viewed here: The collapsed £400M Hedge Fund with direct links to Scotland’s judiciary
The files – in the form of a witness statement from Advocate Ewen Campbell – who is Lord Malcolm’s son – directly contradict statements by Lord Carloway – to the Public Petitions Committee and MSP Alex Neil in a hearing on 29 June 2017.
During the evidence session – Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil on the Court of Session case – where judge & Privy Councillor Lord Malcolm (real name Colin Campbell QC) – heard a land contamination case – up to EIGHT TIMES while his own son represented the defenders – Advance Construction Scotland Ltd in the same court room.
In response to questions from the MSP, Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) furiously claimed that Lord Malcolm’s son DID NOT have any “active involvement with the case whatsoever.”
However – a witness statement dated May 2013 – signed by Ewen Campbell – covering the time Campbell worked for Glasgow law firm Levy & Mcrae – contains a written admission Mr Campbell confirming he did in-fact represented the construction company, alongside lawyer Peter Black Watson – who was at the time a Sheriff and partner at the same law firm.
During the hearing, Alex Neil – MSP for Airdrie & Shotts – asked Lord Carloway: “If, in any case—without referring to a specific case—a close relative of a judge is participating in the case, rightly or wrongly, the perception is that there may be a degree of prejudice.”
Mr Neil said there were concerns the reputation of the judiciary should be protected and added: “I would argue that, certainly in at least one case recently, which we have referred to briefly, the perception is that there may have been unfairness and prejudice in the way in which the matter was conducted, particularly as the judge concerned was involved in the case not once but on a number of occasions.”
In response – a clearly flustered Lord Carloway claimed no such events had taken place.
Carloway took a strong line against the questions, and replied to the MSP stating: “I disagree entirely with your analysis of that particular case and I repeat what I said earlier. The case that you refer to did not involve the judge’s son having any active involvement with the case whatsoever.”
However – on page one of the released witness statement of Ewen Campbell – Mr Campbell confirms he did work for the defenders – Advance Construction.
Ewen Campbell states: “In September 2011 I was asked by Professor Peter Watson (witness) to assist in a new case in which we were to act for Advance Construction (Scotland) Limited (“Advance”).”
Ewen Campbell goes on to admit he worked on the case for nearly a year: “I assisted with this case until Friday 15th June 2012. At this point I ceased assisting Professor Watson as I was informed by Senior Counsel that I was a potential witness in the matter.”
The exchange between Alex Neil and Lord Carloway can be viewed here:
Within the statement, Lord Malcolm’s son – who Carloway told MSPs had no involvement in the case – goes on at length to document numerous on-site visits he undertook at the behest of Carloway’s then judicial colleague – ex Sheriff Peter Watson, and on behalf of the client – Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
In just one example, Ewen Campbell states: “At approximately 4 p.m. I left Levy and McRae’s offices and attended at Branchal Road. I was driven by Ian Butler, a colleague at Levy & McRae. On arrival at the site I observed that a number of vehicles were at the gate of the site. Mr Butler and I therefore parked our vehicle just round the comer from the entrance of the site.”
Ewen Campbell is later forced to account for allegations a Grangemouth based firm – IKM Consulting Ltd – employed by Levy and Mcrae as their ‘experts’ in the case – dumped contaminated materials at a site owned by the pursuer – Mr Nolan.
Despite Lord Carloway’s abrupt statement that Lord Malcolm’s son did not have “any active involvement with the case whatsoever” – Ewen Campbell goes on to say in his witness statement he personally talked to a legal representative of the pursuer – and talked the solicitor down from his client’s initial allegation IKM Consulting Ltd dumped contaminated material during their on-site activities for Levy and Mcrae & Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
Ewen Campbell states: “I contacted [solicitor] regarding this who detailed that his clients had originally stated to him that IKM had dumped contaminated materials on the site but after further questioning reduced the allegation to having dumped soil like materials on site.”
Bizarrely, Lord Malcolm’s son adds within his statement he did not instruct IKM Consulting Ltd to dump any materials during their on-site activities under his supervision.
Campbell also admits to accepting additional instructions to work on the case in which Carloway claimed he played no active role in.
Ewen Campbell further stated: “Before I ceased assisting Professor Peter Watson in relation to this case, I was instructed on a number of occasions to prepare and send letters and emails to those acting on behalf of Mr Nolan.”
It should be noted that despite Ewen Campbell’s ‘account’ of events around the IKM Consulting incident – Advance Construction were subsequently forced to admit in the Court of Session before Lord Woolman that they had in-fact illegally dumped contaminated materials on Mr Nolan’s land.
Melanie Collins, partner of Mr Donal Nolan – who was the pursuer in Nolan v Advance – said: “I found Lord Carloway’s evidence to be entirely dishonest during his responses to out MSP Alex Neil. I was astounded by how he misled Mr Neil and the entire committee on what happened in our case and how we were treated very badly by Lord Malcolm and others.”
Last night, a legal expert who viewed the material and video footage from the Committee hearing, suggested it was difficult to see how Lord Carloway could make such a false statement to the Scottish Parliament and not expect to be asked to explain himself.
Commenting on the new evidence, the legal expert said: “I am concerned Scotland’s top judge feels secure enough in the environment of a Scottish Parliament hearing – and public expectation of transparency – to make such false and egregiously misleading claims.”
He continued: “The written evidence and records of multiple court hearings suggest Lord Carloway is entirely wrong, and is determinedly at odds with the facts of this case, in his account of events to the Public Petitions Committee and Mr Alex Neil.”
Now, Carloway’s account of events to Mr Neil and the Petitions Committee is to be submitted to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee alongside a report on conflicts of interest of key stakeholders in Scotland’s justice system.
The further revelations of Lord Carloway’s links to the land contamination case come after an earlier investigation revealed Lord Carloway failed to declare his own son – Alexander Colin Maclean Sutherland – also worked for the merged law firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley – which was trying to evict a couple at the centre of the case raised by Mr Alex Neil during the Committee hearing in 2017.
Mr Neil was invited to attend Committee hearing to quiz Lord Carloway on what legal experts say is one of the most serious cases of judicial conflict of interest in Scotland’s courts – Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.
In the outburst from the top judge, Lord Carloway said to Mr Neil: “The suggestion is that we should start registering what our relatives are doing, where they are working and matters of that sort, which I suspect would go way beyond even what is expected of politicians.”
Alex Neil replied to Lord Carloway, stating: “No—we have to register what close relatives do.”
The terse exchange – one of many in the evidence session – led to material obtained during a probe by journalists which revealed Lord Carloway’s son – Colin Alexander Maclean Sutherland – worked at the time for the merged law firm Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley – who became key players in the aftermath of Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
However – Lord Carloway did not declare this conflict of interest during the Holyrood hearing.
Instead; the top judge went on to attack other Committee members and Mr Neil – over their backing for a cross party supported petition to require judges to declare and register all their interests.
Minutes before the exchange, Carloway had even denied even receiving any communications from the couple at the centre of the case – however records show Carloway’s legal secretary – Roddy Flinn – now himself a Sheriff – sent acknowledgements to the couple on 24 May 2016.
Papers show Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley were acting on behalf of Kenneth Pattullo of insolvency practitioners Begbies Traynor – who were appointed by Advance Construction’s lawyers – Levy and Mcrae – to seize the home, land, a farm, and all assets of Ms Melanie Collins & retired National Hunt jockey Donal Nolan.
The couple took on Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd – over a land contamination incident on their land in Wishaw.
The construction company – owned by businessman Seamus Shields was ultimately forced to admit illegal dumping of material in the Court of Session case before judge Lord Woolman.
An earlier investigation of this case revealed when Lord Woolman (who heard the proof after the case was passed to him by Lord Malcolm) – stated in court papers that Mr Nolan had a case, John Campbell QC removed – without instruction – most of his client’s own case including over £4million and a claim for legal costs – after he had discussions with the current vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates – Roddy Dunlop QC.
The full exchange between Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) and Alex Neil MSP at the Public Petitions Committee can be viewed, with transcript, below:
Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP): I apologise for being slightly late. I had to go to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee. I apologise in advance if I cover ground that has already been covered.
Lord Carloway, as an issue of principle, do you think that it should be left only to a judge to decide whether they are going to recuse themselves, or should you or the keeper of the rolls be able to insist on recusal if you believe that there is a potential conflict of interest?
Lord Carloway: The short answer is that I do not believe that there is any problem with the current system, which is that the judge, who knows what his connection is to the case or the parties to it, should make the initial decision. That decision is made in open court, when the parties are present, and it is subject to review on appeal. In other words, if somebody is dissatisfied with that decision and if the litigant eventually loses the case, the decision will come before three judges who will review whether it was correct. If it was incorrect, the decision on the case would fall.
Alex Neil: The person bringing the case to court may not be aware of any conflict of interest that the judge may have and may never find out that there was one, but the judge may well have been influenced by a particular interest. Surely that is not right. If there is any potential conflict of interest, surely there should be a declaration or commitment by the judge, making an explicit statement that there is no conflict of interest. People may not have the resources to appeal, for example. Is the system not balanced against people who come to court for justice?
Lord Carloway: No, it is not. I go back to something that I mentioned earlier, which is very important. Scotland does not have a corrupt judiciary. The matter has been examined by independent persons, notably the GRECO anti-corruption body that operates under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which examined the UK judiciary, including the Scottish judiciary. It was clear that, fortunately, we, as distinct from many other countries, do not suffer from corruption in the judiciary. For that reason, it did not consider that a register of interests was necessary. If one introduces such a measure, one has to be satisfied that it is necessary and also that it is proportionate. If one analyses its proportionality, one has to look at what exactly we are guarding against. If the situation were to be that there was corruption in the Scottish judiciary—which we would discover at some point or another—of course we would have to consider measures to prevent that, one of which might be a register of certain interests. Until such time as it is demonstrated that there is corruption in the Scottish judiciary, I am entirely satisfied that there is no requirement for a register of interests and that it would be positively detrimental to the administration of justice, particularly in relation to the recruitment of judges and especially at the higher level of the judiciary.
Alex Neil: I want to draw a parallel with the register of interests that members of the Scottish Parliament have to sign and regularly update. That came about not because of any allegations or belief that the system was corrupt or that members of the Scottish Parliament are corrupt. In the 18 years that we have been here, I have not heard one allegation of corruption. The register is there not because of allegations of corruption but to ensure that there is no prejudice. If I participate in a debate and I have an interest that I have not declared, I will be open to an allegation not of corruption but of prejudice. Because there is a register of interests and because I have to declare interests in a debate or in a committee meeting such as this one, there is a transparency to ensure that I do not act in a prejudicial fashion.
To go back to the case that Mr MacDonald cited as I came in—the case of Advance Construction and Donal Nolan, in which Lord Malcolm’s son was involved as a lawyer for one of the parties—the issue there was not an allegation of corruption but one of possible prejudice or perception of prejudice. That is a very good example of why either a register of interests or a more robust system of recusal—or perhaps both—might serve the judiciary very well.
Lord Carloway: I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s actions were entirely honourable and that he acted in accordance with the code of judicial ethics. I am not sure what is—
Alex Neil: Have you investigated it?
Lord Carloway: I am aware of the background to it.
Alex Neil: No, but have you investigated it?
Lord Carloway: I have read the papers that it involves.
Alex Neil: With all due respect, Melanie Collins and Donal Nolan have written to you on numerous occasions, and at no time have you replied to them, let alone met them, so you have not heard the other side of the case.
Lord Carloway: I am sorry, but I am not aware of letters to me by those particular persons.
Alex Neil: Your office—
The Convener: Alex, let us be careful that we do not get into anything specific on that.
Alex Neil: Yes—absolutely. My point is about how Lord Carloway can reach that conclusion if he has not heard the other side.
Lord Carloway: I have read documents emanating from the persons that you have mentioned. As far as I am aware, they were not addressed to me, but I could be wrong about that. The position is that I am aware of the circumstances of the case. I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s conduct was entirely correct in the circumstances. That is part of the problem that you have perhaps highlighted. That case has nothing to do with a register of pecuniary interests. The suggestion is that we should start registering what our relatives are doing, where they are working and matters of that sort, which I suspect would go way beyond even what is expected of politicians.
Alex Neil: No—we have to register what close relatives do.
Lord Carloway: Can I deal with the difference between MSPs and the judiciary, which I think I dealt with earlier this morning? It is quite a different function. A politician is by nature someone who is not independent in the sense that the public expect the judiciary to be. That is not a criticism; it is a reality. As a generality, judges do not deal with the type of issues that politicians deal with. Politicians have executive power. They are dealing with major economic interests of one sort or another. As a generality, judges are not dealing with that type of thing. They are dealing with issues that are usually between private individuals but can be between private individuals and Government or others. Judges are not dealing with the type of issues that politicians are dealing with such as planning inquiries and so on at a local level or major economic development in society as a whole.
The need for independence in the judiciary is different from the kind of independence that a politician requires, because with a politician it is primarily, as Alex Neil has pointed out, about issues of a pecuniary nature. Those are not the issues that arise in most of the recusal cases with which we are concerned. What we are concerned with as judges is that we appear to be independent of all connection with the case. It is not a question of having a pecuniary interest.
If one looks at the register of recusals in the past year, I do not think that any of them were to do with pecuniary interest at all. They were to do with social connections with people—whether someone is a friend; whether a party to the litigation is a friend of a friend; and matters of that sort. Those are the types of situations that are raised by people in the practical reality of litigation and those are the issues that are being dealt with. Unless you are suggesting a register of one’s friends—and presumably, therefore, one’s enemies—the real issue with recusal in the judicial system would not be addressed.
The Convener: Last question, please, Mr Neil.
Alex Neil: If I can just finally draw the parallel between our register and what has been talked about in terms of either recusal or financial interest, MSPs—as individuals and collectively—do not have executive power per se unless they are ministers, but what is very important is the perception of fairness and the perception that justice is being carried out.
If, in any case—without referring to a specific case—a close relative of a judge is participating in the case, rightly or wrongly, the perception is that there may be a degree of prejudice. It might be very unfair, but the point is to try to ensure that the excellent reputation of the judiciary down the years in Scotland is retained. That reputation is not just for not being corrupt, which we all accept—we are not accusing anybody of corruption. The perception of fairness and the perception of not being prejudiced are also extremely important. I would argue that, certainly in at least one case recently, which we have referred to briefly, the perception is that there may have been unfairness and prejudice in the way in which the matter was conducted, particularly as the judge concerned was involved in the case not once but on a number of occasions.
Lord Carloway: I disagree entirely with your analysis of that particular case and I repeat what I said earlier. The case that you refer to did not involve the judge’s son having any active involvement with the case whatsoever. We have very clear rules in our statement of principles of judicial ethics on how to deal with such matters and it is made very clear in that statement that if a relative is the advocate in the case before one, the modern approach is that the judge should not hear the case, or one could put it another way round—the relative should not be presenting the case. Whichever way it happens to be put, the situation that we had 20 or 30 years ago, when it was commonplace for the relatives of judges of one sort or another to be advocating the case, no longer exists.
That practice no longer exists not because it was thought that there was any actual problem with the decision making but, as you say, because of a perception of unfairness. There is a clear judicial rule about that and I am not aware of any case in which it has been breached. I myself have been in a situation in which my son was involved in a firm that was litigating before me. In such a case, the judge would be expected to declare it and the parties would then decide whether to take the point. However, if they took the point and the relative just happened to be a member of the same firm operating in a different department, I would not encourage the judge to recuse himself.
The Convener: There are no final questions, so I thank you very much for your evidence. It has been helpful to clarify many of the issues that you presented to us in written evidence and to have an opportunity to explore some of the issues around prejudice, for instance.
Lord Carloway’s failure to declare his own link to a case he initially claimed to know little of – while answering questions from MSP Alex Neil – was made all the more serious after the top judge himself openly attacked Mr Neil and other members of a Holyrood committee – for daring to suggest judges should declare their relatives interests in a planned register of judges’ interests.
The report on Lord Carloway’s testimony to Holryood’s Public Petitions Committee will reveal that Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) did NOT declare to MSPs that his own son – Alexander Colin Maclean Sutherland – also worked for the merged law firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley – which was trying to evict a couple at the centre of the case raised by Mr Alex Neil during the Committee hearing in 2017.
The exchange between Lord Carloway and Alex Neil – one of many in the evidence session – led to material obtained during a probe by journalists which revealed Lord Carloway’s son – Colin Alexander Maclean Sutherland – worked at the time for the merged law firm Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley – who became key players in the aftermath of Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
However – Lord Carloway did not declare this conflict of interest during the Holyrood hearing.
Instead; the top judge went on to attack other Committee members and Mr Neil – over their backing for a cross party supported petition to require judges to declare and register all their interests.
Minutes before the exchange, Carloway had even denied even receiving any communications from the couple at the centre of the case – however records show Carloway’s legal secretary – Roddy Flinn – now himself a Sheriff – sent acknowledgements to the couple on 24 May 2016.
Papers show Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley were acting on behalf of Kenneth Pattullo of insolvancy practitioners Begbies Traynor – who were appointed by Advance Construction’s lawyers – Levy and Mcrae – to seize the home, land, a farm, and all assets of Ms Melanie Collins & retired National Hunt jockey Donal Nolan.
A recent perusal of Mr Sutherland’s online legal biography at Ampersand Advocates and the Faculty of Advocates – does not mention his time at the merged firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley in his online legal career:
Alexander Colin MacLean Sutherland BIO:
Year of Call: 2018; Since calling to the Bar in June 2018, Alex has developed a general practice centred on commercial law and public law, including judicial review and planning. He has appeared in the Court of Session, sheriff court and Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal. He has also provided Opinions on a wide range of matters, including contractual disputes, insolvency and property.
Before calling to the Bar, Alex trained with a commercial firm in Edinburgh. He completed his LLB at Glasgow University in 2014 and the Diploma in Professional Legal Practice at Edinburgh University in 2015. Before then, he studied German and English Language at Edinburgh University, during which time he spent a year studying in Vienna.
He speaks fluent French and German and is well placed to undertake work involving consideration of documents in those languages.
Selected recent cases: Community Windpower Ltd v Scottish Ministers (ongoing): Inner House, Court of Session; For the appellants. Appeal against a Reporter’s decision. With Ailsa Wilson QC.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh v (1) Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal and (2) Council of the Law Society of Scotland [2019] CSOH 104; 2020 SLT 1: Outer House, Court of Session; For the petitioner. Judicial review of the first respondent’s decision on expenses.
Saadi v Whiterock Investments Ltd: Outer House, Court of Session; For the defenders. Pursuer seeking reduction of the decree awarding his sequestration.
Ford v The Firm of W&AS Bruce [2020] SC KIR 9: Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court; For the pursuer. Action of damages against a firm of solicitors for failing to advise the pursuer to include a survivorship destination when disponing half of his property to his partner. Debate on prescription.
NCS Office Services (Scotland) Ltd v Emtelle UK Ltd: Glasgow Sheriff Court (Commercial Action); For the defenders. Proof before answer on whether one of the defenders’ employees had authority to enter into a contract with the pursuers on behalf of the defenders.
Law Society of Scotland v WM: Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal; For the respondent. Preliminary hearing on whether the complaint should be dismissed due to excessive delay.
However, when Ampersand Advocates welcomed Alexander Sutherland to their stable in 2018 – Mr Sutherlands spell at Addleshaw Goddard did gain a mention, without reference to his father being Scotland’s top judge – here:Ampersand welcomes Alexander Sutherland
HOLYROOD SUPPORT FOR REGISTER OF JUDGES’ INTERESTS:
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary – originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all 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.
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, 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.
Lord Carloway’s failure to declare his own link to a case he initially claimed to know little of – while answering questions from MSP Alex Neil – was made all the more serious after the top judge himself openly attacked Mr Neil and other members of a Holyrood committee – for daring to suggest judges should declare their relatives interests in a planned register of judges’ interests.
The report on Lord Carloway’s testimony to Holryood’s Public Petitions Committee will reveal that Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) did NOT declare to MSPs that his own son – Alexander Colin Maclean Sutherland – also worked for the merged law firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley – which was trying to evict a couple at the centre of the case raised by Mr Alex Neil during the Committee hearing in 2017.
Mr Neil was invited to attend Committee hearing to quiz Lord Carloway on what legal experts say is one of the most serious cases of judicial conflict of interest in Scotland’s courts – Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.
In the outburst from the top judge, Lord Carloway said to Mr Neil: “The suggestion is that we should start registering what our relatives are doing, where they are working and matters of that sort, which I suspect would go way beyond even what is expected of politicians.”
Alex Neil replied to Lord Carloway, stating: “No—we have to register what close relatives do.”
Lord Carloway – clearly rattled by questions from Alex Neil and fellow MSPs about another top judge who concealed he heard a case involving his own son – hit out at Mr Neil and members of the Public Petitions Committee in video footage which can be viewed here:
The terse exchange – one of many in the evidence session – led to material obtained during a probe by journalists which revealed Lord Carloway’s son – Colin Alexander Maclean Sutherland – worked at the time for the merged law firm Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley – who became key players in the aftermath of Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
However – Lord Carloway did not declare this conflict of interest during the Holyrood hearing.
Instead; the top judge went on to attack other Committee members and Mr Neil – over their backing for a cross party supported petition to require judges to declare and register all their interests.
Minutes before the exchange, Carloway had even denied even receiving any communications from the couple at the centre of the case – however records show Carloway’s legal secretary – Roddy Flinn – now himself a Sheriff – sent acknowledgements to the couple on 24 May 2016.
Papers show Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley were acting on behalf of Kenneth Pattullo of insolvancy practitioners Begbies Traynor – who were appointed by Advance Construction’s lawyers – Levy and Mcrae – to seize the home, land, a farm, and all assets of Ms Melanie Collins & retired National Hunt jockey Donal Nolan.
The couple took on Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd – over a land contamination incident on their land in Wishaw.
The construction company – owned by businessman Seamus Shields was ultimately forced to admit illegal dumping of material in the Court of Session case before judge Lord Woolman.
However – the couple’s £6million damages claim – led by John Campbell QC – ended badly after a series of undeclared conflicts of interest by some of Scotland’s most senior judicial figures, instances where judges were switched from hearing to hearing, a series of refusals of legal costs claims, and denied requests to appeal in Edinburgh, and at the UK Supreme Court in London.
In a sequence of discussions and a meeting between Campbell and defenders counsel Roddy Dunlop QC which took place after Lord Woolman stated in court that Mr Nolan had a valid claim – John Campbell QC embarked on a series of unauthorised actions – and destroyed his own client’s case – by removing most of the financial claim – without consultation or obtaining permission to do so.
A recent probe established John Campbell – who agreed to act on a no-win-no-fee basis in the case – then went on to scam his client Mr Nolan for hundreds of thousands of pounds in unexpected legal fees, while also demanding thousands of pounds at a time – in cash – which the senior QC and now Edinburgh Quaich Project Charity Boss insisted on collecting in person
Mr Nolan and his partner remain constituents of MSP Alex Neil – who has followed and supports their efforts to have the case re-opened, as well as an investigation into events.
Since the sequestration of Mr Nolan and his partner took place, after the conclusion of their court case, the couple have been the victim – of what some view as revenge for daring to take on a company with public contracts who illegally dumped hazardous waste on their land, where this same company was and is represented by law firms directly linked to senior figures in Scotland’s judiciary.
Mr Nolan and his partner have been evicted from their own home, lost their farm and land.
And, recently, evidence has come to light of burned out vehicles possibly connected to the incident which were photographed located at a premises linked to potential suspects.
Now, there are calls for an independent, public inquiry into events which occurred during the case, the role of Advance Construction, and events in the Court of Session including involvement of certain law firms and members of the judiciary who – according to court files – deliberately concealed conflicts of interest across multiple court hearings in the case.
The case – Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd has attracted significant publicity in the press and is part ongoing probe into judicial conflicts of interest – resulting in the naming of several judges who failed to declare documented conflicts of interest in the case
Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee, and recently, the Justice Committee have received and considered evidence in relation to the actions of Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC) who himself failed to declare he heard the case up to eight times while his own son – Ewen Campbell – was in the same court, representing the defenders – Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
Minutes before Lord Carloway hit out at Alex Neil over suggestions judges declare links to their relatives interests, the top judge snapped at the MSP stating: “I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s actions were entirely honourable and that he acted in accordance with the code of judicial ethics.”
However, the court record does show Lord Malcolm heard the case on multiple occasions while his son was in court – and new evidence has emerged from witness statements indicating Lord Malcolm’s son had also visited the site of the land contamination incident – which contradicts claims from the top judge & judicial office that Ewen Campbell had nothing to do with the case.
The original papers from Hamilton Sheriff Court in 2011 indicate that when a Sheriff Millar transferred the case to the Court of Session to be heard by Lord Malcolm – Ewen Campbell – Lord Malcolm’s son – was also present at that same hearing on 30 September 2011, along with Gavin Walker – who is a QC at Axiom Advocates.
An ongoing investigation into the case has now revealed Levy and Mcrae, representing Advance Construction in their pursuit of Mr Nolan & his partner – then sought a hearing on 14 April 2015 – to swap the original appointment of the Accountant in Bankruptcy in the sequestration of the elderly couple – to Begbies Traynor and Mr Pattullo.
That hearing took place at Hamilton Sheriff Court before the SAME Sheriff Millar – who heard the couple’s initial claim against Advance Construction in 2011 and then transferred it to be heard by Lord Malcolm in the Court of Session.
However, records show that by the time of this hearing in 2015 – accountants KPMG had already been appointed by the Accountant in Bankruptcy to handle the sequestration of Mr Nolan and his partner Ms Collins – and it can not be easily explained away by the Accountant in Bankruptcy as to why KPMG were swapped out of the sequestration for Levy and Mcrae’s choice of Begbies Traynor and Kenneth Pattullo.
Events around Levy & Mcrae’s motivated appointment of Begbies Traynor and Mr Pattullo – are now the subject of calls for an investigation by the couple’s MSP and legal experts – after it emerged assets owned by the couple which were held by the Clydesdale Bank, were transferred without notification to an offshore vulture fund known as Promantoria Ltd.
And – information has now come to light that land and assets formerly owned by the couple which were seized by Mr Pattullo & Begbies Traynor on behalf of Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd – are now in the ownership of several persons of interest in relation to ongoing investigations of events which have occurred around Mr Nolan and his partner as a result of the collapse of their valid Court of Session claim.
The Judicial Office for Scotland were asked for comment on the following media enquiry:
“In relation to claims made by Lord Carloway to MSP Alex Neil at yesterday’s Public Petitions Committee in relation to declaring the interests of close relatives, and Lord Carloway’s mention of a son in the legal profession, can the Judicial Office confirm if Lord Carloway’s son currently works at Addleshaw Goddard LLP which has merged with HBJ Gateley.”
“On being provided with information HBJ Gateley is a pursuer in relation to obtaining decree with a view to evicting a Ms Melanie Collins & a Mr Donal Nolan from properties in Wishaw, does the Judicial Office or Lord President wish to comment on Lord Carloway’s testimony yesterday that entering the details of close relatives work in a register is going way beyond what is being proposed in terms of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s Judiciary.”
“And, in view of the claims made in relation to above, does the Judicial Office or Lord President see this as a matter which should be made clearer to the Petitions Committee after yesterday’s mention of the case during open session and Lord Carloway’s comments?”
“Finally, does the Judicial Office or Lord President have any further comment on Lord Carloway’s evidence to the Petitions Committee, and any further comment on the Petition itself?
Baktosch Gillan, who was the Acting Head of Judicial Communications at the time, gave the following reply: “In relation to your first question, the Judicial Office does not hold that information.”
Mr Gillan added: “We have nothing further to add to the Lord President’s evidence to the committee.”
To confirm Mr Sutherland’s position at Addleshaw Goddard during the time Lord Carloway gave his evidence to Holyrood in 2017, a search of the Law Society of Scotland’s online database of solicitors was made.
Days before the query to the Judicial Office in relation to Lord Carloway’s son – the name of Alexander Sutherland appeared in the Law Society of Scotland’s online search results.
However, some time after the Judicial Office issued the statement denying they held any information on the Lord President’s son’s involvement with HBJ Gateley & Addleshaw Goddard, and a potential conflict of interest – a new search of the Law Society of Scotland’s database revealed they had removed the name of Alexander Sutherland and references to his service at Addleshaw Goddard from their online database search results – which are now published as part of this report here:
The full exchange between Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) and Alex Neil MSP at the Public Petitions Committee can be viewed, with transcript, below:
Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP): I apologise for being slightly late. I had to go to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee. I apologise in advance if I cover ground that has already been covered.
Lord Carloway, as an issue of principle, do you think that it should be left only to a judge to decide whether they are going to recuse themselves, or should you or the keeper of the rolls be able to insist on recusal if you believe that there is a potential conflict of interest?
Lord Carloway: The short answer is that I do not believe that there is any problem with the current system, which is that the judge, who knows what his connection is to the case or the parties to it, should make the initial decision. That decision is made in open court, when the parties are present, and it is subject to review on appeal. In other words, if somebody is dissatisfied with that decision and if the litigant eventually loses the case, the decision will come before three judges who will review whether it was correct. If it was incorrect, the decision on the case would fall.
Alex Neil: The person bringing the case to court may not be aware of any conflict of interest that the judge may have and may never find out that there was one, but the judge may well have been influenced by a particular interest. Surely that is not right. If there is any potential conflict of interest, surely there should be a declaration or commitment by the judge, making an explicit statement that there is no conflict of interest. People may not have the resources to appeal, for example. Is the system not balanced against people who come to court for justice?
Lord Carloway: No, it is not. I go back to something that I mentioned earlier, which is very important. Scotland does not have a corrupt judiciary. The matter has been examined by independent persons, notably the GRECO anti-corruption body that operates under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which examined the UK judiciary, including the Scottish judiciary. It was clear that, fortunately, we, as distinct from many other countries, do not suffer from corruption in the judiciary. For that reason, it did not consider that a register of interests was necessary. If one introduces such a measure, one has to be satisfied that it is necessary and also that it is proportionate. If one analyses its proportionality, one has to look at what exactly we are guarding against. If the situation were to be that there was corruption in the Scottish judiciary—which we would discover at some point or another—of course we would have to consider measures to prevent that, one of which might be a register of certain interests. Until such time as it is demonstrated that there is corruption in the Scottish judiciary, I am entirely satisfied that there is no requirement for a register of interests and that it would be positively detrimental to the administration of justice, particularly in relation to the recruitment of judges and especially at the higher level of the judiciary.
Alex Neil: I want to draw a parallel with the register of interests that members of the Scottish Parliament have to sign and regularly update. That came about not because of any allegations or belief that the system was corrupt or that members of the Scottish Parliament are corrupt. In the 18 years that we have been here, I have not heard one allegation of corruption. The register is there not because of allegations of corruption but to ensure that there is no prejudice. If I participate in a debate and I have an interest that I have not declared, I will be open to an allegation not of corruption but of prejudice. Because there is a register of interests and because I have to declare interests in a debate or in a committee meeting such as this one, there is a transparency to ensure that I do not act in a prejudicial fashion.
To go back to the case that Mr MacDonald cited as I came in—the case of Advance Construction and Donal Nolan, in which Lord Malcolm’s son was involved as a lawyer for one of the parties—the issue there was not an allegation of corruption but one of possible prejudice or perception of prejudice. That is a very good example of why either a register of interests or a more robust system of recusal—or perhaps both—might serve the judiciary very well.
Lord Carloway: I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s actions were entirely honourable and that he acted in accordance with the code of judicial ethics. I am not sure what is—
Alex Neil: Have you investigated it?
Lord Carloway: I am aware of the background to it.
Alex Neil: No, but have you investigated it?
Lord Carloway: I have read the papers that it involves.
Alex Neil: With all due respect, Melanie Collins and Donal Nolan have written to you on numerous occasions, and at no time have you replied to them, let alone met them, so you have not heard the other side of the case.
Lord Carloway: I am sorry, but I am not aware of letters to me by those particular persons.
Alex Neil: Your office—
The Convener: Alex, let us be careful that we do not get into anything specific on that.
Alex Neil: Yes—absolutely. My point is about how Lord Carloway can reach that conclusion if he has not heard the other side.
Lord Carloway: I have read documents emanating from the persons that you have mentioned. As far as I am aware, they were not addressed to me, but I could be wrong about that. The position is that I am aware of the circumstances of the case. I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s conduct was entirely correct in the circumstances. That is part of the problem that you have perhaps highlighted. That case has nothing to do with a register of pecuniary interests. The suggestion is that we should start registering what our relatives are doing, where they are working and matters of that sort, which I suspect would go way beyond even what is expected of politicians.
Alex Neil: No—we have to register what close relatives do.
Lord Carloway: Can I deal with the difference between MSPs and the judiciary, which I think I dealt with earlier this morning? It is quite a different function. A politician is by nature someone who is not independent in the sense that the public expect the judiciary to be. That is not a criticism; it is a reality. As a generality, judges do not deal with the type of issues that politicians deal with. Politicians have executive power. They are dealing with major economic interests of one sort or another. As a generality, judges are not dealing with that type of thing. They are dealing with issues that are usually between private individuals but can be between private individuals and Government or others. Judges are not dealing with the type of issues that politicians are dealing with such as planning inquiries and so on at a local level or major economic development in society as a whole.
The need for independence in the judiciary is different from the kind of independence that a politician requires, because with a politician it is primarily, as Alex Neil has pointed out, about issues of a pecuniary nature. Those are not the issues that arise in most of the recusal cases with which we are concerned. What we are concerned with as judges is that we appear to be independent of all connection with the case. It is not a question of having a pecuniary interest.
If one looks at the register of recusals in the past year, I do not think that any of them were to do with pecuniary interest at all. They were to do with social connections with people—whether someone is a friend; whether a party to the litigation is a friend of a friend; and matters of that sort. Those are the types of situations that are raised by people in the practical reality of litigation and those are the issues that are being dealt with. Unless you are suggesting a register of one’s friends—and presumably, therefore, one’s enemies—the real issue with recusal in the judicial system would not be addressed.
The Convener: Last question, please, Mr Neil.
Alex Neil: If I can just finally draw the parallel between our register and what has been talked about in terms of either recusal or financial interest, MSPs—as individuals and collectively—do not have executive power per se unless they are ministers, but what is very important is the perception of fairness and the perception that justice is being carried out.
If, in any case—without referring to a specific case—a close relative of a judge is participating in the case, rightly or wrongly, the perception is that there may be a degree of prejudice. It might be very unfair, but the point is to try to ensure that the excellent reputation of the judiciary down the years in Scotland is retained. That reputation is not just for not being corrupt, which we all accept—we are not accusing anybody of corruption. The perception of fairness and the perception of not being prejudiced are also extremely important. I would argue that, certainly in at least one case recently, which we have referred to briefly, the perception is that there may have been unfairness and prejudice in the way in which the matter was conducted, particularly as the judge concerned was involved in the case not once but on a number of occasions.
Lord Carloway: I disagree entirely with your analysis of that particular case and I repeat what I said earlier. The case that you refer to did not involve the judge’s son having any active involvement with the case whatsoever. We have very clear rules in our statement of principles of judicial ethics on how to deal with such matters and it is made very clear in that statement that if a relative is the advocate in the case before one, the modern approach is that the judge should not hear the case, or one could put it another way round—the relative should not be presenting the case. Whichever way it happens to be put, the situation that we had 20 or 30 years ago, when it was commonplace for the relatives of judges of one sort or another to be advocating the case, no longer exists.
That practice no longer exists not because it was thought that there was any actual problem with the decision making but, as you say, because of a perception of unfairness. There is a clear judicial rule about that and I am not aware of any case in which it has been breached. I myself have been in a situation in which my son was involved in a firm that was litigating before me. In such a case, the judge would be expected to declare it and the parties would then decide whether to take the point. However, if they took the point and the relative just happened to be a member of the same firm operating in a different department, I would not encourage the judge to recuse himself.
The Convener: There are no final questions, so I thank you very much for your evidence. It has been helpful to clarify many of the issues that you presented to us in written evidence and to have an opportunity to explore some of the issues around prejudice, for instance.
A recent perusal of Mr Sutherland’s online legal biography at Ampersand Advocates and the Faculty of Advocates – does not mention his time at the merged firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley in his online legal career:
Alexander Colin MacLean Sutherland BIO:
Year of Call: 2018; Since calling to the Bar in June 2018, Alex has developed a general practice centred on commercial law and public law, including judicial review and planning. He has appeared in the Court of Session, sheriff court and Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal. He has also provided Opinions on a wide range of matters, including contractual disputes, insolvency and property.
Before calling to the Bar, Alex trained with a commercial firm in Edinburgh. He completed his LLB at Glasgow University in 2014 and the Diploma in Professional Legal Practice at Edinburgh University in 2015. Before then, he studied German and English Language at Edinburgh University, during which time he spent a year studying in Vienna.
He speaks fluent French and German and is well placed to undertake work involving consideration of documents in those languages.
Selected recent cases:
Community Windpower Ltd v Scottish Ministers (ongoing):
Inner House, Court of Session;
For the appellants. Appeal against a Reporter’s decision. With Ailsa Wilson QC.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh v (1) Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal and (2) Council of the Law Society of Scotland [2019] CSOH 104; 2020 SLT 1:
Outer House, Court of Session;
For the petitioner. Judicial review of the first respondent’s decision on expenses.
Saadi v Whiterock Investments Ltd:
Outer House, Court of Session;
For the defenders. Pursuer seeking reduction of the decree awarding his sequestration.
Ford v The Firm of W&AS Bruce [2020] SC KIR 9:
Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court;
For the pursuer. Action of damages against a firm of solicitors for failing to advise the pursuer to include a survivorship destination when disponing half of his property to his partner. Debate on prescription.
NCS Office Services (Scotland) Ltd v Emtelle UK Ltd:
Glasgow Sheriff Court (Commercial Action);
For the defenders. Proof before answer on whether one of the defenders’ employees had authority to enter into a contract with the pursuers on behalf of the defenders.
Law Society of Scotland v WM:
Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal;
For the respondent. Preliminary hearing on whether the complaint should be dismissed due to excessive delay.
However, when Ampersand Advocates welcomed Alexander Sutherland to their stable in 2018 – Mr Sutherlands spell at Addleshaw Goddard did gain a mention, without reference to his father being Scotland’s top judge – here:Ampersand welcomes Alexander Sutherland
Ampersand is delighted to welcome Alexander Sutherland to the stable who called at the Bar today.
Before calling to the Bar, Alex trained with Addleshaw Goddard LLP, formerly HBJ Gateley. During his seat in the firm’s dispute resolution department, he gained experience of a wide range of litigation in both the Court of Session and the sheriff court, including real estate and insolvency litigation. He also had seats in the real estate and corporate recovery departments.
Alex completed his LLB at Glasgow University in 2014 and the Diploma in Professional Legal Practice at Edinburgh University in 2015. Before then, he studied German and English Language at Edinburgh University, during which time he spent a year studying in Vienna.
Alex’s interests lie primarily in the fields of commercial and public law. As a devil he also gained experience of planning. His principal devilmaster was Ampersand’s Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen.
He speaks fluent French and German and is well placed to undertake work involving consideration of documents in those languages.
On Alex’s arrival, Head Clerk Alan Moffat said “I am delighted that Alex has joined us. He comes with a great reputation from his time at a top firm and has been highly praised during his time on the devils course. I am very sure he will continue to impress at the Bar and expect him to be a great addition to the stable.”
In the first part of the time-honoured two-stage admission ceremony, the Dean of Faculty, Gordon Jackson, QC, said the public office of advocate carried real privileges and corresponding responsibilities.
“You have become part of a great national institution which has played, throughout its existence, a very significant role in the legal and cultural life of this nation. As a member of Faculty you will play your own particular part in the future of that institution,” he added.
In the second part of the ceremony, before Lord Clark in the Court of Session, Alex along with 6 other new calls made the declaration of allegiance.
Lord Clark said: “It is a genuine pleasure and a privilege to welcome you as members of the Faculty of Advocates and to congratulate you on this great achievement. The Faculty has long been an important and distinguished organisation. It has commonly attracted some of the ablest minds of each generation, and it continues to thrive.
“It is truly one of the great features of our society that the general public, businesses and other organisations have at their disposal people like you – independently-minded advocates who will take on and fight their causes.
“I very much hope that you thoroughly enjoy your work at the Bar and the camaraderie of your colleagues.”
Alex is a welcome addition to the depth of counsel on offer at Ampersand.
HOLYROOD QUEST FOR A REGISTER OF JUDGES’ INTERESTS
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary – originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all 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.
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, 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 no fee no win court deal was turned against client. A TOP QC recently appointed to head an Edinburgh Charity £25million scheme redeveloping Princes St Gardens – is at the centre of calls for a tax probe – after newly released files reveal he used the Faculty of Advocates to demand huge fees – on a case he originally agreed to work on a no-win-no-fee basis.
Documents recovered from Faculty Services Ltd reveal John Campbell QC – of Themis Advocates – demanded payments of well over £100,000 – for a land contamination claim – contrary to an earlier agreement Campbell made with his clients where the fee would ONLY be taken from any settlement upon success in the Court of Session case.
However – the £6million claim led by John Campbell QC – ended badly after a series of undeclared conflicts of interest by some of Scotland’s most senior judicial figures, instances where judges were switched from hearing to hearing, denial of legal costs claims & denied appeals.
Campbell then effectively destroyed his own client’s case – by removing most of the financial claims without consultation or permission to do so.
Now – there are now calls for a full investigation by tax authorities of all transactions involving Scottish Advocates – after new evidence indicates fee documents from the Faculty of Advocates were altered – to cover up a series of undeclared cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.
In one of a series of Faculty Services statements – files reveal John Campbell demanded £75,000 for ‘unspecified’ meetings on the case he had already agreed to work on the no-win-no-fee arrangement in Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.
In another entry on the same statement – the senior Campbell QC – sometimes described as a ‘leading Scots legal figure’ – demands a staggering £9,000 for ONE single consultation.
Campbell also inserts a demand for £33,360 for ‘reviewing productions’ and preparing his fee – even though he had already agreed there would be NO fee if he didn’t win the case.
Another £6,300 is then charged up by Campbell for a further review of papers and ‘preparation of case’.
Given the outcome of the case, and what has since happened to Campbell’s clients as a result of his role as their legal representative – the fee statements appear to contravene the no-win-no-fee deal agreement between John Campbell and his clients.
And – in digital evidence now held by journalists, Campbell states the payments he pocketed from clients despite the no win no fee deal – include work undertaken by his Junior Counsel Craig Murray.
It should be noted – despite accounts from Campbell and the Faculty of Advocates demanding hundreds of thousands of pounds from Mr Campbell’s clients – on a case Campbell himself destroyed in court – both John Campbell QC and Craig Murray have now DELETED all references to the Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd case from their online biographies documenting their respective legal careers.
A study of additional statements from Faculty Services Ltd currently being undertaken by a law accountant – highlights references in the newly released files to ‘undated’ sums, and credit notes for payments which were in fact – never made.
In one credit note from Faculty Services Ltd – the sum of £5000 – without any date reference is stated as paid.
However, a solicitor dealing directly with the case DENIED the undated £5,000 amount had been paid to Faculty Services Ltd – and a review of the accounts confirm NO such payment was ever made.
The undated £5K credit note listed in the documents – and other unexplained entries – appear to have been created by Faculty Services Ltd with a deliberate intention to conceal tens of thousands of pounds in undeclared cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.
The fee statements & accounts from Faculty Services Ltd now raise serious questions of how far up the involvement of figures in the Faculty of Advocates in this case stretches – after an earlier investigation established Campbell was pocketing large payments he personally insisted on collecting in cash filled envelopes from his clients in £5,000 bundles.
Written evidence recovered from files held by legal regulators revealed Campbell himself sent emails to his clients – demanding large payments in cash to pay himself and junior counsel Craig Murray.
An email from John Campbell to his clients revealed Campbell demanded £5,000 in cash – while he was on the way to a meeting at Airdrie Sheriff Court followed by a dinner with the Law Society of Scotland.
The email from Campbell states: “A little better information about timing. I am due in Airdrie at 4.30. The meeting is in the Sheriff Court, which closes at 6.30. The Law Society is taking me and a colleague for dinner, but I have no idera where. There isn’t a huge number of restaurants in Airdrie, but we’ll find somewhere. This means I won’t be at Bonkle Road until about 8. Is that OK?”
“I have asked JC [John Carruthers] for a breakdown of the £5000. I will explain to you how a spec case works. I have checked; both John and I are willing to take on a spec case for Donal, but only if he signs up to it. There will be two conditions; one is that you keep the Edinburgh agent fed and watered, and the second is the size of the uplift at the end of the day, as I explained to you.”
A Sunday Mail investigation into the case established John Campbell sent multiple emails to clients – in some cases, demanding cash “in any form except beads” to pay for legal services.
An additional email from John Campbell QC to his client stated: “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?”
Campbell then collected the cash in envelopes – in locations such as restaurants, a garage specialising in servicing Bentley cars, and on land at Branchal in Wishaw.
John Campbell has refused to make any statement to the media on the written evidence published in the media of his demands for undeclared cash payments from clients.
Commenting on Campbell’s emails and some of the Faculty Services fee statements, a Criminal Defence solicitor who did not wish to be named – claimed the practice of QCs and Advocates demanding fee top ups in cash is widespread and needs to be looked at.
In one case quoted by a legal source, a senior member of the Faculty of Advocates who recently appeared in the news – is alleged to have demanded a six figure sum in cash from an accused person to ensure a non-custodial sentence in a criminal prosecution.
The legal source who provided the information said “Given the seniority of the accused’s legal representation it is difficult to believe others in court were not involved in the cash for freedom deal.”
In another case of a similar nature, an accused person refused to pay a similar sum of cash demanded by a high profile QC who also guaranteed a non-custodial sentence. The accused person went on to receive a custodial sentence after being found guilty at a criminal trial.
The rules on how payments to Advocates and Queens Counsel are collected from clients by Faculty Services Ltd – the fees collection arm of the Faculty of Advocates which is currently chaired by Geoff Clarke QC – are very clear.
Section 9.9 of the Faculty of Advocates 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.”
CASE BROKE ALL JUDICIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES:
Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 is the same case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary – notably where Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC) failed to disclose on multiple occasions – the fact Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campell – represented the defenders in the same court.
It is also worth noting the Nolan v Advance (Scotland) Ltd case drew in a series of sheriffs and judges – from not easily explained hearings at Hamilton Sheriff Court involving Sheriff Millar, Peter Watson & Levy & Mcrae – and Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campbell – to Court of Session judges including Lord Brodie, Lord Menzies, Lord Woolman, Lord Bracadale (and a concealed recusal) and Lord Hodge – who later prevented the case being appealed to the UK Supreme Court without declaring he had already ruled on the case while in Edinburgh on multiple occasions.
An earlier investigation of this case revealed that when Lord Woolman stated in court papers that Mr Nolan had a case, John Campbell QC removed – without instruction – most of his client’s own case including over £4million and a claim for legal costs – after he had discussions with the current vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates – Roddy Dunlop QC.
At the time – Peter Watson was a member of Scotland’s judiciary – and held various positions and directorships in relation to a hedge fund run by Greg King.
However – Peter Watson’s involvement in the collapsed £400million Heather Capital Hedge fund was beginning to trickle out into the media – and in 2015 after questions were put to Scotland’s top judge by the Scottish Sun newspaper – Lord Brian Gill suspended Peter Watson from sitting as a judge “to maintain public confidence in the judiciary”.
Recently, and in a blaze of public relations, John Campbell QC was appointed as Chairman of The Ross Development Trust – a charity created to lead a redesign of West Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.
However, Campbell’s appointment as Chairman of the project comes amid a scandal where big businesses, vested interests and wealthy donors were promised access to high-profile celebrities, international publicity at VIP events tickets for high-profile concerts, exclusive drinks parties and dinners under a secret fundraising drive by the Quaich Project – which Campbell now chairs.
Leaked details published last month by the media suggest corporate backers will be able to advertise their brands all across the redeveloped Princes Street gardens and the new amphitheatre which will replace the current Ross Bandstand.
Campbell’s reaction to the publication was an aggressive response, attacking critics of the public-private partnership project for “scaremongering” over “completely untrue” claims that it would lead to over-commercialisation and privatisation of the gardens.
It was reported in the media that John Campbell insisted there was “absolutely no evidence” to support claims that Princes Street gardens would be turned into a “private playground” reserved for wealthy donors and for commercial companies – yet the documents detailing the funding drive & secret promise of sponsorship to big business and vested interests – are now widely circulating in the public domain after being leaked to the press.
Eerily – the plan to redevelop Princes Street Gardens – dubbed the ‘Quaich project’- is developing a similar theme to how parts of the Court of Session ended up in the ownership of the Faculty of Advocates, after legal figures targeted the Laigh Hall complex, claiming ownership of the hall via a series of dubious titles and a lobbying campaign to take possession of the court buildings.
The Laigh Hall scandal resulted in a secretive deal after a bitter campaign by the Faculty of Advocates to usurp possession of parts of the Court of Session building for their ownership, adding it to their asset portfolio under a trust chaired by Court of Session judge Lord Brailsford.
The Scottish Government eventually caved in and ‘gifted’ parts of the Court of Session to the Faculty of Advocates – even though the building belonged to the City of Edinburgh Council.
Campbell is also a Trustee of the Scottish Historic Buildings Trust, and of Planning Aid Scotland, and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS)
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.
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.”
JOHN CAMPBELL QC BIOGRAPHY:
During the span of his legal representation provided in Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd, John Campell was based at the former Hasties Stables of Advocates, which rebranded themselves earlier this year as Themis Advocates.
The rebrand of Hasties Stables after Advocates in the former Hastie Stable announced they were to re-emerge under the new brand of Themis Advocates – on the appointment of new senior clerk Kiera Johnston who will work alongside depute clerks Sara Mauriello and Liz Archibald.
Sitting alongside John D. Campbell QC in Themis Advocates are members of Scotland’s judiciary – including Mungo Bovey QC – who has sat as a part time Sheriff since 2009.
Themis Advocates describe themselves in the following terms: “Themis Advocates is a generalist stable, of which our advocates cover all areas of the law well. Within the stable, solicitors can find counsel able to handle a very broad range of inquiries, both in the range of subject matter and in the nature of the task requiring to be undertaken. We can provide competent advocates at all levels for any item of work. For ease of use we have arranged the Areas of Practice under the headings listed on the left. Click on any one of these headings for a breakdown of specialist topics within that heading.”
The Trinity Chambers website describes their practice in the following terms: Trinity Chambers is proud of its reputation as being one of the leading sets of barristers’ chambers in the North of England, endorsed by the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 Directories – “Trinity Chambers’ ‘expertise, professionalism and empathy are second to none’”, the “extremely efficient” clerks are “always keen to assist” Legal 500 2019, ‘One of the most renowned sets in the North East for good reason’ Legal 500 2020.
This is a reputation we have won by investing in staff, services and facilities, by implementing a robust administration and clerking structure, and, crucially, by supplying high quality legal advice and advocacy.
Trinity were the first chambers north of London, and only the fourth in the country, to be awarded the General Council of the Bar’s BarMark which is an annual review of all aspects of practice management, client care and regulatory compliance as assessed and reported upon by the British Standards Institution.
We were the first BarMark chambers in the country to be awarded Investors in People. Trinity were among the first six chambers to be awarded the Legal Services Commission’s Quality Mark. Since our establishment in 1954, we have consistently grown so that we now offer a broad spectrum of specialisation, expertise and experience, with consistently high quality across the board.
John Campbell QC Trinity Chambers Biography
John Campbell Q.C. CASES – with no reference to his role in Nolan v Advance Constuction (Scotland) Ltd:
About 200 windfarm and other planning cases at Committee, in writing, on appeal to Inspectors and Reporters, and on Appeal and Judicial Review in Scotland, Cumbria, Northumberland, East Yorkshire, North Wales, West Wales, and Norfolk; Avich & Kilchrenan Community Council – appearance before UN Economic Committee for Europe’s Åarhus Convention Compliance Committee, Geneva, Switzerland; Beauly to Denny OHL Inquiry – major power line inquiry from Beauly (Inverness-shire) to Denny (Stirlingshire); Bilfinger Berger Siemens CAF Joint Venture – training for Edinburgh Trams Mediation; Coastal Regeneration Alliance – Community Right to Buy under Land reform (S) Act 2003 – wrongful refusal to register lawful interest by Scottish Ministers; David Bines v CNES – [2010] Otter control at a fish farm; Gloag v Perth and Kinross Council and The Ramblers Association – right to roam – right to erect a fence with out planning permission; Gordon & Macphail v The Moray Council – Land Tribunal Valuation dispute for loss of use of a spring feeding a malt whisky distillery; Gordons Trustees – landlord’s resistance to an informally created agricultural tenancy; Grantown on Spey Caravan Park – Certificate of Lawful Use and Development against Planning Authority; success and costs awarded; HMA: v Hyslop – farmer carrying shotgun and allegedly threatening ‘lampers’ on his own ground – unanimous acquittal; HMA v Reid – shaken baby death; ICE v Addison – professional body wrongfully expelling Chartered Engineer; Laird v Scottish Borders Council – Planning consent invalidated for ambiguity; Lidl Stores – Nine public inquiries for new stores; Macaskill Stornoway [2009] Lorry noise nuisance case; Mearns Residents Association – flooding – correct interpretation of Council’s obligations to regulate housing permissions; Nairn v Fife Council [2008] Listed Buildings and ransom strip at large Country House; Newton Mearns Residents Association [2014] CSOH – flooding issues, Protective Expenses Order; Packard v Scottish Ministers [2012] – judicial review of windfarm Planning decision – bias and pre-determination by Scottish Ministers alleged; Parry v Highland Council – Contested certificate of lawful use for a fish farm; Pentland-Clark v Maclehose and Others – [2013] 10 year long Will dispute; Pirie and another v NEC – unlawful contract termination of TV distributor’s agreements; Q-Park – Access through designated bridge Airspace valuation; RIAS v Mays – unlawful expulsion of architect from membership of professional body – compensation; S and others – prolonged family dispute among four brothers following sale of a waste recovery business; Scott v McTear – auction house denying liability for compensation after burglary; TMSL v Rannoch Club – unlawful contract termination – compensation; Scottish Parliament Inquiry – 2004 – Inquiry into overspend on the Scottish Parliament Building; Trump International v Scottish Ministers UKSC [2015] judicial review of decision about the correct interpretation of a term in Electricity Act 1989;William Grant & Sons, Distillers [2013] – judicial review of Planning Decision; Wilson v Morton Fraser – Solicitors negligence claim, contested valuation of loss of profit
APPOINTMENTS: Member of the Scottish Bar since 1981, QC Scotland since 1998
;Member, Dispute Review Board, Mersey Gateway Crossing 2015-
LECTURES & SEMINARS: Regularly gives talks on Planning law and Arbitration to solicitors, local authority staff, students, clients and others and has written a number of articles on Listed Buildings and Built and Natural Heritage issues
EDUCATION: LLB Edinburgh 1972
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: John Campbell is a Scottish Queen’s Counsel, qualified to practice throughout the UK.
He graduated from Edinburgh University in 1972, and worked as a solicitor in Scotland until 1978. He was appointed as an Assistant Director of Legal Aid in Hong Kong where he worked in a range of public service legal jobs until appointed a Magistrate in 1980. He returned to Scotland in 1981.He passed Advocate that year, was called to Lincolns Inn in 1990, and took silk in 1998. He was a member of 40 King Street Chambers in Manchester throughout the 1990s.
He has worked in Family Law, both claimant and defendant Personal Injury and industrial disease work, and much earlier, in Crime. He has acquired a lot of agricultural experience, particularly for estates, farms and tenants and in landlord and tenant issues, and has worked widely in promoting arbitration and mediation for farmers, and in rent reviews both in Scotland and around the world. He has been a registered Construction Adjudicator and is currently a Member of a DRB.
He has worked in Town and Country Planning since the mid 1990s and has developed that speciality to include Environmental Law and some Construction Law. He is particularly active in Renewable Energy work on behalf of communities, NGOs, third parties, developers and councils.
His practice today is mainly in Planning and Environmental Law, property and land law, and agriculture and energy work, and he has a specialised practice in all kinds of ADR work and its promotion. He has carried out about 200 public inquiries and a number of related judicial reviews. Outside the law, he is Chairman of Scotland’s largest Building Preservation Trust, and of a University Research Advisory Board.
DO you have a complaint or case where a QC or Advocate has not provided fair legal services? What are your experiences of dealing with the Faculty of Advocates?
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
WRIT HITS THE FAN
