WIGS IN A TWIST : Quashed convictions row as court staff forced to apologise to judges over claims of ‘wrong data’ released to media

Bugled FOI release questions quashed convictions figures for Scottish judges. A ROW has broken out between the Judiciary of Scotland and the Scottish Court Service (SCS) over the release of information in response to a Freedom of Information request which sought data on appeals against conviction and sentence at High Court and Sheriff Court level.

The data, which revealed numbers of quashed convictions against senior judges and a former Lord Advocate who also sat as a judge, has already forced apologies from the Chief Executive of the SCS to members of the judiciary and a partial retraction of the information provided via FOI legislation. However the SCS has since been ordered to review what information it did release, and publish a ‘correct’ version as soon as possible.

The now much debated information provided by staff from the SCS claimed that in the past five years, former Lord Advocate & Court of Session Senator Lord Hardie, now retired and sitting as a peer in the House of Lords, allegedly had eight convictions and 20 sentences successfully appealed.

More worryingly, the current number two in the Scottish Justice system, the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Carloway who supports the removal of a long held safeguard of corroboration from the Scottish criminal justice system, was revealed in the now allegedly defective information provided by the SCS as having seven convictions overturned against his judgements since 2008 and eight sentences successfully challenged.

Another well known judge, Lord Brailsford, recently in the news relating to twitter threats made by a family member, was revealed in the SCS statistics to have had four convictions quashed and 15 sentences challenged in the last five years.

Overall, the figures provided by the SCS showed that between 2008 and 2012, there were 301 successful appeals in High Court cases, including 86 overturned convictions.

The figures for legal challenges in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts revealed there were 1,619 appeals granted with 130 convictions quashed, with Sheriff Lindsay Foulis, who sits at Perth Sheriff Court, having two convictions and 39 sentences successfully challenged while in another example, the now retired Sheriff John Herald, who presided at Rothesay Sheriff Court had four convictions overturned and 20 sentences appealed successfully.

However, already up to their necks in controversy over secret financial dealings and undeclared interests in court case after court case, members of Scotland’s judiciary apparently blew several fuses over headlines in the media relating to the numbers of quashed convictions, demanding apologies & retractions over the information released by the Scottish Court Service.

The apology was swift, but for the most part it’s detail appears to rely on the fact that some of the information provided by the SCS exceeded the “five year” term of the FOI request itself … which does not exactly lead to a convincing retraction of claims already published widely in the media.

And in a somewhat humiliating move, the Chief Executive of the SCS was forced to personally write in one newspaper earlier this week in an effort to have his two week old apologetic statement published (reprinted below) … perhaps the delay was caused by everyone wondering what the judges are really up to for their £200K plus a year, expenses and a blank slate for interests on the side …

The Judiciary of Scotland were asked for comment, although none has been provided at time of publication.

There is a solution of course – publish the statistical records of judges, their judgements, legal challenges and successful appeals on a live basis and the Scots public will be able to see for themselves exactly how our wealthy, well paid, & secretive judges are actually performing in our clogged up “Victorian” Scottish courts system.

The apology : Information on Appeals – Statement by Chief Executive, Eric McQueen

On 18 June Scottish Court Service (SCS), in response to a request for information made in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act provided data on appeals against conviction and sentence at High Court and Sheriff Court level. The data provided was by appeal type and by judge in respect of cases ‘overturned on appeal in each of the last five years’.

Since the data was originally released a number of serious discrepancies have been identified. Additionally, the SCS did not provide important contextual information as to the date of the original court decision in many cases the court decision which was subject to appeal was made more than five years ago.

SCS apologises to those affected. Specifically, SCS apologises to those members of the judiciary whose position has been misrepresented as a result of the data provided. The data attributed to the Lord Justice Clerk includes cases originally decided more than five years ago and includes cases in error.  In the course of his judicial career, which commenced in 2000, Lord Carloway has had three cases in which the conviction was overturned and all of these predate 2008.

Likewise the data attributed to Lord Hardie contains errors in that the data indicated that he had eight conviction appeals listed as being sustained when the correct figure is five.

It is also considered likely that the data in relation to Lord Brailsford and Lord Woolman may contain similar inaccuracies and this is currently being checked.

The position in relation to sheriffs is being considered separately.

SCS is now reviewing all the data and will publish a correct version as soon as possible.

 

Questions over ‘Victorian’ Justice delays as Court of Session set to rule on SIXTEEN YEAR medical injury claim against Motherwell College & North Lanarkshire Council

Court of Session ruling expected on 16 year civil damages claim after 8 weeks of hearings over 2 years. THE COURT OF SESSION is soon expected to issue a ruling in a SIXTEEN YEAR battle for justice in a medical injury case against Motherwell College & North Lanarkshire Council. The case, which is the longest of its kind on record, regarding a workplace injury which occurred in 1995, has taken a staggering sixteen years out of the life of Mr Martin Wilson, a Music Lecturer who suffered severe back injuries after help was denied to him in the course of his duties by its now former Principal Richard Millham, who was dubbed a “Bully Boss” by national newspapers after Motherwell College lost a string of unfair dismissal claims brought by College staff.

Members of staff at Motherwell College were reported to have described ‘a strong climate of fear which is still there’. One of several unanimous decisions by Employment Tribunals against the College confirmed that Mr Wilson was unfairly dismissed while on long term sickness leave.

Lord Woolman is the presiding judge in the present claim of M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01). Investigations conducted by the media have revealed the case has generated thousands of pages of transcripts along with numerous hearings before the Court of Session where internationally acclaimed expert medical witnesses from the UK and abroad disputed the testimony of Motherwell College’s own ‘experts’. As the hearings ‘progressed’, many legal observers to the case indicated matters could & should have been resolved years ago, some expressing opinions the case appeared to have been prolonged by legal teams solely for the purpose of generating legal fees from Motherwell College totalling HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS, ultimately paid for by taxpayers.

An in-depth investigation into the case carried out by Scottish Law Reporter, compiled with the help of observers to the legal proceedings and senior legal insiders, berated Motherwell College and its legal representatives for wilfully delaying for THIRTEEN YEARS after Mr Wilson’s injury before commissioning an expert ergonomics report in this manual handling claim, and then only after Mr Wilson had managed to gain access to the defenders premises, something no fewer than FOUR ‘normally reliable’ law firms which included the well known Edinburgh law firm of Balfour & Manson & the Glasgow based Harper Macleod who had previously ‘represented Mr Wilson’s best interests’ had failed to do during the thirteen years since the summons was served on Motherwell College.

Damning evidence from interviews with legal observers to the proceedings revealed instances where despite the court suggesting the defenders make the “expert ergonomics report” available to Mr Wilson as soon as possible, the legal agents acting for Motherwell College, Simpson and Marwick, withheld the report until approximately 72 hours before the Proof was scheduled to begin in June of 2008, and then only handing it over on Court premises during a procedural hearing before Lord Penrose.

After being told of the report being withheld from the pursuer, Lord Penrose claimed that the defenders had been “playing fast and loose with due process in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage” and “had rendered the scheduled proof hearing unsafe”. Lord Penrose then invited Motherwell College representatives to apply for a postponement, which they did, and despite the party litigant being prepared to continue regardless – he had paid for distinguished expert witnesses to travel from destinations as far afield as the Western United States.

Taking the defenders legal representatives conduct into account, Lord Penrose described the situation as ‘unfortunate’ yet amazingly, no penalty was imposed on the defenders and these tactics, widely viewed as cynical delaying tactics, led to a further delay of over a year, the hearings finally getting started in November 2009 at the Court of Session under Lord Woolman. Later that month, and only after the Proof hearings had begun, a ruling in the Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & others case heralded in the appearance of Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend in a Court of Session case.

According to legal observers, hearings in the case continued “sporadically” and one year later in November 2010 Motherwell College’s legal team told the court they were withdrawing their “expert ergonomics report” and would not be relying on it, leading many observers to view the defender’s case as being “unsustainable”.

The report by Scottish Law Reporter also revealed that out of a total of some SIXTEEN LAY WITNESSES to be called by Motherwell College, only FOUR eventually appeared, and none of those included the key player in Mr Wilson’s earlier successful Employment Tribunal Decision against the College, it’s disgraced former Principal, Richard Millham.

Astonishingly the defenders suddenly decided at the last minute in January 2011 not to call the College’s former Health and Safety Officer in a manual handling claim, – a consequence perhaps of the defenders failure to produce a single risk assessment or manual handling record. Observers to hearings of the case described the testimony of Motherwell College’s expert witnesses as “lacking any credibility whatsoever”, “highly scripted”, and “unusually combative”.

North Lanarkshire Council & Motherwell College were represented throughout hearings at the Court of Session by Edinburgh law firm Simpson & Marwick. Senior Counsel for Simpson & Marwick was Ian MacKay QC, Junior Counsel was Calum Wilson both of Compass Chambers.

Political connections ? Former Motherwell College Principal Richard Millham, pictured (left) with the then First Minister Jack McConnell (right) in Motherwell FC awards ceremony. While the Court of Session is expected to issue its ruling soon, there remain significant questions over who or what delayed a civil damages claim for approximately 16 years against scandal hit Motherwell College. Senior legal insiders have indicated the case may well form part of an effort to have the Scottish Parliament look at the regular and unjustifiable delays in access to justice in the Scottish courts while some have raised questions over the possibility influence of a political nature may have been exerted on law firms to delay Mr Wilson’s access to justice.

BACKGROUND TO MOTHERWELL COLLEGE CLIMATE OF FEAR & 16 YEAR JUSTICE BATTLE :

Motherwell College squandered £300K of taxpayers money fighting a string of Tribunal hearings involving bullying allegations against lecturers which the College lost. A number of media reports, referred to in earlier coverage by Scottish Law Reporter, show Motherwell College were involved in a string of Employment Tribunal decisions the college lost during Richard Millham’s term as Principal of Motherwell College. Allegations in newspapers including the Sunday Mail reported that “In 1999, lecturer Martin Wilson won £4000 after a tribunal ruled he had been unfairly fired. He had a back injury and could not work. A close friend said : “He was targeted by Millham. There was a strong climate of fear, which is still there .”

Scottish Law Reporter reported in earlier coverage : “From 1995-1998 Motherwell College opposed Mr Wilson’s claim for Unfair Dismissal while on long term sickness leave and lost, to a unanimous decision. Undeterred Motherwell College appealed the decision, and lost again. This was the first of several high profile Employment Tribunal cases lost by the Board of Management of Motherwell College, often to unanimous decisions against it.”

I have reported on this case in previous articles, here : FIFTEEN year wait for justice against Motherwell College marks poor state of Scotland’s ‘Victorian’ Justice System on European Civil Justice Day and here : Access to Justice ? Law Society’s insurers Marsh UK linked to SIXTEEN YEAR Court of Session civil damages claim against Motherwell College

 

Access to Justice ? Law Society’s insurers Marsh UK linked to SIXTEEN YEAR Court of Session civil damages claim against Motherwell College

Marsh UK, the UK subsidiary of the US insurance firm Marsh & McLennan companies which saw some of its directors plead guilty as a result of an investigation by the New York District Attorney’s Office of bid-rigging and price-fixing in the insurance industry has now been linked to Scotland’s longest running civil damages action claim, now in its SIXTEENTH YEAR in the Court of Session, involving Motherwell College & North Lanarkshire Council after the local authority released details in response to a Freedom of Information request.

Court of Session judge Lord Woolman hears Scotland’s longest running civil damages claim. Now in its Sixteenth year in the Court of Session, fresh hearings in the long running civil damages claim in front of judge Lord Woolman began earlier on Tuesday of this week. M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01) which has its origins in the mid 1990’s and brought about Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in late 2009, involves a sole party litigant, Mr Martin Wilson, a former Music lecturer of Motherwell College who, according to media reports was forced out of his job after sustaining severe back injuries during the course of his duties as a music lecturer during his time at the College in the 1990’s.

Responses obtained by Diary of Injustice in reply to Freedom of Information enquiries reveal that Marsh, the insurance firm who insure all members of Scotland’s legal profession without exception, now also insure North Lanarkshire Council, who operate Motherwell College.

An official from North Lanarkshire Council replying to an FOI request admitted : “I can advise that North Lanarkshire Council’s Insurance Brokers until 30 September 2007 were AON, and from 1 October 2007 this service has been provided by Marsh. I can advise also that Travellers Insurance Company Limited have provided employers liability cover for the whole period of your request.”

In what is now Scotland’s longest running civil damages claim, Mr Wilson, the party litigant, has been forced to represent himself after several of Scotland’s leading law firms suspiciously abandoned his case at the very last minute. Mr Wilson is facing North Lanarkshire Council and their indemnity insurers, Travelers Insurance Co Ltd who are both being represented in court by Edinburgh law firm Simpson & Marwick. Senior Counsel for Simpson & Marwick is Ian MacKay QC, Junior Counsel being Calum Wilson both of Compass Chambers.

Now, following further investigations by Diary of Injustice and despite the outrageous time it has taken for Scotland’s civil justice system to hear their testimony, hearings in the Court of Session have shown that many internationally acclaimed experts have supported the party litigant’s claims.

I first reported on Mr Wilson’s case late last year, here : FIFTEEN year wait for justice against Motherwell College marks poor state of Scotland’s ‘Victorian’ Justice System on European Civil Justice Day where legal insiders who attended previous court hearings reported that Mr Wilson, who had been put in the position of having to represent himself after several big name law firms, who were at the time & are currently all insured with Marsh UK, withdrew from Mr Wilson’s case at the last minute prior to scheduled hearings of the Proof. Mr Wilson had also encountered repeated & numerous refusals of ‘expert witnesses’ from Scotland to assist his case as long as he was unrepresented. As a party litigant without representation, Mr Wilson was, according to court observers, forced abroad to Japan and the United States for supportive expert medical reports.

According to court documents seen by Diary of Injustice last October, Mr Wilson was previously represented by the well known Edinburgh law firm of Balfour & Manson, who were appointed by Scotland’s largest teachers & lecturers Union, the Educational Institute for Scotland (EIS), who spent tens of thousands of pounds assessing Mr Wilson’s injury as a valid claim, and that it should proceed to court. Amazingly it took the EIS almost THREE YEARS to lodge the summons against Motherwell College.

Papers studied by legal insiders reporting on the case revealed that Balfour & Manson, after being appointed by the EIS spent a staggering EIGHT YEARS working on Mr Wilson’s injury claim, and then at the last minute, decided to withdraw from acting for their client with only weeks to go before scheduled Proof Hearings in the Court of Session.

Balfour & Manson’s withdrawal from acting for Mr Wilson then became a suspicious pattern followed by further four law firms, including the Glasgow based Harper Macleod also withdrawing at the last minute, some eighteen months after representing Mr Wilson. Harper McLeod claimed they had ‘suddenly discovered’ “a commercial difficulty” in that they had an annual retainer from Motherwell College for several years, and had represented the College in Mr Wilson’s Employment Tribunal hearing over his unfair dismissal, which Mr Wilson won on a unanimous decision. Motherwell College also appealed the Employment Tribunal decision on Mr Wilson’s case and lost again.

A further two legal firms took on Mr Wilson’s case and then were apparently persuaded to drop their client, amazingly even returning fees paid to them for their service.

Motherwell College squandered £300K of taxpayers money fighting a string of Tribunal hearings involving bullying allegations against lecturers which the College lost. A number of media reports, referred to in recent coverage of the case by Scottish Law Reporter, show Motherwell College were involved in a string of Employment Tribunal decisions the college lost during Richard Millham’s term as Principal of Motherwell College. Allegations in newspapers including the Sunday Mail reported that “In 1999, lecturer Martin Wilson won £4000 after a tribunal ruled he had been unfairly fired. He had a back injury and could not work. A close friend said : “He was targeted by Millham. There was a strong climate of fear, which is still there .”

According to Scottish Law Reporter who last year reported on the case, “From 1995-1998 Motherwell College opposed Mr Wilson’s claim for Unfair Dismissal while on long term sickness leave and lost, to a unanimous decision. Undeterred Motherwell College appealed the decision, and lost again. This was the first of several high profile Employment Tribunal cases lost by the Board of Management of Motherwell College, often to unanimous decisions against it.”

Simpson & Marwick, who are representing Motherwell College & North Lanarkshire Council, are themselves famed for their representation of solicitors accused of professional negligence & client swindling, all supposedly covered by the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme, operated by Marsh to defend against negligence claims raised by clients. The Master Policy and its administration, operation was linked in 2009 to client suicides in an independent report published by the University of Manchester’s Law School.

One of Simpson & Marwick’s partners, Dr Pamela Abernethy famously appeared at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee during 2008, telling msps that pleural plaques, an asbestos related condition, could actually be good for people. I reported on Dr Abernethy’s incredulous claims in September 2008, here : Insurance lawyers argue against laws to help asbestos victims asserting part of their suffering ‘is a good thing’

Marsh UK, the British end of the gigantic US insurance operation appear to be linked to many insurance deals in the public & private sector, ranging from multiple services provided by local & national government including law & order, to the private sector. Marsh also enjoy a monopoly on the insurance of all solicitors in Scotland through the Law Society of Scotland’s ‘brutal enforcement’ of the Master Insurance Policy arrangements where all solicitors are required to pay into the professional indemnity insurance scheme if they want to practice any form of law.

Marsh appear to have heavy political influence in the UK, with Conservative Lord Ian Lang now the Chairman elect of Marsh & McLennan companies, according to his register of interests published as per his duties as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. Lord Lang joined the Marsh & McLennan board in 1997 and has assiduously refused all invitations to comment since news of the ‘Marsh Frauds’ broke, frauds which were accompanied by valid injury and disability claims being routinely denied. More on Lord Lang’s position at Marsh & McLennan and his career history, along with documents detailing serious allegations against many directors of Marsh including Lord Lang, can be viewed at Scottish Law Reporter, HERE

This reporter and the Scottish Law Reporters team will continue to follow this case closely.

 

A very Judicial success : McKenzie Friends to hit Scotland’s Sheriff Courts soon, Law Society agrees on ‘automatic right to use lay assistants’

Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill’s reform proposals helped bring McKenzie Friends to Scots Courts system. THE FINAL CHAPTER in the long running campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to all of Scotland’s courts, which began with the consideration of the issue in 2007 by Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review, has now finally been written, as the Sheriff Court Rules Council announced this week it had finalised its consideration of rules on the use of McKenzie Friends across Scotland’s Sheriff Courts, with enactment allowing unrepresented party litigants to apply to use a lay assistant expected within a matter of weeks.

A spokesperson for the Sheriff Court Rules Council stated : “The Sheriff Court Rules Council further considered draft rules for the use of a McKenzie Friend at its meeting on 5 November. The Council agreed the substance of these and they will be submitted to the Court of Session for consideration later this month.”

The Scottish Parliament have also been briefed by the Sheriff Court Rules Council, who wrote to MSPs stating : “Current plans are for rule changes to be included within a miscellaneous instrument to be made later this month, but this of course depends on (a) when the Council’s proposed rules are finalised: and (b) the view taken of them by the Court of Session.”

However, further investigations & enquiries by Diary of Injustice have now established the original suggestion by the Sheriff Court Rules Council that McKenzie Friends be allowed to receive some form of payment for their services in the Sheriff Courts, has now been abandoned, and a similar set of rules forbidding the remuneration of McKenzie Friends, as was passed in the Lord Hamilton’s Act of Sederunt announced earlier in February of this year, which approved the use without remuneration of McKenzie Friends in the Court of Session in mid June 2010, will now also be used in the Sheriff Courts. I reported more on the remuneration issue during July, here : Lord President softens rules on Scottish McKenzie Friends, remuneration issue still out of step with England & Wales

A spokesperson for the Sheriff Court Rules Council answered enquiries on the remuneration point, saying : “The Council proposes that a similar provision in relation to the matter of expenses as to that which is already in place in the Court of Session Rules should be provided for in the sheriff court rules.”

A legal insider commented this was a rather unusual step, given there was already case law in England & Wales [N (A Child) [2009] EWHC 2096 (Fam)] to support the right or entitlement of a McKenzie Friend to charge or at least receive some form of remuneration for their services.

He said : “Personally I feel we could have done without this fuss over a McKenzie Friend being able to charge a fee or not. Forbidding it sounds almost anti competitive, and will at any rate, restrict the numbers of qualified individuals offering themselves up as McKenzie Friends. It is a counter productive attitude, and perhaps one which could be challenged later on under ECHR, with it possibly being open to interpretation of denying a party litigant the right to a fair hearing – if they cannot secure a qualified McKenzie Friend because of such a restriction.”

Law Society of Scotland now support a presumed right for party litigants to use a McKenzie Friend in Scotland’s courts. Meanwhile the Law Society of Scotland followed suit, its Civil Justice Committee stating “…there should be an automatic right to use a McKenzie Friend. However, it should be within the court’s discretion to insist on a withdrawal of a McKenzie Friend if it determines that the position is being abused.” which sets out an almost identical position to that of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales.

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations who have consistently spoken in favour of McKenzie Friends commented on the Sheriff Court Rules Council announcement, welcoming the changes. He said : “I view this as a positive step in ensuring many consumers in Scotland who for various reasons do not have access to a solicitor can now enjoy a significant measure of assistance to help them as party litigants present their case in the Sheriff Courts.”

He continued : “The Civil Courts Review team and Lord Gill are to be commended for pursuing the question of McKenzie Friends in their two year investigation of civil justice in Scotland. I would also like to say the Scottish Parliament’s scrutiny of the issue also played a part in ensuring its speedy implementation.”

2007 Civil Courts Review consultation raised McKenzie Friends issue. The question of McKenzie Friends was first raised in the 2007 Civil Courts Review Consultation Paper (pdf) launched by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill to being the Civil Courts Review. In the paper, Lord Gill stated : “The courts in England and Wales have for over 30 years allowed party litigants to be assisted in court by what have become to be known as “McKenzie friends”. They do not take on the role of a lawyer, but provide support in court such as making notes, prompting or giving advice on the conduct of the case. There have been occasions where the Court has gone further and, in particular circumstances, allowed the McKenzie friend to address the Court.148 In such cases the court has to exercise its statutory powers and grant a right of audience to the McKenzie friend. The desirability of permitting a party litigant to be represented in court by a person without a right of audience is a matter that the Review will consider.”

Consumer Focus Scotland have supported the idea of McKenzie Friends in Scottish courts for years. The Scottish Consumer Council (now renamed Consumer Focus Scotland) responded to the consultation paper in March 2008, over a year before a petition was filed at the Scottish Parliament on the issue, backing the call to introduce McKenzie Friends. The Scottish Consumer Council’s response stated : “We would welcome recognition by the Scottish courts of the need for discretion to allow some form of ‘McKenzie friend’ to accompany and possibly represent a party litigant in appropriate cases.”

Which? also backed McKenzie Friends. The Which? consumer organisation replied to the consultation paper in April 2008, also supported the introduction in Scotland of McKenzie Friends, stating : ”Some litigants cannot afford or cannot find a lawyer to represent them and may find it beneficial and useful to be represented by a non lawyer. We feel this should be permitted. We support the idea of Scottish courts allowing ‘McKenzie friends’ to accompany and perhaps represent a litigant where appropriate, provided appropriate safeguards are introduced.”

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review recommended the implementation of McKenzie Friends for Scotland. The results of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review were published in August 2009., his report finally recommended the implementation of McKenzie Friends in Scottish Courts, stating : “If the court considers that it would be helpful in any case, a person without a right of audience (a ‘McKenzie friend’) should be permitted to address the court on behalf of a party litigant. The court should have discretion to refuse to allow any particular person to act as a McKenzie friend on grounds relating to character or conduct and to withdraw a permission to at as such at any time. The rules of court should specify the role to be played by such persons and should provide that they are not entitled to remuneration.”

A little help from Australian Barrister, Ian Hanger QC supported McKenzie Friends for Scotland. Lord Gill’s recommendations on McKenzie Friends also had a timely note of support from the original McKenzie Friend himself, Ian Hanger QC, who wrote to the Scottish Parliament, supporting the introduction of McKenzie Friends into Scottish Courts. Ian Hanger QC wrote in his letter : “In Australia, most of our courts have the power to permit a non-qualified person to, in effect, represent a litigant. A McKenzie Friend does not have a right to address the court. That right is confined to quietly assisting the unrepresented litigant. The Australian experience has been that it has worked successfully. … I cannot see that the floodgates would be opened by permitting, in appropriate cases, the presence of the McKenzie Friend to help the unrepresented litigant. In some cases you will get a brilliant law student who will provide enormous assistance to the Court .. I would urge the Parliament to permit the appearance of the McKenzie Friend.”

Insiders at Holyrood and from the legal profession point to Ian Hanger’s invaluable and timely letter to the Scottish Parliament in support of McKenzie Friends as ‘having sealed the deal’ on McKenzie Friends coming to Scotland.

Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend request Two months after Lord Gill had recommended the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s Courts, and nearly 40 years since they were introduced to England & Wales, the first ever civil law McKenzie Friend in Scotland’s Court of Session was granted by Lord Woolman in a long running civil damages action which named Motherwell College, North Lanarkshire Council & Edinburgh Law firm Simpson & Marwick as defenders. The case, a medical injury claim M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01) was again recently in the headlines, here : FIFTEEN year wait for justice against Motherwell College marks poor state of Scotland’s ‘Victorian’ Justice System on European Civil Justice Day

McKenzie Friends made official in Court of Session by Lord Hamilton. In June of 2010, Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton implemented rules & guidance on the use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s Court of Session as of 15 June 2010. This speedier than expected implementation came about after intense media coverage online and in the national press, ensuring after Lord Hamilton’s Act of Sederunt announced earlier in February of this year finally took effect, anyone who cannot obtain legal representation for litigation which demands a place in Scotland’s highest court, now have the right to file a motion requesting the services of a McKenzie Friend to assist their case.

The final chapter is now written for McKenzie Friends in Scotland. This time, despite occasional judge bashing, Holyrood bashing, attempted & thankfully unpublished bashing of a senior Scottish Minister for not supporting a petition, media bashing, Law Society bashing, and even claims by some for credit for something which was already set in stone at least a year before (that pushing at an open door feeling), the legal system got it right … or perhaps ‘mostly right’, albeit having to be spurred on by individuals cases who have greatly been denied access to justice for so long in the Scottish Courts. We all, of course, have a great deal to thank Lord Gill for in his Civil Courts Review conclusions and his comments which have led to speedier than usual reforms in the Scottish justice system.

We should also not forget the help from our Australian cousins, Scottish politicians such as MSPs Margo MacDonald & David Whitton who both raised the political profile of the McKenzie Friends issue, the Scottish Government who have introduced a ‘talking McKenzie Friend with rights of audience’ via the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (pdf), the significant media coverage, both online and in the national press, the help of consumer organisation Which? and the dedication of those working for our Scots consumer champion in the form of Consumer Focus Scotland, which the Westminster based coalition Government plans to axe, in what must certainly be an act of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, or perhaps, limit the powers of consumers to stand up to big business & vested interests.

I don’t know about you, but I’d call that team work, all the way from the benches of Scotland’s Court of Session on a bleak winter’s day, to the great cities of Australia, which are no doubt about to enjoy a long luxurious summer. As a journalist, its been fun, and hopefully informative & helpful to all, to write about it. This McKenzie Friend has now left the building.

 

FIFTEEN year wait for justice against Motherwell College marks poor state of Scotland’s ‘Victorian’ Justice System on European Civil Justice Day

Scotland’s Court of Session to hear lecturer’s 15 year wait for justice against Motherwell College. IN a fitting tribute to mark the poor state of Scotland’s civil justice system on the European Civil Justice Day held every 25th October, a record breaking personal injury civil damages claim against Motherwell College & North Lanarkshire Council in the Court of Session which has its origins in the mid 1990’s and last year brought about Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend is now set to be followed by an unprecedented thirteenth year of litigation with further hearings scheduled for 2011 in what some claim is a considerable abuse of the court process & the individual’s right of a fair hearing within a reasonable time as enshrined in Article 6 of European Human Rights laws.

The case in question, M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01) involves a sole party litigant, a former Music lecturer of Motherwell College, pitched against the might of North Lanarkshire Council and their indemnity insurers, Travelers Insurance Co Ltd who are both being represented in court by Edinburgh law firm Simpson & Marwick, themselves famed for their representation of solicitors shielded by the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme, operated by Marsh to defend against negligence claims raised by clients.

Legal insiders who have attended the court hearings report that Mr Wilson, who has been put in the forced position of having to represent himself after several big name law firms withdrew from his case at the last minute prior to scheduled hearings of the Proof, has also encountered repeated & numerous refusals of ‘expert witnesses’ from Scotland who refuse to assist his case as long as Mr Wilson is unrepresented. Instead, Mr Wilson has been forced abroad to Japan and the United States for supportive expert medical reports, leading to charges many in Scotland’s ‘expert witness’ groups “may have been nobbled or scared off” and will not provide their services to unrepresented party litigants such as Mr Wilson.

According to court documents seen by Diary of Injustice, Mr Wilson was previously represented by the well known Edinburgh law firm of Balfour & Manson, who were appointed by Scotland’s largest teachers & lecturers Union, the Educational Institute for Scotland (EIS), who spent tens of thousands of pounds assessing Mr Wilson’s injury as a valid claim, and that it should proceed to court. Amazingly it took the EIS almost three years to lodge the summons against Motherwell College.

Papers studied by legal insiders reporting on the case reveal that Balfour & Manson, after being appointed by the EIS spent a staggering eight years working on Mr Wilson’s injury claim, and then at the last minute, decided to withdraw from acting for their client with only weeks to go before scheduled Proof Hearings in the Court of Session.

Balfour & Manson’s withdrawal from acting for Mr Wilson then became a suspicious pattern followed by further four law firms, including the Glasgow based Harper Macleod also withdrawing at the last minute, some eighteen months after representing Mr Wilson. Harper McLeod claimed they had ‘suddenly discovered’ “a commercial difficulty” in that they had an annual retainer from Motherwell College for several years, and had represented the College in Mr Wilson’s Employment Tribunal hearing over his unfair dismissal, which Mr Wilson won on a unanimous decision. Motherwell College also appealed the Employment Tribunal decision on Mr Wilson’s case and lost again.

A further two legal firms took on Mr Wilson’s case and then were apparently persuaded to drop their client, amazingly even returning fees paid to them for their service.

Motherwell College squandered £300K of taxpayers money fighting a string of Tribunal hearings involving bullying allegations against lecturers which the College lost. A number of media reports, referred to in recent coverage of the case by Scottish Law Reporter, show Motherwell College were involved in a string of Employment Tribunal decisions the college lost during Richard Millham’s term as Principal of Motherwell College. Allegations in newspapers including the Sunday Mail reported that “In 1999, lecturer Martin Wilson won 4000 after a tribunal ruled he had been unfairly fired. He had a back injury and could not work. A close friend said : “He was targeted by Millham. There was a strong climate of fear, which is still there .”

During all this time and many forced appearances at the Court of Session as a party litigant, court staff have indicated in comments they believe Mr Wilson’s health has diminished considerably, one insider claiming to Diary of Injustice the former lecturer looked like he had aged 30 years in the last year alone.

Court of Session judge Lord Woolman to hear case in a few weeks time. Hearings on Mr Wilson’s personal injury claim are scheduled to start again in a matter of weeks at the Court of Session under Lord Woolman. Legal insiders say many are now taking a strong interest in the Wilson/NLC case and its final outcome, especially in the wake of the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill’s recommendations in his Civil Courts Review to reform what he described as Scotland’s “Victorian justice system”, which appears to be so Victorian, cases can float around in the justice system literally for decades with party litigants such as Mr Wilson failing to get anything near approaching “a fair hearing within a reasonable time”.

It is worth noting the solicitors acting for North Lanarkshire Council & Motherwell College, the Edinburgh law firm of Simpson & Marwick in their representation of insurers in connection with claims for asbestos related health diseases attained public notoriety last year in their appearance before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee in September 2008, where one of their senior partners, Dr Pamela Abernethy of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers famously argued with MSPs that symptoms of Asbestos contamination were ‘good for people’.

It is also worth noting last year, the Master Policy, of which Simpson & Marwick often act as lead solicitors, often representing fellow solicitors facing negligence claims from clients, was investigated by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, with an independent report carried out by the University of Manchester’s Law School linking the secretive ‘Master Policy’ insurance scheme to the deaths of clients who had attempted to claim damages from ‘crooked lawyers’.

The SLCC’s report on the Master Policy and my earlier coverage on the revelations can be found here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society’s Master Policy which ‘allows solicitors to sleep at night’

The report from Scottish Law Reporter on Mr Wilson’s 15 year quest for access to justice in the Scottish Courts follows :

Record 15 year wait for justice approaches for lecturer in Court of Session showdown with former Motherwell college ‘Bully Boss’ principal

A staggering 15 year wait for Justice by a music lecturer against Motherwell College may see its disgraced former Principal appear in court. FIFTEEN YEARS later in what is Scotland’s longest running civil damages action involving Motherwell College, the disgraced former Principal & CEO of Motherwell College Richard Millham, dubbed the “Bully Boss” by the media due to a string of allegations of bullying involving college lecturers, may be back in the dock soon, this time in Scotland’s Court of Session in a civil damages action claim against Motherwell College, brought by Mr Martin Wilson, a former Music Lecturer at the College.

“Bully Boss” Richard Millham who was alleged in media reports ‘to have targeted Mr Wilson in a strong climate of fear’, was forced to resign after widespread press coverage of the many Employment Tribunal decisions lost by the College under his stewardship – some estimates put the cost of these at a staggering £300,000 pounds of taxpayers money.

One of several staff members who fought back against the bullying culture at Motherwell College was the Music Lecturer Martin Wilson, who has braved the Court of Session as a party litigant in a 15 year attempt to gain justice in his civil damages claim against Motherwell College, who are represented by Simpson & Marwick, who famously argued against the Damages (Asbestos) Bill at the Scottish Parliament, claiming to MSPs asbestos related illnesses were actually good for victims who suffered from ‘pleural plaques’, a condition that forms as a result of exposure to asbestos

From 1995-1998 Motherwell College opposed Mr Wilson’s claim for Unfair Dismissal while on long term sickness leave and lost, to a unanimous decision. Undeterred Motherwell College appealed the decision, and lost again. This was the first of several high profile Employment Tribunal cases lost by the Board of Management of Motherwell College, often to unanimous decisions against it.

Undeterred, the Board of Management of Motherwell College has continued to spend thousands of pounds more of taxpayers money for the last 13 years opposing Mr Wilson’s Personal Injury claim, the longest running civil case of its kind, the new Principal Mr Hugh Logan losing appeals before the FOI Commissioner and the Pensions Ombudsman along the way.

Mr Wilson has still not received his correct ill-health pension entitlement some 15 years after he was injured, all of which adds further substance to Lord Gill’s recent criticisms of the Scottish Civil Justice system as ‘failing society’ and often involving ‘scandalous delays’.

In an age of fairness and public sector cuts it is difficult to imagine how Motherwell College’s obstinacy can be justified. However it might have something to do with the important precedent the case will establish if successful and the attitude of the College’s disgraced insurer Travelers Insurance Co Ltd, who have also been fined hundreds of millions of dollars in connection with workers claims for asbestos injuries, one of many subpoenas alleging it had acted “maliciously” using “fraud, deceit and outright lies,” designing and orchestrating their claims settlement practices to “intentionally delay,” and raising defences that they knew would never succeed in order to settle claims for less money.