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.

 

McKenzie Friends from today in Court of Session, Lord Gill’s ‘super’ McKenzie Friend with rights of audience proposal joins Holyrood’s Legal Services Bill

McKenzie Friends made official in Court of Session by Lord Hamilton. McKenzie Friends are officially available to all Scots court users & party litigants in the Court of Session as of today, 15 June 2010, after Lord Hamilton’s Act of Sederunt announced earlier in February of this year finally took effect, allowing anyone who cannot obtain legal representation for litigation which demands a place in Scotland’s highest court, to file a motion requesting the services of a McKenzie Friend to assist their case.

McKenzie friends as we are all probably now well aware of, are lay individuals who assist party litigants in court, for example by providing moral support, helping with court documents, or giving discrete advice. The Lord President has now clarified the situation in the Court of Session through an Act of Sederunt which comes into force today. Lord Hamilton has also notified the Sheriff Court Rules Council which will consider the matter at its meeting tomorrow, 16 June 2010. This will include an acknowledgement that lay assistance to party litigants is possible; a description of what form this assistance can take; and a presumption in favour of allowing a party litigant to have such a lay assistant.

A McKenzie Friend’s friend – unswerving support from Margo MacDonald MSP helped bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s Courts. The success of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, kicked off by Petition 1247 filed by Stewart MacKenzie at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, and supported by several law reform campaigners & groups, consumer organisations such as Consumer Focus Scotland & Which?, included key support from MSPs such as Margo MacDonald & David Whitton, and even support from the original McKenzie Friend himself, Australian Barrister Ian Hanger QC, all backed up by developments during November 2009 which saw Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend allowed in the Court of Session by Lord Woolman during M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & others (A1628/01), was hailed today by Scottish Parliament insiders as a collective effort showing the system of public petitions had worked well, helping to bring in a reform which had also been recommended by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill who had spent considerable time on the issue of lay representation as part of the two year Civil Courts Review.

Whilst I would characterise the year long campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland as being more of a struggle between the Lord President, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and supporters, there is no doubt a reform which featured heavily in Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review has made it to existence much sooner than if things had been left to the courts system itself to allow. After all, Scotland has been without McKenzie Friends for forty years, an omission no one is yet willing to explain substantively, and apparently an issue the Petitions Committee feels it cannot seek answers to.

Application for a McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session will cost £45. There are also some questions remaining over access, costs & funding of McKenzie Friends in Scottish Courts after the Court of Session Rules Council minutes revealed some ‘devil in the detail’, most notably on fees(proposed by the Lord President to stand at £45 per motion for a McKenzie Friend), which have been sharply criticised by some as party litigants are often unrepresented and have been put in a position of being a party litigant more because they cannot afford the expensive legal services of Scotland’s legal profession rather than the constant argument from the Law Society of Scotland that their cases are not worthy of courtroom attention. Given the costs of travel to the Court of Session and other associated costs, it is hoped the £45 fee may be looked at in a sympathetic light as applications for McKenzie Friends being to reach the Court of Session.

While Scots will be stuck with the £45 fee for the time being, fees for applications of McKenzie Friends/lay assistance in the English family courts (pdf) apparently stand at £175, using the Application Form C2 (pdf). However, party litigants have been able to circumvent the fees by writing to the judge enclosing the CV of their intended McKenzie Friend, according to individuals well experienced in the McKenzie Friend process in the English courts.

The Scottish Government have lodged a promised amendment to the Legal Services Bill proposing McKenzie Friends with a right to address the court. While questions remaining over the use of McKenzie Friends (Lay Assistants) in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts will be answered at tomorrow’s Sheriff Court Rules Council meeting, chaired by Lord Hamilton himself, another benefit has emerged from the successful introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s Court of Session .. in the form of a recent amendment lodged by the Scottish Government to the Legal Services Bill, which proposes to allow Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review recommendation of a ‘super’ McKenzie Friend with a right of audience, who will be able to address the court as well as assist their party litigant with all the other tasks associated with a McKenzie Friend up to now.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “We have lodged amendments to the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill to allow provision for lay representatives, who do not have a right of audience, to address the court on behalf of a party litigant, in certain circumstances.”

“In the report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review (“SCCR”), it was noted that “there may be exceptional circumstances in which it would be appropriate to permit a McKenzie friend to assist a party litigant and, with the court’s permission, to address the court”. It went on to recommend that “a person without a right of audience should be entitled to address the court on behalf of a party litigant, but only in circumstances where the court considers that such representation would help it”. We intend to implement this recommendation, so this will be the first recommendation of the SCCR, requiring primary legislation, to be implemented.”

So, compliments to the Scottish Government on this one … the first recommendation of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review to hit the streets in a usable form for court users in Scotland’s civil justice system. Lets have more please, including the reforms suggested by Lord Gill on Class Actions and also digital recordings in court which many would welcome being implemented in the present rather than far in the future.

I reported on the issue of transcripts of proceedings in Scotland’s courts in an earlier article here : Scottish court users advised to ‘take along a note taker’ as omissions in civil court transcripts jeopardise consumers access to justice and clearly Lord Gill feels the matter of digital recording facilities in Scotland’s courts would assist the interests of justice, confirmed to me by many litigants involved in civil actions where the events which took place in court are often omitted from interlocutors and later references made by opposing legal teams.

Lord Gill recommends digital recordings of all civil court evidence. The extent of problems with court transcripts and recordings, was referred to in Chapter 6 of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review, where the Lord Justice Clerk stated : “Currently where evidence is recorded in civil cases this is done manually by a shorthand writer. In our view it would be more efficient to record digitally all evidence in civil cases, as happens in criminal cases. The cost of this should be borne by the SCS. The availability of digital recording facilities in all courtrooms would contribute to more flexible usage of accommodation. We understand, however, that to equip a court fully for digital recording could cost up to £15,000. That may be prohibitive in smaller courts. Mobile facilities could be made available in those courts when required. If parties required a transcript of the evidence a charge would be made for this service. In many instances a recording of the evidence would be all that would be required.”

Clearly problems do exist with transcripts of courtroom activity, which as Lord Gill concludes himself, would easily be curtailed by the digital recording of all evidence in civil cases. You can download Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review at the following links : Civil Courts Review

Volume 1 Chapter 1 – 9 (Covers McKenzie Friends, procedures, use of information technology in courts, advice etc, 2.99Mb)

Volume 2 Chapter 10 – 15 (Covers mainly the issue of Class (multi party) actions etc, 2.16Mb)

Synopsis (215Kb)

How about it Mr Ewing ? It wouldn’t take much to produce an additional amendment to the Legal Services Bill putting forward Lord Gill’s recommendation on recordings of all civil court cases. Given the terms of the Civil Courts Review and Lord Gill’s proposals, I’m sure the Scottish Parliament would support such a move, which would be welcomed by many …

While there is still some work to do on McKenzie Friends in Scotland, to ensure Scots have the same entitlements as our English cousins, I would like to thank all involved who have cooperated in my series of reports on McKenzie Friends over the past year, thanks going especially to the original McKenzie Friend, QC Ian Hanger, MSPs such as Margo MaDonald and David Whitton, and the many officials from the Scottish Court Service, Scottish Government Scottish Parliament and others who have spoken out when it counted, or given statements to complete my coverage.

Also, and not least, my thanks go to all those unrepresented party litigants who have told me of their stories, all of whom have endured a considerable denial of their access to justice over the years in Scotland, simply because their cases were either too controversial or involved parts of the establishment which the legal profession were too close to. I hope through my reporting on the petition and the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, I have given you all a voice and a chance of access to justice denied for too long …

The Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament will again discuss Petition 1247 later in the summer.

You can read my earlier coverage of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland : The story so far

All written submissions for the McKenzie Friend petition at the Scottish Parliament can be read here : Written submissions for Petition 1247, McKenzie Friends for Scotland

 

McKenzie Friend Petition hears Lord President is ‘too protective’ of courts as Scots party litigants face less rights, more delays on court assistance reforms

Lord Hamilton dubbed ‘too protective’ of Scottish courts. MCKENZIE FRIENDS FOR SCOTLAND moved a little forward on the road to progress at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee earlier this week as independent MSP Margo MacDonald expressed the views of many consumer organisations & campaigners that Lord Hamilton’s plans as announced earlier in February to impose strict conditions on the appearance of McKenzie Friends (courtroom helpers who assist unrepresented party litigants by taking notes, suggestion questions to be asked, and quietly advising on court procedures, points of law) were “too protective”, ignoring the decades of English legal experience in McKenzie Friends appearing in courts south of the border.

Margo MacDonald – Lord President is being too protective and ignoring English experience on McKenzie Friends (click to view video) :

Margo MacDonald MSP. Margo MacDonald, speaking in support of Petition 1247, which aims to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, said : “I should put on record I have sympathy with the Lord President of the Council’s desire to try and ensure that the Scottish Courts system is as professional and as equitable as possible but I think he perhaps is too protective and he is ignoring the evidence of thirty years practice of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales McKenzie Friends in the court and I think the case is proved although its not within our own jurisdiction I don’t think we would behave much differently in the situation which is what I imagine the Lord President is concerned about.”

Also, the question of a McKenzie Friend being an “absolute right” of any unrepresented court users came up for debate once more. Margo MacDonald said : “I think there should be a strong presumption of a McKenzie Friend and that should be enshrined in primary legislation. I think though that there should not be an absolute right to this and that a judge or sheriff should retain discretion to determine whether or not the normal conduct of the court is going to be hindered of harmed in any way it should be enhanced by having a McKenzie Friend there.”

Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend. The case that broke the forty year mould on McKenzie Friends in Scotland, Martin Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others saw Lord Woolman grant Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session in mid November 2009, albeit forcing the McKenzie Friend to sit behind the party litigant, Mr Wilson in one of Scotland’s longest running civil damages action cases. You can read more about this in an earlier article, here : First use of McKenzie Friend in Scotland as Court of Session sweeps aside 40 years of lawyers monopoly over public access to justice

Bill Butler MSP (Labour). Petitions Committee member Bill Butler MSP commented : “We should write to the Lord President of the Court of Session asking for a response to the concerns raised in the submission by Which? magazine’ specifically paragraphs 4-7 the petitioner particularly points to point 1.1 & 1.2 and Consumer Focus Scotland I also think we should ask the Lord President will each of these concerns be addressed and in the forthcoming Act of Sederunt that he intends to bring forward and if not why not.”

However, progress on the issue took a slight left turn as expected, Nigel Don, attempted to talk down the already announced plans of the Lord President, Lord Hamilton to force hopeful McKenzie Friends to sign absolute certificates with strict conditions before they are even allowed to appear in a Scottish court to assist & take notes for their party litigant

Nigel Don MSP – Petitions Committee member & Parliamentary liaison to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Nigel Don, speaking on the thorny point of Lord Hamilton’s plans to impose a certificate on those appearing as a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish Court, announced in February which I reported on earlier HERE, said “I think its fair to say the certificate as I see it is not a certificate it is anything other than as I understand this is an an important place to be and I understand I am in court and there are some responsibilities of receiving information and how I conduct myself equally people seem to be suggesting the experience is a kind of textbook exercise if you have not got enough experience you cannot be there.”

In England & Wales, and most other jurisdictions where McKenzie Friends have been used in courts around the world for up to forty years, there are apparently no such requirements of the forcible signing of certificates for those wishing to appear as a McKenzie Friend, who is simply there to assist an unrepresented party litigant by taking notes, suggesting questions and giving quiet advice on court procedures or acts of law.

Sources say the Act of Sederunt, which Lord Hamilton announced in February with his intention to bring forward for May 2010 is mostly finished, and remains of the view there be strict requirements of a certificate to be signed before a party litigant can use the services of a McKenzie Friend in Scotland’s courts. Apparently drafts of the Act of Sederunt floating around show there to be no flexibility on this issue of the certificate, despite Mr Don’s less than convincing argument the certificate issue will not be an absolute …

Mr Don also appeared to support the Lord President’s apparent hang up on whether McKenzie Friends could be paid for their time in a Scottish Court. Mr Don said : “I do know that the Lord President is suggesting the lay assistant should not be paid in any way at all and it seems to me if that is a line he wants to maintain people will find a way around it and I want to make sure we bring that to his attention as well.”

Margo MacDonald interceded, commenting that it has been suggested by Consumer Focus that a simple question asked by the judge or sheriff are you being paid for this if the person ‘tells a porky’ he can be put away for perjury.

Oddly enough, Consumer Focus Scotland are against McKenzie Friends receiving payment for their services to party litigants, this despite the fact McKenzie Friends in England & Wales, and many other international jurisdictions have for years been able to charge for their services without much dispute from courts.

However, today, some who have acted as McKenzie Friends in England & Wales questioned why Lord Hamilton has such a hang up over the issue of whether a McKenzie Friend can receive remuneration for their services.

While the Scottish Parliament & consumer groups argue over whether a McKenzie Friend can or cannot receive payment for their services, apparently on the ludicrous possibility of penalty of jail time, there is now case law in the English courts family division to support the right of a McKenzie Friend to charge for their services, where Mr Justice Munby, ruling over a case of costs arising from contentious contact and residence litigation between unmarried parents [N (A Child) [2009] EWHC 2096 (Fam)] concluded the child’s father’s McKenzie Friend “is entitled to charge, if he can find clients willing to pay his fees, at an hourly rate which can hardly be said to be extravagant when contrasted with the fees one frequently finds being charged to privately paying clients in family cases”.

One English solicitor of 30 years experience who in his spare time has appeared as a McKenzie Friend for an unrepresented party litigant said : “Lord Hamilton’s apparent desire to send any McKenzie Friend who asks for or receives money for their services in Scotland to a firing squad at dawn seems itself to be an obstruction to the many unrepresented party litigants even being able to obtain a McKenzie Friend in the first place. I think the Lord President’s hang-up over a Scottish McKenzie Friend receiving a fee for their services is more to do with lobbying from the legal profession rather than an interest in how well the conduct of the court proceeds.”

He continued : “I think it comes down to the fact that a McKenzie Friend might end up charging £30 an hour for his services, while solicitors and full legal teams can cost anything up to £5,000 an hour in Scotland’s Court of Session. Its not rocket science to work out the Scots legal profession are worried they are going to lose a lot of revenue if clients chose the unrepresented party litigant approach to court cases and employ a much cheaper yet effective McKenzie Friend than hiring an expensive legal team which might cost a lot but not win the case anyway. As I see things, it is this factor which is the real opposition to a McKenzie Friend being paid or not, not the actual smooth running of the court.”

Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend. The case that broke the forty year mould on McKenzie Friends in Scotland, Martin Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others saw Lord Woolman grant Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session in mid November 2009, albeit forcing the McKenzie Friend to sit behind the party litigant, Mr Wilson in one of Scotland’s longest running civil damages action cases. You can read more about this in an earlier article, here : First use of McKenzie Friend in Scotland as Court of Session sweeps aside 40 years of lawyers monopoly over public access to justice

Clearly as I have thought all along, the issue of bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts comes down to competition, and the fears of the legal profession they will lose business. Well, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a good thing. If expensive legal teams are so expensive and so poor quality as we are forced to expect on a daily basis in the Scottish courts that they will often drag a case out for years, take it to all the courts in the land and achieve no success while presenting the litigant with bills for tens of thousands of pounds, then the legal profession deserve to lose the business.

The prospect of lost business for lawyers should not factor into the Lord President’s decisions on when and under what format to allow McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts, especially since the legal profession have been so effective at excluding McKenzie Friends from Scotland for the past forty years, simply, due to … greed.

Lord Gill supported the introduction of McKenzie Friends in his Civil Courts Review. Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill also supported the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s Civil courts, reported on at length in his Civil Courts Review, although mentioned none of the strict conditions which the Lord President, Lord Hamilton now wishes to impose on the Scottish version of a McKenzie Friend. You can read more about Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review here : Scots Law ‘shake up’ as Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review supports McKenzie Friends, Class Actions & wider access to justice for all

The Petitions Committee decision of this week, chose the clear and thankfully sensible suggestion from Bill Butler MSP to write to the Lord President along the following lines :

• What is your response to each of the concerns raised in the submission by Which? magazine, specifically in paragraphs 4 to 7 (PE1247/AA), the petitioner (PE1247/EE), particularly points 1.1 and 1.2 and Consumer Focus Scotland (PE1247/FF)?
• Will each of these concerns be addressed in the forthcoming Act of Sederunt you intend to bring forward? If not, why not?

However, as has been noticed by many observers, the Lord President has already refused to answer the Petitions Committee’s earlier questions, put to the Lord President on 9 February 2010, where the Committee asked :

• What is your answer to the concerns of the petitioner (PE1247/V) regarding the lack of awareness of the Court of Session about the existence of such a facility? How will this be addressed and when?
• Can you confirm that there is a presumption in favour of a “McKenzie friend” to assist a party litigant, unless deemed unsuitable by the Court?

Now we must await to see whether the Lord President will this time, answer the Parliament substantively, or simply respond with plans which end up leaving more questions than answers, while also leaving the rights & entitlements of Scottish court users at a major disadvantage compared with our English colleagues …

You can read my earlier coverage of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland : The story so far

All written submissions for the McKenzie Friend petition at the Scottish Parliament can be read here : Written submissions for Petition 1247, McKenzie Friends for Scotland

 

Lord President ‘should be brought to account’ on McKenzie Friends as Scottish Parliament asked to support equality of access to justice

Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton. MCKENZIE FRIENDS for Scotland are back on the agenda next Tuesday 20 April as the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee considers the latest submissions in what has become an increasingly bitter debate on the rights of party litigants, with Scotland’s top judge, Lord Hamilton appearing entrenched in his plans to heavily restrict the use & application of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s civil courts, while consumer organisations & law reform campaigners lobby for a fair & equitable application of McKenzie Friends in Scotland comparable to their use for over forty years in the English courts system.

The latest response on Petition 1247 McKenzie Friends for Scotland, from Mr Stewart MacKenzie, the petitioner himself, accuses Lord Hamilton of misleading the Petitions Committee on several issues, including that of whether McKenzie Friends have or have not (definitely have not) existed in Scottish Courts prior to Holyrood considering the question of formally introducing McKenzie Friends to Scotland.

Stewart MacKenzie told the Parliament’s Petitions Committee : “Lord Hamilton states that he will “bring into force” McKenzie Friends in June 2010, following the implementation of an Act of Sederunt in May 2010. Lord Hamilton wrote to the Petitions Committee on 3rd November 2009 and stated that there was no need for the “introduction” of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, as it already existed and then added “contrary to the apparent understanding of the Petitioner”.”

“Why does Lord Hamilton therefore now say that he will bring McKenzie Friends “into force” in June 2010, when he has already informed the Petitions Committee in November in 2009 that it already existed and did not require to be introduced? Had the Petitions Committee accepted the content of Lord Hamilton’s 3rd November 2009 letter, the Petitions Committee could have closed this Petition and I consider therefore that it was plainly misleading of Lord Hamilton to say at that time to the Petitions Committee that there was no need for the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland and consequently I would wish the Petitions Committee to raise this matter with Lord Hamilton.”

The petitioner’s letter also goes on to heavily criticise Lord Hamilton for planning to force the signing of certificates from those appearing in Scottish Courts as McKenzie Friends, a requirement which apparently does not in any other jurisdiction where McKenzie Friends are used. Lord Hamilton also intends an even stricter requirement that McKenzie Friends have an as yet undefined “relevant experience”, raising a further condition upon Scottish McKenzie Friends which does not exist elsewhere.

Mr McKenzie commented : “Firstly, McKenzie Friends in all other jurisdictions are for example, either a friend, a relative, an associate etc and none of these have, or are required to have, what Lord Hamilton now requires, being “relevant experience”. It is beyond question that he [Lord Hamilton] must explain himself in this regard and explain that if the McKenzie Friend applicant does not have the required “relevant experience”, does this mean that they will not be allowed to be a McKenzie Friend in Court?”

Mr MacKenzie went onto say the Committee should make enquiries of Lord Hamilton regarding the independent evidence or research base to justify his requirements of ‘relevant experience’ before an individual could be approved as a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish court.

Defining “Relevant Experience, Mr MacKenzie told the Parliament : “Relevant means “connected to the subject”, however a nurse, an office worker, a plumber or the wife/husband of the litigant,will not have “relevant” experience connected to litigation, the Courts or Law but they do have the ability to carry out the very simple and defined role of a McKenzie Friend by “passing papers, whispering to the litigant from prepared notes, taking notes, help with case papers and importantly, providing moral support”. Experience means “knowledge or skills which comes from practice”, however the concept and usage of a McKenzie Friend is not necessarily by using someone who has knowledge or skills from practising as a McKenzie Friend or has knowledge and skills in law or court procedures.”

Mr MacKenzie continued : “The definition of the word “friend” is a helper, a supporter and the concept and meaning of a “McKenzie Friend” is simply that and the Petitions Committee should make this clear to Lord Hamilton and convey their concerns over this matter.”

“I would therefore urge the Petitions Committee to conclude that Scotland must follow the criteria required for McKenzie Friends, which is adopted throughout the rest of the world and which does not require “relevant experience” or the signing of a certificate, otherwise Scottish consumers will be at a distinct disadvantage and will not enjoy the same rights as those in England and Wales.”

Consumer organisations Which? and Consumer Focus Scotland have both criticised Lord Hamilton’s stringent plans for McKenzie Friends, in earlier reports HERE & HERE

Mr MacKenzie also tackled the shifting descriptions used by Lord Hamilton on the issue, where the Lord President has often preferred to refer to the McKenzie Friend as a “Lay Assistant” instead of the universally accepted “McKenzie Friend”. Mr MacKenzie and those involved in the debate have raised questions over the “Lay Assistant” term, which appears to have a much reduced status in law than an actual McKenzie Friend.

Mr MacKenzie told the Parliament : “The process and procedure which Lord Hamilton now details in his 16th February 2010 letter, for bringing into force McKenzie Friends in June, refers to the words “Lay Assistant” and not “McKenzie Friend”. “McKenzie Friends” are so-called in Court jurisdictions from England & Wales to Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is an internationally recognised terminology and I would urge the Petitions Committee to convey the strongest of views to Lord Hamilton that the distinctly Scottish term “McKenzie Friend” must also be used in the Scottish Courts system and not “Lay Assistant”.

“Additionally I would ask the Petitions Committee to bear in mind that litigants present and future, will do their research on “case law” for example, by researching “McKenzie Friends” and not “Lay Assistant”. We also simply cannot have a situation where a truly Scottish word such as McKenzie, as used in “McKenzie Friends”, is not used in Scotland’s own Courts system.”

My earlier report on Lord Hamilton’s plans for the Scottish version of a McKenzie Friend, which the Lord President preferred to call a “Lay Assistant” instead of the universally accepted “McKenzie Friend” can be viewed here : Exclusive : McKenzie Friends for Scotland ‘are go’ as Lord President yields to Holyrood access to justice petition for Scots court users

Forbidding the use of the term “McKenzie Friend” in a Scottish court, simply because some members of the judiciary wish to control the use of ‘courtroom helpers’ by the increasing numbers of legally unrepresented court users who cannot for a variety of reasons afford or obtain the services of a lawyer … well, that is simply not on …

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations spoke today on the increasingly murky debate over McKenzie Friends.

He said : “There appears a market reluctance on the part of the judiciary to allow Scottish consumers the same rights & entitlements enjoyed by court users in England & Wales. The Scottish Parliament must intervene in this issue and safeguard the rights of Scots, ensuring equality of access to justice and the right to a fair hearing for all court users.”

You can read my earlier coverage of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland : The story so far

All written submissions for the McKenzie Friend petition at the Scottish Parliament can be read here : Written submissions for Petition 1247, McKenzie Friends for Scotland

 

Exclusive : McKenzie Friends for Scotland ‘are go’ as Lord President yields to long running Holyrood ‘access to justice’ petition

Scotland’s top judge Lord Hamilton finally gives in on McKenzie Friends. A SIGNIFICANT VICTORY in the campaign and Holyrood petition to bring MCKENZIE FRIENDS to Scotland’s courts has been won this evening, with the publication of a letter from Scotland’s top judge the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, informing the Scottish Parliament that subject to the Court of Session’s Rules Council’s views, he intends that the Court will enact the relevant Act of Sederunt in May and that McKenzie Friends will be finally brought into force in Scotland in June 2010.

Lord Hamilton tells Holyrood : McKenzie Friends in Scotland by June. Lord Hamilton was visibly cautious against using the term “McKenzie Friend” in his letter to the Scottish Parliament, preferring instead to refer to the role of a McKenzie Friend as that of “lay assistance”. Lord Hamilton said : “Following my letter to you of 2 November, I asked two of my colleagues (being the judges responsible for administrative management in the Court of Session) to consider the matter of McKenzie Friends and to report back to me.In view of their report, I intend to bring forward for consideration at the next meeting of the Court of Session Rules Council (on 10 May) a draft of an Act of Sederunt amending the Rules of Court to give effect to the following policy:”

1. To acknowledge the possibility of lay assistance to the extent of (a) providing moral support; (b) helping to manage court documents and other papers; (c) taking notes of proceedings; and (d) quietly advising the party litigant on (i) points of law and procedure; (ii) issues which the party litigant might wish to raise with the court; (iii) questions which the party litigant might wish to ask witnesses. The lay assistant would be able to sit beside or behind the party litigant in court, as he or she wished, and accompany the party litigant at a hearing in chambers. The party litigant would be responsible for any expenses incurred by the lay assistant.”

Lord President to enact McKenzie Friends Page 2. 2. The lay assistant would not be able to act as the party litigant’s agent. He or she would have no authority to sign court documents. The lay assistant would have no right to address the court or examine witnesses.

3. There is a procedure whereby the party litigant informs the court of the intention that there should be such assistance and obtains the approval of the court of the person in question taking on the role. This is done by motion in the process which is intimated to the other party and which would normally be granted without a hearing if unopposed.

4. The party litigant would be entitled to communicate to the lay assistant information, including the court papers lodged in process, which otherwise he or she would not be entitled to see. Such papers may well be of a private and sensitive nature. There would therefore be a mechanism by which the lay assistant would acknowledge a duty of confidentiality and give an undertaking to use the information obtained from other persons in the process (whether parties or third party havers) solely for the purpose of the litigation. To enable the court to police the behaviour of a lay assistant and, in an extreme case, to exercise a sanction against him or her, the party litigant and the intended lay assistant should complete and sign a certificate to be lodged in process with the motion.

5. The certificate should (i) state the name and address of the intended lay assistant; (ii) give a brief summary of the lay assistant’s relevant experience and state whether he or she is related to the party litigant; (iii) confirm that the lay assistant has no interest in the case and is to receive no remuneration for his or her services in any form; and (iv) state the lay assistant’s understanding of the duty of confidentiality and his or her undertaking not to use any documents recovered in the process for any purpose other than the litigation. There would be an appropriate form containing the undertaking with boxes to be completed.

6. There would be a “presumption” in favour of allowing a party litigant to have a lay assistant. This would be achieved by providing that the court should grant the motion unless it is satisfied that it would be contrary to the efficient administration of justice to do so. The court would have the power to revoke the permission if the lay assistant were to behave irresponsibly or were otherwise to impede the efficient administration of justice.

Lord President to enact McKenzie Friends Page 3. That should assist to clarify the position in the Court of Session. Subject to the Council’s views, I would intend that the Court makes the Act of Sederunt in May and that it is brought into force in June.

It remains my view that going any further and allowing a lay representative rights of audience in the Court of Session is a matter for primary legislation. I do not therefore propose to take any further action in relation to this, save to say that this is of course a matter about which the Civil Courts Review has made a recommendation and that the Scottish Government will no doubt adopt a position on that recommendation in due course.

The burden of the matter in relation to the Sheriff Court lies with the Sheriff Court Rules Council. Different considerations may apply there, given that in certain circumstances it is already possible (by virtue of legislative intervention) for lay representatives to address the court. Nevertheless, I have made the Sheriff Court Rules Council aware of the action I am taking in relation to the Court of Session and I understand that the matter has been referred to one of their working groups for consideration in early course.”

Margo MacDonald MSP, ‘gem’ of the Scottish Parliament – It should be a right to have a McKenzie Friend. Crucially Lord Hamilton has now also conceded there should be a presumption in favour of allowing a party litigant to have a McKenzie Friend accompany them in court. This ‘right’ has existed in courts in England & Wales for a number of years and is included in the guidance on the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales. Prior to the Lord President’s letter to Parliament today, there had been considerable resistance by the Scottish Government and judiciary to bring the ‘presumption in favour of having a McKenzie Friend’ to Scotland’s courts, a right which has been considerably referred to by independent MSP Margo MacDonald, during hearings at the Scottish Parliament on the McKenzie Friends Petition 1247.

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review recommended McKenzie Friends should have a right to address the court. However, Lord Hamilton confirmed that for now, McKenzie Friends, or ‘lay assistants’, will have no right of audience, and will therefore not be able to address the court, examine witnesses or sign court documents, although recent recommendations by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill in the Civil Courts Review, did actually recommend McKenzie Friends should (when introduced to Scottish Courts) be given the right to address the court in certain circumstances.

Lord Hamilton went on in his letter to the Parliament, appearing to suggest in his letter to the Parliament that ‘relevant experience’ may play a part in deciding whether someone can or cannot be a McKenzie Friend, although some tonight queried that suggestion, as often the term “lay” refers to someone outside the legal profession and unconnected with it, whereas figures from the judiciary would like to see only legally qualified individuals as McKenzie Friends.

A senior solicitor said this evening : “I would be cautious about the qualifications the Lord President is apparently intending to impose on would-be McKenzie Friends, prior to the courts acceptance of their role. This does not, to my knowledge, occur in England & Wales.”

He continued : “I do feel that, while obviously someone intending to fulfil the role as a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish court should have to show they are at least capable of that role, I feel this “relevant experience” issue may prove an unnecessary barrier, and may even be used to bar people from the role of a McKenzie Friend who otherwise may perform very well.”

A senior official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations welcomed tonight’s developments, saying : “We welcome the Lord President’s moves to ensure that consumers of legal services in Scotland will be able to avail themselves of the well proven and invaluable facility of having a McKenzie Friend by their side in a Scottish court.”

She went on : “However there are some potential stumbling blocks in the Lord President’s plans, which we feel are unnecessary and are very far from how McKenzie Friends operate in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless this is a first step and we look forward to see further developments and an implementation of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review recommendations as soon as practicably possible.”

A legal insider studying the Lord President’s latest intentions on McKenzie Friends said tonight : “Apart from the fact that the Lord President has had to perform an abrupt about turn on his previously stated position I think it is a storm in a teacup. Worse, he adds certain additional provisos which only serve to muddy the water and all that is being offered is that already established by precedent. Nor does he offer any credible or detailed explanation of ignoring why Lord Gill’s recommendation that McKenzie Friends should be allowed to address the Court. The Lord President’s credibility rating was already zero, this does nothing to alter my opinion.”

Justice Secretary MacAskill & Lord Hamilton wrongly claimed McKenzie Friends had always existed. Clearly there are some problems still to overcome and many questions yet to be answered – not least the fact that on several occasions, both the Lord President and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have claimed Scotland always had ‘supportive friends’ in courts, when in fact, no such ‘supportive friend’ ever existed. Enquiries to the Scottish Courts Service direct confirmed no such role, also confirming that McKenzie Friends had not existed in Scotland’s civil courts, despite further protestations from the Scottish Government to the contrary.

Also the quite considerable question of exactly why McKenzie Friends have been excluded from Scotland’s courts for some forty years, while many other international jurisdictions took on the McKenzie Friend facility after it first came into existence upon the result of McKenzie v McKenzie, 1971, remains to be answered, not least because the four decades long exclusion has led to a significant prejudice against Scots access to justice being regularly denied, particularly when law firms & solicitors refused, or were instructed by their governing body to refuse to represent individual litigants or groups in litigation which the legal profession itself did not wish to pursue for policy, political, or other reasons.

Court of Session judge Lord Woolman granted Scots their first use of a McKenzie Friend, while Parliament discussed petition. As we all know now, Scotland’s first Civil Court use of a McKenzie Friend, occurred during November 2009 in the long running damages action of party litigant Martin Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & others. I reported on that first use of a McKenzie Friend, here : First use of McKenzie Friend in Scotland as Court of Session sweeps aside 40 years of lawyers monopoly over public access to justice

Well, at least McKenzie Friends are on the way for Scotland, officially .. and with some guidance, a presumption of a right, but of course, work still to be done by the looks of it. You can read my earlier coverage of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland : The story so far

All written submissions for the McKenzie Friend petition at the Scottish Parliament can be read here : Written submissions for Petition 1247, McKenzie Friends for Scotland

This has been a long campaign, thorny at times, and obviously there is still a long way to go to ensure Scots have the same rights & entitlements of access to justice as everyone else in the UK. Keep supporting McKenzie Friends for Scotland !

Finally, you may ask, what does it all mean to the layman ? Well, now, you don’t need a lawyer to get into court .. just find a McKenzie Friend, if you cant obtain the rather expensive, and many times, fairly poor services of a solicitor who many not be acting in your best interests anyway …