PARTY LORD: Judicial excess in the dock as Scotland’s top judge celebrates £58million taxpayer funded court refit with £36K exhibition & party bash at Parliament House

Lord Gill hosted taxpayer funded posh party for court refit. SCOTLAND’S top judge celebrated a £58million taxpayer funded refit on the Court of Session by holding a £36K exhibition and party which included trumpeters, archers and a get together for senior political figures and members of Scotland’s legal establishment.

However, Lord President Lord Brian Gill, 73, banned guests from drinking alcohol to toast the refit of Parliament House – Gill’s seat of power in the Royal Mile.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation show worried court staff debated whether they could obtain favourable press coverage for the event – which was held close to the independence referendum.

Principal court clerk Graeme Marwick asked Lord Gill about the possibility of alcohol being served to guests who included the Lord Advocate, top politicians from the Scottish Government and figures from the church. However, Gill said No.

The minutes of the discussions arranging the party reveal court staff worries that guests would not be able to meet and interact without a glass of wine.

Court staff meeting papers reveal discussions on exhibition & booze ban party. Under the heading of disadvantages of Gill’s booze ban,  one court official criticised the booze ban, saying there would be “No opportunity for a post ceremony glass of wine and canapes/entertainment and networking amongst the guests.”

Eager to provide senior guests with suitable music to accompany their sausage rolls and buffed, a member of staff queried: “Should there be entertainment at the function- possibly a string quartet from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland?”

Lord Gill agreed to spend £750 hiring trumpeters from Glasgow’s Royal Conservatoire. Gill is also a trustee of the Royal Conservatoire, based in Glasgow.

To the sound of music and political chatter, guests of the Lord President’s taxpayer funded bash were eventually treated to soft drinks and canapés – costing £3,620.

One legal insider joked “Given who was in attendance I wouldn’t be surprised if someone brought along an emergency flask of booze”

Hosting the event, Lord Gill also unveiled a brass plaque marking the major refurbishment of the sprawling Parliament House site, comprising of some 700 rooms within the sprawling complex of buildings.

However, speeches given by politicians and legal luminaries at the event failed to mention concerns which have now surfaced relating to who actually owns which parts of the Parliament House complex –  which has since been in the news after it had been discovered Scottish Ministers had gifted some of the titles to the Faculty of Advocates.

Details surrounding the loss of Parliament House to Edinburgh – come from an investigation undertaken by well known land reform campaigner Andy Wightman – who discovered that in 2006 the Scottish Government asked Edinburgh City Council to confirm the ownership of Parliament House – which includes Parliament Hall and Laigh Hall. The moves by the Scottish Government to clarify ownership of the court buildings occurred prior to the taxpayer funded £58 million refurbishment project (originally budgeted at over £120m) of the sprawling court buildings.

However, after inquiries by government lawyers on the exact ownership of Scotland’s most highest courts, Edinburgh City Council concluded they were unaware of who owned Parliament House. This led to ownership transferring to Scottish Ministers who then allowed the Faculty of Advocates to register the title deeds to the interior of the building in its name.

It transpired the Faculty of Advocates had in-fact, lobbied the Scottish Government to hand over ownership.

Writing on his blog, Mr Wightman said: “The Faculty of Advocates has for centuries regarded Parliament House as theirs. They had almost exclusive use of it and so, by means as yet unclear, within a month of Scottish Ministers taking ownership, the Faculty persuaded Scottish Ministers to convey to its ownership for no consideration the room known as the Laigh Hall within Parliament House.”

A trove of eighty eight pages of documents  obtained from the Scottish Government under Freedom of Information legislation later revealed Scottish Ministers plan to do nothing over their handing over of the Parliament Hall land titles to the Faculty of Advocates.

Throughout the documents – which contain communications between civil servants, briefings to Ministers, land reports and letters from Edinburgh City Council asking for meetings, it is clear Scottish Ministers favour leaving the titles to the nation’s top courts with the vested interests of the legal profession.

During a First Minister’s Questions session at Holyrood, Nicola Sturgeon was asked by Alison Johnstone  MSP (Lothians, Green Party) about the Parliament Hall land grab by the Faculty of Advocates.

In her reply, featured here: Parliament House handed over to Faculty of Advocates FMQ’s Nicola Sturgeon 19 February 2015 Nicola Sturgeon claimed she found no fault on the part of the Scottish Government – who handed over the titles to the Faculty of Advocates – effectively little more than a lawyer’s lobby group. The First Minister went on to warn “ there is no easy solution to the issue of restoring title to the City of Edinburgh Council” without giving a real explanation of why the titles were transferred in the first place.

The titles to the Laigh Hall – Parliament House – Queen Street – currently stand in the name of “SIDNEY NEIL BRAILSFORD Queen’s Counsel, Treasurer of HONOURABLE THE FACULTY OF ADVOCATES Edinburgh, as Trustee and in Trust for said Faculty”. Sidney Brailsford is none other than High Court Judge Lord Brailsford.

TOP JUDGE SILENT OVER PARLIAMENT TITLE SWAP

Taxpayers not invited to Gill’s £36K bash  got an informative leaflet on the £58million public spend on Parliament House. During the summer of 2013,  Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill – head of the Scottish Court Service Board, and the Scottish Court Service Chief Executive Eric McQueen appeared before MSPs at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to give evidence on court closures and the millions spent on Parliament House – yet neither the judge nor the Courts chief mentioned their astonishing secret to the MSPs present – that the title to Scotland’s highest court buildings had been swiped by the Faculty of Advocates in a deal on the sly with Scottish Ministers.

During questions from Justice Committee MSPs, SCS Chief Executive Eric McQueen gave evidence on the massive £60 million taxpayer funded spend on Parliament House.

The Court Service Chief told MSPs: “We are just coming to the end of the Parliament house contract; in total, the budget for it was £65 million and I think that we expect the final spend to be in the low £60 millions. The project has been delivered on budget, on time and on quality. How it has been delivered is a tribute to the Scottish Court Service.

McQueen continued: “I will give a potted history of the Parliament house situation. About 10 years ago, a scheme was in place that was going to run to way over £120 million. That was brought to a stop to allow us to reassess things and to consider the best strategy. At the same time, we looked at a business case for moving away from Parliament house altogether and having a development on a greenfield or brownfield site on the outskirts of Edinburgh. The major problem with Parliament house is that it is a grade A listed building and is a site of special historical interest. It should be a landmark building for the whole of Scotland.”

In an intervention, the Convener of the Justice Committee – Christine Grahame MSP said: “I am glad that you did not move to a greenfield site. It would have been a bit like going to B&Q. I do not mean to malign B&Q, but I like the old Parliament house building.”

Eric McQueen replied : “Had the decision been taken to move out of Parliament house, that asset would have been left with the Scottish Government. The infrastructure and the services were shot, and there was no fire certificate in place for the building. It would have cost as much to move out as to redevelop the building. From the point of view of the benefit to the nation and to the Scottish Government’s purse, the investment of the £65 million in Parliament house over that five or six year period was quite a sensible business case decision.”

Sitting beside Eric McQueen was Lord President Brian Gill, who did not at any stage of the meeting volunteer information to the Justice Committee in relation to the titles arrangements of Parliament House, despite the multi million pound taxpayer funded refurbishment.

Pressed for a statement on why Lord Gill or Eric McQueen did not inform the Justice Committee of the fact tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer money had been spent on a building partly owned by the Faculty of Advocates – the Judicial Office refused to give any comment.

 

GIFT HORSE: Secret gifts register reveals rogue lawyers & law firms using hospitality relationships with Scottish Court Service staff to increase legal aid business, poach clients from rival solicitors

Legal Aid client poaching & hospitality racket in Scots Courts. LAWYERS accused of making suspicious, erroneous or fraudulent legal aid claims appear among a list of high earning legal aid law firms in a register of gifts & ‘hospitality’ received by staff at the Scottish Court Service (SCS).

The documents, finally disclosed to journalists after court bosses failed to convince the Scottish Information Commissioner it should remain secret – identify ‘significant’ hospitality relationships between law firms who have received tens of millions of pounds of legal aid, local courts and court employees right across Scotland.

And it has emerged the extent of ‘hospitality’ to court staff is so great – some local courts have been the scene of ‘gift wars’ between law firms – with solicitors raising the stakes over rivals using hospitality to ensure business came their way at the expense of competitors.

The extent of gift giving in exchange for business referrals – raises questions over whether it is appropriate for court staff – who run the courts at taxpayers expense – to enter into hospitality relationships  with solicitors who have a stake in dragging on court cases to beef up their fees and claims for legal aid.

And, some law firms on the list have been implicated in allegations of questionable legal aid claims. In other cases, law firms , activity resulting in criminal charges against staff.

In one case, the law firm of NS Lockharts Solicitors – run by Niels S Lockhart – a sole practitioner in Kilmarnock who was the subject of a Scottish Legal Aid Board investigation into huge sums of legal aid claims of over £600,000 in three years also appears in the list. NS Lockharts Solicitors are identified as providing hospitality to local court staff in Ayr Sheriff Court.

Lockhart ‘withdrew’ from the legal aid register after an investigation by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

In another case of gift giving between lawyers on the legal aid ticket and court staff – the law firm of Bell & Co Solicitors are also identified as hospitality providers to staff at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court. However, Bell & Co hit the headlines two years ago when one of their Paralegals – Arlene Reid – was jailed for two years – for embezzlement and mortgage fraud totalling £87K after Reid defrauded her own employers and the Alliance & Leicester Building Society.

Gifts Register identifies Scots law firms ‘hospitality’ to court employees The list of law firms, together with a list of hospitality released by the Scottish Court Service identifies law firms who receive millions in taxpayer funded legal aid every year.

Hospitality on the list ranges from boxes of chocolates, alcohol, invitations to dinners with the ‘vested interests club’ – top lawyers, law firms, the Faculty of Advocates & the Law Society of Scotland,  big business hosts & even “Royal Garden Parties”. Other hospitality include trips on boats, gift vouchers for high street stores, dinner parties with Police, and – bunches of flowers.

The extent of hospitality relationships between court staff and law firms have raised suspicions SCS staff are providing lawyers & law firms with personal favours in return, which in some instances are leading to criminal cases ‘taking their time’ through the courts owing to overly friendly relationships with local law firms & local court staff.

Information has also been provided to journalists – alleging undeclared financial relationships between court staff and law firms, in relation to the purchase of properties & land, provision of free or discounted legal services to SCS staff in their personal legal affairs, and instances of SCS staff providing return favours for solicitors when asked to do so.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice earlier today, a solicitor from a law firm which has provided small amounts of hospitality as a matter of courtesy and thanks to local court staff, said he was aware some law firms were offering additional gifts to SCS staff as a way of drawing in business. He described the situation as “unfair practice”.

The solicitor told DOI he was aware of several cases where court staff received discounted or free legal services – from law firms who were taking clients from others including his own firm.

Asked if he believed all hospitality provided to court staff was being declared, the solicitor replied: “No, it is not.”

And. in an example of law firms poaching each other’s clients using hospitality to court staff – DOI uncovered a case where ‘regular’ criminal legal aid clients of one law firm – were allegedly directed to another law firm by a court clerk in receipt of ‘hospitality’.

However, the switch did not result in a good move for the clients –  who ended up jailed for minor criminal offences after a trainee solicitor from the law firm they were sent to – messed up their defences and pleadings.

Commenting on the documents, the Scottish Legal Aid Board said: “If there was ever any evidence that a solicitor providing legal aid had acted in an inappropriate manner in relation to the provision of legal aid we would investigate and, if appropriate, use the sanctions available to us under the legal aid legislation.”

In an earlier investigation by DOI, it was revealed Gillian Thompson OBE – now the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) – authored a report on undeclared relationships between employees of the Scottish Court Service, law firms, and other vested interests. The report, published by DOI – revealed court staff are making money on the side via relationships with law firms.

Diary of Injustice reported on concerns regarding hospitality involving Scottish Court Service employees where Ms Thompson was asked by the Scottish Court Service to investigate reports of irregularities in hospitality given to court staff. The request for the investigation came after the SCS received Freedom of Information requests regarding hospitality in the courts, prompting concerns some staff may have accepted gifts or hospitality but failed to register.

Report said SCS Registers were insufficient, and Court staff involved in private gain failed to declare. Gillian Thompson’s Report on Hospitality & Gifts in the SCS stated:  “The information currently captured on the registers is insufficient to provide assurance that staff are using their common sense and considering issues such as conflict of interest.

Ms Thompson went on to recommend the “SCS should revise the Policy on Acceptance of Gifts, Rewards and Hospitality to ensure that it is fit for purpose for all staff, taking account of the various roles performed within SCS. It may also be time to revisit the levels of value for gifts and hospitality.”

The former AIB’s report also revealed court staff were using their positions to earn money privately from their links with lawyers and law firms operating in courts, stating “Several staff raised the issue of sheriff clerks who carry out extrajudicial taxations and private assessments and who personally benefit financially from these activities.”

Ms Thompson’s report roundly condemned this practice, stating: “Not only is it inappropriate in terms of the civil service code requirements for staff who are public servants to be able to receive private gain from their employment it is also highly divisive when other staff see such benefits being derived from simply being in the right post of Auditor of Court within the Sheriff Courts.”

Ms Thompson recommended in her report the “SCS should bring the practice of sheriff clerks profiting privately from their employment by SCS to an end as quickly as possible”.

HOW COURT CHIEFS LOST HOSPITALITY INFORMATION BATTLE

The Scottish Court Service initially refused to release the gift register, claiming “the names of the gift or hospitality provider would be deemed as personal information” and “as the provider of the gift or hospitality was not made aware at the time that their name may be released, we consider disclosure of such is likely to bring the Scottish Court Service into conflict with the data protection principles.”

However, the request – from DOI – triggered a review of hospitality policy at the Scottish Court Service, leading to names of ‘’hospitality’ providers being added to the register.

Richard Warner of the SCS said: “I can advise you that due to your request for this information, the Scottish Court Service has changed the policy covering hospitality and gifts to ensure that the provider of any hospitality or gift are made aware that their name shall be entered on to our register and may be disclosed if requested in any future information request. This policy change shall take effect as from 1 January 2014 so the release of names may be considered in any future request for gifts or hospitality offered from this date. The policy also states that if the provider does not consent to their name being considered for release then the gift or hospitality cannot be accepted by a member of staff.”

After a request for review of refusal to disclose the information, the SCS again refused – this time around, claiming it would cost them too much to contact each law firm to ask permission to disclose their ‘hospitality’ to court employees. The SCS claimed they would have to contact every lawyer who gave a gift and this would cost too much to provide the information.

DOI journalists took the matter up with the Scottish Information Commissioner – who requested Courts Chief Eric McQueen provide an explanation as to why the courts were blocking release of information on hospitality relationships between the legal profession and court staff.

John Kelly, Freedom of Information Officer at the SIC said: “Having written to and discussed the matter with the SCS, without being required to do so by way of a formal Decision Notice, the SCS has agreed to provide you with the information requested, subject to redactions in terms of section 38(1)(b) of FOISA on the basis that to disclose some of the names of individuals would breach the first data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). I understand that the names of Solicitor and Law Firms will be provided.”

After the intervention of the Scottish Information Commissioner, the SCS subsequently released the hospitality list to DOI.

Richard Warner for the SCS said: “Having reconsidered your request, and the SCS response, I now attach a list which indicates law firms where this information has been recorded.  For the reasons stated in our earlier response this does not include the names of any individuals concerned as there could have been no expectation on their part that this information would be circulated or published widely.  As indicated previously, steps are being taken to ensure that individual persons are made aware at the relevant time that their details made be released as a result of an information request.”

 

WOLFFE HALL: As Edinburgh City Council demand return of Parliament House land titles, papers reveal Scottish Ministers refused to help recover ‘gift’ of Scotland’s top court buildings to Faculty of Advocates

Court battle looms over Scotland’s top court buildings swiped by legal fraternity AS LAND GRABS go, the Faculty of Advocates ‘assuming title’ to parts of the nation’s top court buildings – Parliament House in Edinburgh – must rank pretty high on the list of Scottish land swindles.

Even more so if you take into account the land grabbers in this case – highly paid advocates clad in Victorian robes – who appoint each other as judges, prosecutors and the like, and debate ordinary folk’s lives, loves & rights as if they did not even exist – have the last say and last word on ‘justice’ and many aspects of politics and public life in what passes for ‘modern day’ Scotland.

The great Parliament Hall land title swindle – revealed by land reform campaigner Andy Wightman – where land titles to the buildings of Scotland’s top courts were ‘gifted’ by Scottish Ministers to the Faculty of Advocates – has now prompted Edinburgh City Council to demand the return of what is, common good property – our top courts – which clearly have significant interest to the nation.

However, Scottish Ministers – including the First Minister, lawyers and other Govt. advisers, appear to feel otherwise.

A trove of eighty eight pages of documents  released to DOI under Freedom of Information legislation reveal the Scottish Government plan to do nothing over their handing over of the Parliament Hall land titles to the Faculty of Advocates.

And, throughout the documents – which contain communications between civil servants, briefings to Ministers, land reports and letters from Edinburgh City Council asking for meetings, it is clear Scottish Ministers favour leaving the titles to the nation’s top courts with the vested interests of the legal profession.

The titles to the Laigh Hall – Parliament House – Queen Street – currently stand in the name of “SIDNEY NEIL BRAILSFORD Queen’s Counsel, Treasurer of HONOURABLE THE FACULTY OF ADVOCATES Edinburgh, as Trustee and in Trust for said Faculty”. Sidney Brailsford is none other than High Court Judge Lord Brailsford.

Scottish Government files reveal how court titles were handed over to advocates After a series of briefings with Ministers – involving everyone from the Lord Advocate & Solicitor General to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Minister for Legal Affairs and others, a position was adopted by Scottish Ministers “That we confirm to Council officials that it is the Scottish Government’s position that title to Parliament Hall was taken by Scottish Ministers in good faith and with the full knowledge and consent of the Council. The Scottish Court Service and Faculty of Advocates therefore have good title to the property and Ministers propose no further action.”

Lawyers for the Scottish Government also sought to distance themselves from the huge £58 million taxpayer funded spend on the Scottish Court buildings – long after titles were handed over to the advocates.

One lawyer stated in an email: “Was the PH [Parliament Hall] refurb about £60m? It went over in the SCS [Scottish Court Service] budgets I think but from my recollection of briefing on their budget it is not easily identifiable within their budget lines. So SCS [Scottish Court Service] spent the money not SG [Scottish Government]?”

In another memo, it is revealed Edinburgh City Council may be compelled to take legal action to recover the titles and details an example of how Common Good land disputes have affected legislation in the past.

“The City of Edinburgh Council has intimated to the Scottish Government that it considers that it is the rightful heritable proprietor of both Parliament House and the Laigh Hall. It contends that the property was part of the Common Good Fund which is made up of grants of land owned by the Council. Consequently it maintains that Scottish Ministers should never have taken title to it. Representatives of the Council have asked that the position be rectified and the property returned to the Council. Scottish Government officials have met with Council officials and suggested to them that their remedy lies with the Keeper.

The Council may feel compelled to take action because, in their view,the property may have been part of the Common Good. Ministers, will be aware of disputes over Common Good land in the past. For example, when the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 2012, which converts ultra-long leases to ownership, was going through Parliament [redacted] land reform campaigner argued that the Waverley Market in Edinburgh was part of the common good. Edinburgh City Council said it was not part of the common good but still argued that the Waverley Market should not convert to full ownership under the Bill, so that the Council would remain the landlord in the lease over the property. In the end, the Bill was amended so that commercial leases with less than 175 years to run were not covered, which had the effect of excluding the Waverley Market from the Bill.”

An internal Scottish Government briefing of the meeting which took place between Edinburgh City Council and the Scottish Government makes for grim reading at the Council after Scottish Government civil servants stated the Council’s claim for a return of the titles may rest on moral rather than any legal right:

“Parliament House – Meeting With City of Edinburgh Council – 3 Dec. 2014 – – Main Points

SG – this was a courtesy meeting to hear what the concerns of CEC were as they had had difficulty finding somebody in central government to engage with.

CEC – an elected member had triggered an examination of the Parliament House non domino title and CEC officials concluded that the title trail was mistaken and CEC had an interest still. They had examined titles from the 1550s, 19th century, 1905 Common good records, 1925 entry in registers etc.

They were unhappy with the Scottish Ministers title and the subsequent transfer to the advocates and the SCS. It seemed that their case rested on a perceived moral right, rather than any legal titular right.

SG emphasised that it had no locus because:
• Questions about land registered titles are for the Keeper and the Keeper’s indemnity;
• The Scottish Government had transferred the property to the Advocates (Laigh Hall), and the Scottish Courts Service** a judicial led body at arms-length from the SG and so we could not discuss what we did not own.”

A detailed briefing prepared by a civil servant sets out what happened and how the Faculty of Advocates ‘secured’ ownership to parts of the sprawling, highly prized real estate which is Scotland’s top court and symbol of judicial & legal power:

“The position as regards title to the entire property is unclear, however, it would appear that Scottish Ministers (formerly the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) did own part of it and so steps were taken to register a title in order to remove any uncertainty. Consequently, a voluntary registration was granted in favour of Scottish Ministers on 23/11/2005 with a date of entry of 10/11/2005.

As part of the process of registration the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland received a letter from the City of Edinburgh Council confirming that the Council had no right, title or interest in the property. On that understanding, the Keeper issued Ministers with a Land Certificate without exclusion of indemnity which has the effect of the Keeper having to indemnify a proprietor who suffers a loss as a result of the title being successfully challenged.

Scottish Ministers subsequently made an onward transfer in January 2006 of part of the property, namely Laigh Hall which sits underneath Parliament Hall, to the Faculty of Advocates who now hold a registered title.

When the Scottish Court Service became an independent body corporate on 1 April 2010 title to Parliament House was transferred to it under the Property Transfer Order made under powers in the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. Scottish Ministers therefore no longer hold a title to either Parliament House or the Laigh Hall.”

At this time Edinburgh City Council is thought to be considering its next move.

If legal action is to take place, the Council will ultimately be represented by top advocates who as members of the Faculty of Advocates will have an interest in ownership in Parliament House. The case will be defended by the Faculty of Advocates and will be heard in a court within Parliament House – partly owned by the Faculty of Advocates and the ‘arms length’ institution of the Scottish Court Service – so ‘arms length’ it squanders £60 million of taxpayers money on buildings not even owned by taxpayers.

As previously reported, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has already given her blessing to the multi million pound title handover freebie to the Faculty of Advocates. The First Minister claimed there was “no easy solution to the issue of restoring title to the City of Edinburgh Council”. The First Minister’s response to a question from Green Party MSP Alison Johnstone during First Minister’s Questions, follows:

Parliament House handed over to Faculty of Advocates FMQ’s Nicola Sturgeon 19 February 2015

Official Report of debate: Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green): It transpired this week that the 17th century old Parliament hall in Edinburgh was transferred from the collective ownership of my constituents to Scottish ministers without knowledge or recompense to the common good fund.

The City of Edinburgh Council failed in its role as steward of the fund, but is now seeking to resolve the situation. Can the First Minister assure my constituents that any requests from the council to restore ownership of that common good asset to the council will be considered seriously and favourably?

The First Minister – Nicola Sturgeon: I will briefly state the background to this issue, of which I am sure that Alison Johnstone is aware.

The Scottish Government’s position is that title to Parliament hall was taken by Scottish ministers in good faith, and that that was done with the full knowledge and consent of the council. The Scottish Courts Service and the Faculty of Advocates, therefore, have now got good title to that property.

Of course, I am more than happy to ask the relevant minister, Marco Biagi, to; meet and discuss the matter with the City of Edinburgh Council, but as far as I can see there is no fault here on the part of the Scottish Government.

Further, of course, title has since been passed on, so it may very well be that there is no easy solution to the issue of restoring title to the City of Edinburgh Council. I think that any questions on how the situation has arisen probably have to be directed to the council.

TOP JUDGE SILENT OVER PARLIAMENT TITLE SWAP

In the summer of 2013,  Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill – head of the Scottish Court Service Board, and the Scottish Court Service Chief Executive Eric McQueen appeared before MSPs at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to give evidence on court closures and the millions spent on Parliament House – yet neither the judge nor the Courts chief mentioned their astonishing secret to the MSPs present – that the title to Scotland’s highest court buildings had been swiped by the Faculty of Advocates in a deal on the sly with Scottish Ministers.

During questions from Justice Committee MSPs, SCS Chief Executive Eric McQueen gave evidence on the massive £60 million taxpayer funded spend on Parliament House.

The Court Service Chief told MSPs: “We are just coming to the end of the Parliament house contract; in total, the budget for it was £65 million and I think that we expect the final spend to be in the low £60 millions. The project has been delivered on budget, on time and on quality. How it has been delivered is a tribute to the Scottish Court Service.

McQueen continued: “I will give a potted history of the Parliament house situation. About 10 years ago, a scheme was in place that was going to run to way over £120 million. That was brought to a stop to allow us to reassess things and to consider the best strategy. At the same time, we looked at a business case for moving away from Parliament house altogether and having a development on a greenfield or brownfield site on the outskirts of Edinburgh. The major problem with Parliament house is that it is a grade A listed building and is a site of special historical interest. It should be a landmark building for the whole of Scotland.”

In an intervention, the Convener of the Justice Committee – Christine Grahame MSP said: “I am glad that you did not move to a greenfield site. It would have been a bit like going to B&Q. I do not mean to malign B&Q, but I like the old Parliament house building.”

Eric McQueen replied : “Had the decision been taken to move out of Parliament house, that asset would have been left with the Scottish Government. The infrastructure and the services were shot, and there was no fire certificate in place for the building. It would have cost as much to move out as to redevelop the building. From the point of view of the benefit to the nation and to the Scottish Government’s purse, the investment of the £65 million in Parliament house over that five or six year period was quite a sensible business case decision.”

Sitting beside Eric McQueen was Lord President Brian Gill, who did not at any stage of the meeting volunteer information to the Justice Committee in relation to the titles arrangements of Parliament House, despite the multi million pound taxpayer funded refurbishment.

Pressed for a statement on why Lord Gill or Eric McQueen did not inform the Justice Committee of the fact tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer money had been spent on a building partly owned by the Faculty of Advocates – the Judicial Office refused to give any comment.

 

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

 

Lord Hamilton tells Parliament ‘Scots too ignorant to know what a McKenzie Friend is’ as Holyrood petition & consumer groups criticised over court assistance reforms

Scotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton. The embarrassingly long one year debate on how to formally introduce McKenzie Friends (non-lawyer courtroom assistants) to Scotland’s courts took another turn today as it emerged, LORD HAMILTON, Scotland’s top judge has told the Scottish Parliament he does not believe in using the term “McKenzie Friend” in a Scottish court, alleging that unrepresented Scots court users are too ignorant of ‘legal language’ and the courts system they would have no idea what a McKenzie Friend actually is.

Lord Hamilton’s letter to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee (pdf), dated 22 April 2010, one day after the Committee had asked the Lord President for responses to points raised in last Tuesday’s Petitions Committee hearing, rounded on everyone in the McKenzie Friend debate, and went onto heavily criticise consumer organisations, law reform campaigners and even the petitioner, Mr Stewart MacKenzie for raising points of doubt over the Lord President’s somewhat overly protective plans announced in February, to introduce an Act of Sederunt to formally allow McKenzie Friends to operate in the Scottish courts.

Lord Hamilton is thought to have been angry his ‘evidence’ in written form to the Scottish parliament has been widely criticised & pulled apart for misrepresenting many aspects of the McKenzie Friends debate, which has led to criticisms of the Lord President during last week’s hearing of the Petitions Committee for being overly protective of the courts system. You can watch video coverage of last week’s Petitions Committee hearing on McKenzie Friends HERE and earlier coverage of the McKenzie Friend issue at InjusticeTV

Lord Hamilton – Scots wont know what a McKenzie Friend is. Lord Hamilton in a terse response to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee said : “Both Which and the petitioner have concerns about non-use of the expression “McKenzie Friend”. With due respect, it is the substance of the proposals which is important rather than the name used and the real question is whether they deliver the right result. It is my view that a colloquial expression such as “McKenzie Friend” is not appropriate for the Rules of Court. It is an example of the sort of “legal language” (as so described by Consumer Focus Scotland), inaccessible to the wider public, which the courts are often criticized for using. It has to be borne in mind that most unrepresented litigants are coming to the court system without previous experience of it: it is in my view to be doubted that they would know what a “McKenzie Friend” is; but they might well be able to guess what a “lay assistant” might be and be stimulated to make further enquiries.”

The increasingly bitter debate, marking the Scottish legal system’s miserable attempt to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts compares negatively to the swift court judgement in the 1970 McKenzie v McKenzie court case in England, which established the right to use a McKenzie Friend court helper in English courts, a facility now used by unrepresented party litigants in many international jurisdictions.

What took an English court one judgement forty years ago to achieve is taking Scotland’s combined legal & political figures more than a year with no end in sight. The year long peculiarly Scottish version of introducing McKenzie Friends, has so far seen the involvement of no less than two Scottish Government Cabinet Ministers, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and the Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing, several meetings of the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee dating back to April 2009, a November 2009 ruling in the Court of Session by judge Lord Woolman who allowed Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend, the involvement of Scotland’s two top judges, the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill – who supports the introduction of McKenzie Friends via his Civil Courts Review and the Lord President of the Courts Lord Hamilton who has claimed at various stages of the debate McKenzie Friend style ‘lay assistance’ has always existed in Scotland despite no record of it being able to be produced by the Scottish Courts Service, has left Scots in general, and many unrepresented party litigants no further forward in seeing a clear set of rules on how McKenzie Friends can be used in the Scottish Courts.

Law Society of Scotland oppose McKenzie Friends on grounds of lost business for solicitors. Also of note to the debate on McKenzie Friends, is the Law Society of Scotland’s opposition to the entire concept of unrepresented party litigants having the facility of non-lawyer courtroom assistance. The Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates are apparently more worried McKenzie Friends & other access to justice reforms from Lord Gilll’s Civil Courts Review will impact on business for their members while losing the legal profession their long held control over who among us actually gets into court.

Lord Hamilton – relevant to know something about the McKenzie Friend. Addressing the issue of the ‘certificate’ which Lord Hamilton wants any potential McKenzie Friend to sign prior to their appearance in Court, a move criticised by consumer groups and also addressed by the HMCS (Her Majesty’s Court Service, England & Wales) as being informal rather than compulsory, the Lord President told the Scottish Parliament in his letter : “The purpose of asking for such information is simply to provide the judge with information which may be of assistance in considering the application, and in considering any application which might subsequently be made for the permission to be revoked. It is not envisaged that applications would often be opposed, or that applications would often be made for the permission to be revoked. In the event that such a question were to arise, however, it would be relevant to know something about the McKenzie Friend.”

Lord Hamilton continued : “The fact that someone is related to the applicant would be a factor favouring allowing him to act as a McKenzie Friend, as would the fact that he was a neighbour or a friend. But the absence of any relationship would not of course mean that the application would be refused. The fact that someone had experience which was relevant to his or her providing assistance in court (e.g. as a lawyer, a trade union official or a CAB worker) would also be taken into account, but would not be essential.”

“The provision of such information would also assist the court in protecting vulnerable members of the public from the possibility of lay people who do not have relevant experience but who enjoy participating in court proceedings holding themselves out as providers of legal services.”

Lord Hamilton went on to inform the Parliament the latest version of the guidance on McKenzie Friends for England & Wales advises that the proposed McKenzie Friend should furnish the Court with a short CV or other statement setting out relevant experience. He claimed the Scottish proposals seek only to achieve a similar result in a slightly different way, although as documents from the English court authorities confirm the CV aspect of the guidance is ‘not as compulsory’ as what is intended for implementation in Scotland.

The Lord President conceded some amendments to how the McKenzie Friend issue is handled in Scottish courts may be necessary. He commented : “In light of what is said by Consumer Focus Scotland, I can see that further steps may be appropriate to ensure that judges are approaching applications for McKenzie Friends in the right way. Ultimately, these may be matters which need to be resolved by decided cases and the establishment of a coherent body of law. In any event, I can assure the Committee that I would intend to keep the matter under review with a view to making any adjustments of the rules, or issuing any guidance, which seems necessary.”

Lord Hamilton indicated in his letter to the Petitions Committee, he could still deal with the matter by way of introducing McKenzie Friends to Scottish courts via his proposed Act of Sederunt, to be discussed at the Court of Session Rules Council meeting on May 10 2009, although noting Consumer Focus Scotland had suggested it would be preferable to proceed using primary legislation to set out the general principles surrounding the use of a McKenzie Friend and then to let the Rules of Court complete the detail. He asked the Petitions Committee if he should defer any further consideration of the matter on his part until progress became clear on the issue.

In a somewhat ambiguous conclusion, Lord Hamilton appeared to give preference to the idea of using the legislative process as indicated by a recent announcement from the Scottish Government of an amendment to Stage two of the Legal Services Bill, for the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scottish courts.

Lord Hamilton – legislation may be needed on McKenzie Friends. Lord Hamilton concluded : “The evidence from Consumer Focus Scotland appears to suggest that it would be preferable to proceed in some respects by way of guidance rather than court rules. It notes that this is the situation in England and Wales. This is not entirely correct: in England and Wales, the guidance is descriptive of a long line of decided cases on the subject. In Scotland, no such long line of decided cases exists. In order to ensure that there is an absolutely sure foundation for McKenzie Friends in Scotland, it is in my view preferable to render those principles into legislative form.”

So there we have it, the Scottish Judiciary, the Scottish legal establishment, the Scottish Courts, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament couldn’t manage in over a year what one London court managed in one judgement in a divorce action over forty years ago in 1970. If there is any indication our Scottish legal system needs much more than reforming .. probably a whole reboot, then this must be one of those perfect examples to show how far the rot goes, and what must be done to repair it.

McKenzie Friends – We Scots are allegedly too ignorant to know what they are, but we are not necessarily too ignorant to be forced to stump up tens of thousands of pounds to lawyers, advocates & legal teams in the Court of Session for stringing out even the most simplest of cases to years or even decades long appearances with no clear result for clients, other than huge fees for the legal profession. An unfair system of access to justice, if ever there was one. Shame on those who preserve it. They have no standards, no decency.

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