Thursday, July 09, 2009

Scotland's Chief Judge Lord Hamilton asks Parliament 'to defer' McKenzie Friend petition after Scots wait 39 years for access to justice

Lord HamiltonScotland's Lord President Lord Hamilton asked Holyrood 'to defer' McKenzie Friend petition. THIRTY NINE YEARS after the role of a McKenzie Friend was recognised in the English courts, allowing court users south of the border the invaluable assistance of a 'McKenzie Friend' in cases where litigants could not obtain legal representation, Scotland's Lord President Lord Hamilton, has asked the Scottish Parliament 'to defer' the recent McKenzie Friend petition (Petition PE1247) until after the release of the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill's review of Scotland's Civil Justice system which is widely expected to make recommendations on introducing the availability of McKenzie Friends to users of Scotland's courts.

Lord President Lord Hamilton to Petitions Committee - McKenzie FriendLord Hamilton claims 'the Review will make a recommendation on this matter in its Report’. “Thank you for your letter of 6 May 2009. This asks whether the Court of Session supports the introduction of a "McKenzie Friend" facility and for reasons as to its view. “As it is noted in the Official report of the discussion of the Committee at its meeting on 5 May, this is a matter which is under consideration by the Civil Courts Review under the chairmanship of the Lord Justice Clerk, the Rt Hon Lord Gill. In its consultation paper, the Review asked for views on the following question; "Should a person without a right of audience be entitled to address the court on behalf of a party litigant and, if so, in what circumstances?"

“In light of this we can, I think, reasonably conclude that the Review will make a recommendation on this matter in its Report. I understand the publication of that document to be imminent. In view of this, I do not at this stage wish to express a view as to the position of the Court of Session on the matter. I should instead wish to consider the matter in light of whatever the Review recommends. If the Committee were to decide to defer further consideration of the petition until after the Review has been published, I should be content to respond further at that stage."

However, while the Lord Justice General may be comfortable in asking Holyrood 'to defer' consideration of the McKenzie Friend petition .. most feel that Scots legal rights have been deferred long enough after an outrageous thirty nine year wait for the introduction of the McKenzie Friend facility in Scotland while the rest of the United Kingdom has successfully used the facility to help individuals access to justice.

For one thing, there must now be an explanation as to why Scots have had to wait thirty nine years to exercise the same legal rights the rest of the country has used effectively in resolving legal disputes ... but a legal insider today answered that question very clearly, accusing the Scottish legal profession and the Law Society of Scotland of blocking the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland's courts simply because it would ruin lawyers business and challenge the Law Society’s monopoly on public access to justice.

He said : "The only reason McKenzie Friends have been kept out of Scotland's courts is money, nothing else."

"If you look at the kinds of civil cases in the Scottish courts, up to maybe 30% or even higher of those could be resolved by the litigant appearing themselves, helped by a McKenzie Friend. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that if law firms lost that 30% or more of their business they would not be making as much money as they have done by maintaining a grip on rights of audience in Scotland for forty years."

He went on : "Forget all those arguments about clogging up the courts with people who are unqualified to represent themselves or don't know the law properly. The court is there to serve the public, not itself or the legal profession's requirement for a fast and protracted buck out of the client's purse. People themselves know their own case best, no matter what lawyers might say ... and if you have a party litigant, assisted by a McKenzie Friend, there may well be much speedier resolutions to a lot of low level civil actions which are clogging up Scotland's courts for no reason other than to generate more legal fees for solicitors who are just out to make a profit out of stringing out client’s civil cases for years."

In all likelihood, this statement is true, as most of the significant legal reforms for civil justice, from the small claims limit (held in Scotland at £350 for 17 years while in England it is up to £5,000), to the public’s lack of of choice in legal representation in Scotland (The reforms of the Law Reform 1990 Act held back for 19 years) and now coincidentally we find the rest of the UK has successfully used McKenzie friends for 39 years .. while the legal establishment in Scotland forbade its introduction .. fearing loss of earnings. If you look at Scots rights in civil justice as things currently stand, all the delays of the reforms I have quoted .. and many I have not .. simply boil down to lawyers being concerned they are losing market share (and thereby, profit from legal fees) to people who can perfectly handle their own legal affairs, rather than going to a solicitor to have their legal affairs mishandled .. as is more often the case than not these days.

As readers will know, I reported on the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland in previous articles, and efforts to secure a fair hearing for the petition were greatly enhanced by the appearance of Scotland's only independent MSP, Margo MacDonald, speaking on the petition's behalf, also supported by submissions from consumer organisation Which? and law reform campaigners including myself.

You can read my earlier reports on the McKenzie Friend petition here : Battle to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland continues as Holyrood investigates ‘access to justice’ proposals, also McKenzie Friend proposal gains friends as consumer organisations rally to support petition’s hearing at Scottish Parliament & my initial report on the petition here : 'McKenzie Friend' proposal to Parliament seeks to end 39 years of lawyers monopoly over Scots access to justice

You can watch Margo MacDonald’s testimony to the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee here :

Margo MacDonald speaks on behalf of McKenzie Friends Petition to Holyrood.

English Courts Guidance for McKenzie Friends 0001It is recognised in England & Wales that Human Rights legislation allows litigants to argue for the presence & use of a McKenzie Friend in their case. It is also of significant importance that in the Lord President of the English courts guidance on the use of McKenzie Friends, where the English Lord President specifically states : “When considering any request for the assistance of a MF, the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch 1 Part 1 Article 6 is engaged; the court should consider the matter judicially, allowing the litigant reasonable opportunity to develop the argument in favour of the request.” This glaring difference between how the English courts treat the McKenzie friend issue, versus the restrictions in Scotland, raises the possibility the Scottish courts refusal to allow litigants access to the McKenzie Friends has violated the rights of individuals for a considerable number of years.

You can read the full guidance for McKenzie Friends in England & Wales in pdf format, HERE and now we must wait on the ‘imminent’ publication of the Civil Justice Review to see how the issue of rights of representation in Scotland’s courts and the McKenzie Friend question is to be dealt with, and at least in the Chairman of the Review, Lord Gill, we seem to have someone who is forthright enough in his views to advocate change …

Lord GillLord Gill has already branded Scotland's Civil Justice system as "Victorian" and in need of reform. Lord Gill, who has chaired the review of Scotland's woefully antiquated civil justice system and who is well known for his forthright views, told a Law Society of Scotland conference that "The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that has survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in sustance, its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and, therefore, failing society." You can read more of Lord Gill's comments on the inadequacies of civil justice in Scotland, here : Senior judge hits out at Scotland's 'Victorian' court system and you can download Lord Gill's speech from the Law Society's website (you better download it quickly) here : Lord Gill's speech to Law Society conference (pdf)

You can read more about the Civil Justice Review here : Civil Courts Review

However, Lord Gill’s civil justice review does face a few problems, as the politicians are now realising the scale of his proposals, efforts are being undermined by consumer organisations such as Consumer Focus Scotland, to back up the Lord Justice Clerk’s findings, with a joint Consumer Focus Scotland – Scottish Legal Aid Board survey ruined by elements of the Scottish Government & Scottish Courts Service, restricting the total amount of people questioned to a meagre 35 out of thousands of potential civil court users. I broke this story as an exclusive, earlier, here : Justice Secretary accused of attempt to undermine Lord Gill civil justice review as Government backed survey targets only 35 court users

A source at the Scottish Parliament said today “There will be no delay in the McKenzie Friend Petition as the petitioner himself has already been notified of a new hearing in September. We have to move on, despite the wishes of others not to progress matters which are clearly in the public interest.”

So … McKenzie Friends should, and must, come to Scotland. It is our right. Rather than be second class citizens when it comes to the justice system in Scotland, we should be first class citizens .. and part of being first class citizens with a first class justice system, means taking away the power of the legal profession to dictate who among us has access to justice and who does not. It is everyone’s right to have access to justice and justice will only be done when that is the case.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would have said 50% of cases in the civil courts could be handled by an MF.

Anonymous said...

Bloody hell Peter.If these judges had their way no one would ever be in court if they dont want them to be and from Hamilton's attitude he clearly doesnt want anyone in the bloody court !

McKenzie friends for Scotland NOW and I absolutely back your call for an explanation why England has had it for 40 years before we get it.DISGUSTING THAT MONEY IS CONTROLLING SCOTTISH JUSTICE

Anonymous said...

There is something seriously wrong in Scotland. When, 10,000 people through professional loyalties, and loyalty to their insurers, can close the doors of the courts to protect their own interests, the public's human rights are abused, they have no rights.

This situation is something we would expect to happen in the 17th or 18th century, not in 2009.

If MacAskill things he can maintain this situation, he is making a grave error of jugdement.

I wonder what Lord Hamilton has to hide. The legal club are stuck in the past and they want to legally remain there, because their have total power. End the legal dictatorship in Scotland now.

Anonymous said...

and where is the Fat Minister and Captain MacBuckfast in all this ?
Lost their voices while chewin the fat or what ?

Anonymous said...

"The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that has survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in sustance, its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and, therefore, failing society."

Yes Lord Gill, we need reform to allow us access to the courts without lawyers, as we are solicitor barred. Is it any wonder standards are poor, as clients have no access to justice against members of the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

The thing I find so worrying is that if Peter didn't write about this we wouldn't have known Lord Hamilton had told the Parliament to make people wait longer on this petition.I think its time the newspapers took the legal profession to task on these kinds of things after what happened with our banks and the distinct lack of warnings from anywhere including the media before the crash and taxpayer bailout.

Anonymous said...

I for one do NOT think it is a good idea to allow unelected judges to tell an elected parliament what to do with a public petition.I hope a few of your readers agree with me on that point !

Anonymous said...

Lord Hamilton's comments remind me of those of another 'worthy' - Lord Hardy if memory serves me correctly - who sought to obstruct and undermine a democratically elected Government's decision to extend rights of audience and allow 3rd Party representation, free of the Law Society of Scotland's control.

I know of a case in the Court of Session where a recent request was made for a McKenzie Friend to be permitted - the request was refused. The Court stated instead that the Court would take a 'sympathetic' view of the petition on the first day of the Proof. So much for the Human Rights Act!

What professional or lay person is going to do all of the necessary prepartion when they are required to wait until the first day of a Proof to learn IF they will even be allowed to adopt the role of a McKenzie Friend?

Answer - no-one.

no names no packdrill said...

Hamilton gets paid over 193k a year and has a gold plated protected pension so whats his beef against a McKenzie Friend ?

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/65-senjudic/b65s2-introd-en.pdf

22. The salary of the Lord President is £193,189 and the salary of the Lord Justice Clerk is
£186, 662. There is no provision for paying the salary of the higher graded post to anyone who
assumes the functions of that post on a temporary basis. If follows that the Lord Justice Clerk
will continue to receive salary appropriate to his or her own post for the duration of any period
during which he or she undertakes the functions of the Lord President. During any period in
which the Lord President is incapacitated, the Lord President will continue to receive salary.

Anonymous said...

I have used the services of a McKenzie Friend in a case I took to court over a land dispute.The McKenzie Friend was a retired solicitor I knew very well and after 2 hearings I won.I'd recommend it to anyone although I had no idea it wasnt available in Scotland.Seems odd so best of luck Mr Cherbi in your interesting campaign.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 5.37pm

You are probably correct.

# Anonymous @ 6.09pm

I agree ... not only should Scotland have the McKenzie Friend facility implemented immediately, there should also be explanations as to why we have had to wait 39 years ....

# Anonymous @ 6.42pm

Yes there certainly is something wrong in Scotland and the justice system when the legal profession control the individual's access to justice.

It must stop and those who caused this mess must be made to make amends for the harm they have caused people through denying them access to justice.

# Anonymous @ 6.45pm

Yes, I agree ... although quite clearly some of the attitudes of the judiciary need to change too ...

# Anonymous @ 7.04pm

I do my best .. I hope others follow.

# Anonymous @ 7.35pm

I agree entirely.

# Anonymous @ 7.44pm

Yes, a very apt comparison with Lord Hardy's plan to repeal Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform Act 1990 which was originally intended to expand rights of audience in Scotland ... only implemented 19 years later after much fuss, campaigning & writing on the part of many ...

# No names no packdrill @ 8.27pm

Thanks for the link .. and since those are 2006 figures, I suppose the Lord President gets over 200K now !

# Anonymous @ 8.49pm

Thanks. I suspect we still have a wait until McKenzie Friends are implemented in Scotland ... this administration is all about delay delay delay and passing the buck ... so it wouldn't surprise me that if this time next year, we are still talking about it while the Justice Secretary and the Lord President conveniently blame each other for a lack of progress on the issue ...

I think more campaigning and moves to make the public aware of the role & facility of a McKenzie Friend might help .. because the Scottish Government, the legal profession, and the Scottish Courts Service will not do anything productive for now ...

Anonymous said...

7:04pm

No need to wonder why the newspapers are absent without leave on legal issues - they don't have the writers and anyway which newspaper have you seen writes stuff like Peter along with videos and all the evidence ? They'd get strung up by their own lawyers if they tried it !

Anonymous said...

Hmmm these judges live in another world ?

Why the high salary for someone so ..

Anonymous said...

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND

"The only reason McKenzie Friends have been kept out of Scotland's courts is money, nothing else."

THESE LAWYER CRIMINALS DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE A MCKENZIE FRIEND BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL AID MONEY THEY WILL LOSE. THE LAWYER BASTARDS THAT PROTECT FELLOW LAWYERS WANT YOU BLOCKED FROM JUSTICE FOR TWO REASONS...

IF YOU HAVE A MCKENZIE FRIEND THE LAWYERS WILL LOSE INCOME.

WITHOUT MCKENZIE FRIENDS BEING ALLOWED IN SCOTTISH COURTS THE LAWYERS DECIDE WHO GETS ACCESS TO JUSTICE, AND CASES WHICH CAN DAMAGE LAWYERS REPUTATIONS AND INSURERS WILL NEVER GET TO COURT BECAUSE NO LAWYER WILL REPRESENT YOU. DO NOT TRY TO REASON WITH LAWYERS, THEY ARE DUTY BOUND TO PROTECT ONE ANOTHER. THEY ARE CRIMINAL LOW LIFES.

Anonymous said...

I was just wondering Peter.Do you have any comment on the bugging scandal at the newspapers ?

Scotland's Banana Republic National Party said...

I see life is still rosy in the banana republic of Scotland !

I suggest the Scottish judges and politicians export themselves on a one way ticket to Honduras where they might end up eaten if they try and do all this stuff there !

Anonymous said...

No McKenzie Friends in Scotland because "The Scottish legal profession and the Law Society of Scotland of blocking the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland's courts simply because it would ruin lawyers business and challenge the Law Society’s monopoly on public access to justice".
==================================
You see the lawyers do not want to lose business, so we have to suffer injustice. Seems like a rotten deal to me, and I would urge all Scots to remember this anachronism of a legal system we have protects its practitioners. A draconian system which allows lawyer crooks to legally rob clients and more, because the powers that be believe this is fair and just. New readers please, please never trust any lawyer, they will shake your hand and stab you in the back, and Hamilton's type are the worst.

Anonymous said...

I just want to say I am disgusted at the way these judges treat us and think we are all ignorant of their little schemes.Your blog is an amazing revelation on the legal system Mr Cherbi and I will recommend it to all my friends.Simply amazing work.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 9.54pm

Yes, the very same person, although due to the part about the wall and the other bit, I've had to remove your comment, even if such sentiments are agreeable to many !

# Anonymous @ 9.55pm

If you turn to the actual ECHR act, you will find at the end of it, a section guaranteeing pensions for judges !

# Anonymous @ 10.06pm

Yes, that's about the strength of things .. and it has to change ...

# Anonymous @ 10.17pm

Well, I think you have to remember that we live in a country where everyone is being spied on in one way or another ... for instance .. leave your trash bin slightly open and a camera will catch you out and slap you with a fine .. or walk the dog the wrong way round a tree, and you've basically had it.

Journalists themselves are also spied on ... for instance in Scotland, I know of a local authority which cooked up excuses to gain a RIPSA order on a journalist who had been giving them a hard time. Presumably now they read all his emails, telephone calls, etc .. although I doubt they will gain much as the journalist in question was told all about it.

The legal profession too have used Private Investigators to bug, follow and watch clients who have complained to the Law Society about their lawyers or put in compensation claims to the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund .. even people's mail has been tampered with, as happened to me when the Scotsman ran many stories on my case during the 1990's and early this decade.

I will be writing about that in the near future, as the recent headlines have not escaped my attention on the subject ...

# Scotland's Banana Republic ... @ 10.32pm

Yes indeed .. although I imagine their diets in Honduras would preclude the eating of members of the legal profession ...

# Anonymous @ 10.39pm

Yes, I agree with you .. we must do our utmost to bring these issues into the public domain ...

# Anonymous @ 11.05pm

Thanks. To be fair there are more than myself writing about these issues, albeit only on the internet, although some brave newspapers do tackle the guilty lawyers as you can see from other articles on my blog.

The more victims of corrupt professionals such as, lawyers, doctors, accountants, who go on to write blogs and campaign against such injustice, the better.

Anonymous said...

Yes Peter quite right.We are all spied on in this country but it doesnt stop these bloody crooked lawyers getting away with their crimes.Its enough to make you wonder why they get away with it if we are all spied on so much.Could it be those behind the cameras are helping some of these crooks get away with it for a cheap house (probably from one of their victims) or something like that ?

Anonymous said...

I was going to comment on Lord Hamilton but just read your latest reply.

I am not surprised that lawyers have spied on their clients who complain.You should DEFINITELY write about that as you said because if I thought I was going to be spied on just because I took my lawyer to task about his work I'd have the Police in straight away as well as the tv and newspapers.

Keep up the good work and I hope McKenzie Friends become reality very soon in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Peter
If you expose the wrongdoings of powerful people they will use every dirty trick in their book to wipe you out and I'm sure the Law Society have had more than one go at you.
Its good they haven't succeeded and you are here to keep us all informed of these shocking events in the legal world.More respect to you laddie!

Anonymous said...

You certainly know your stuff Peter Cherbi

Why should a judge tell parliament to back off on a public petition.That is a judge getting involved in politics but all the time we hear judges telling politicians to stay out of the justice system.
Disgraceful if the Scottish parliament bends to Lord Hamilton's wishes.This petition should go on to big success and yes there needs to be an inquiry why Scotland has missed out on 40 years of justice!

Anonymous said...

"It is everyone’s right to have access to justice and justice will only be done when that is the case."

How true !

Anonymous said...

Fair enough Peter I would agree all those delayed reforms you refer to have been delayed out of the profession's own greed.

Anonymous said...

Reading Lord Hamilton's letter to the Petitions Committee I see he has used his words carefully.While it might be not too obvious he is asking for the committee to drop the matter that is what he is clearly seeking.

We cannot wait on the judges 'allowing' people into the court when clearly this is a matter for politicians to legislate on for the public good.If we were to wait on the judges even if this review might say yes to McKenzie Friends I agree with you we would still probably be no further this time next year so now is the time to do it.

Anonymous said...

I would NOT trust the judiciary on this at all.
As someone pointed out earlier this is a matter which requires legislation in Scotland because as Peter has written in his posting all reforms of legal matters seem to be delayed by 20 years on average which is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

"In all likelihood, this statement is true, as most of the significant legal reforms for civil justice, from the small claims limit (held in Scotland at £350 for 17 years while in England it is up to £5,000), to the public’s lack of of choice in legal representation in Scotland (The reforms of the Law Reform 1990 Act held back for 19 years) and now coincidentally we find the rest of the UK has successfully used McKenzie friends for 39 years .. while the legal establishment in Scotland forbade its introduction .. fearing loss of earnings. If you look at Scots rights in civil justice as things currently stand, all the delays of the reforms I have quoted .. and many I have not .. simply boil down to lawyers being concerned they are losing market share (and thereby, profit from legal fees) to people who can perfectly handle their own legal affairs, rather than going to a solicitor to have their legal affairs mishandled .. as is more often the case than not these days."

If that is the case the people should rise up against it

Anonymous said...

Margo is a gem.The only person in Holyrood I'd trust.

Anonymous said...

and Lord Hamilton will know all about people not being able to obtain the services of a lawyer because even he was once a lawyer himself !

Anonymous said...

I agree with the comment of yesterday on the lack of reporting in Scotland of trouble with the legal profession.
Did the Law Society buy up the media ?
These scandals are going on daily and the public need to be alerted about it

Anonymous said...

Isnt it disgusting that our young men are dying in Afghanistan to protect the likes of bent lawyers trying to keep business for themselves and judges stopping people from getting justice.
Time for a bloody revolution in this country its a disgrace

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many of Scotland's judges can hold their heads high, because they are honest?

If there conduct was scrutinized I wonder if they would be fit to sit in the courts?

The Scottish legal profession are a stain on the reputation of our country. This is because they are dictators with draconian self protective powers that put profit before justice.

A lawyer once told me "the courts are not for prosecuting lawyers" when I asked him to take my lawyer to court for me. I hope Lord Gill does not hold views like this, because if he does nothing will change. Self regulation must end, and this will only be possible when no lawyers are involved in the complaints process.

Anonymous said...

"A source at the Scottish Parliament said today “There will be no delay in the McKenzie Friend Petition as the petitioner himself has already been notified of a new hearing in September. We have to move on, despite the wishes of others not to progress matters which are clearly in the public interest.”

WELL SAID, THE PRESS SHOULD REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS ISSUE.

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND, YOU NEED McKENZIE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE HAVE NO LAWYER FRIENDS. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ME GO INTO ANY LAW FIRM AND ASK A LAWYER TO TAKE ANOTHER LAWYER TO COURT. THERE IS MORE CHANCE OF THEM FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES TO SHARKS. TREAT SCOTLAND'S LAWYERS LIKE RATTLESNAKES, STAY WELL CLEAR OR YOU WILL GET BITTEN.

Anonymous said...

Instead of the army being in Afghanistan maybe we should send them into the bloody courts to get us some justice.Thats how bad Scots justice really is these days just like a banana republic that someone compared it to !

Anonymous said...

I also would not trust the judge to allow this Mckenzie friend after 40 years wait.Why its been allowed to be 40 years before it happens for Scotland and why no one willing to talk about it ?
good blog Mr Peter and keep working well !

Anonymous said...

I wonder if McKenzie friends are allowed in member states of the EEC.

MacAskill is supporting the rat pack from his own profession, so if possible we should raise a class action/petition with the European Court of Human Rights against the Scottish Government, as our rights to justice are controlled by a minority with a vested interest in oppressing us to protect their incomes and reputations.

We are suffering discrimination from politicians and the legal profession.

Lawyers have a right to rip clients off, and we have evidence of corruption in the Law Society and SLCC, so we have no protection.

Being blocked from a hearing against a corrupt lawyer is violating our HUMAN RIGHTS. This is a matter for the European Court of Justice?

Anonymous said...

Isnt it disgusting that our young men are dying in Afghanistan to protect the likes of bent lawyers trying to keep business for themselves and judges stopping people from getting justice.
=================================
Correct, if I had my way the legal establishment would all be on the front line fighting the Taleban.
If you watch Michael Moore's Farenhieght 9/11 he asks Senators if their sons are fighting in Iraq. Just like here how many MP's lawyers, judges have family members in the Army?

One day they will work away until they blow us all to pieces with their nuclear weapons, then no one will need to be worried about justice. Humans, intelligent, we are in some mess if this is the case?

Anonymous said...

Peter.
If local authorities are obtaining RIP(S)A orders to spy on journalists don't you think the SNP should be saying something about that ?

Anonymous said...

I agree with those who say its not for judges to tell elected parliaments to delay public petitions.If judges feel so strongly about it they should cough up here and now spitting out their issues rather than asking for delays with the possibility they will give some views later
Total bollocks if you ask me and pleased to see the Scottish parliament is going ahead with it anyway - stuff the judges they have done nothing for 40 years so why ask for another delay now ?

Anonymous said...

justice4all said...

Hi all I wish I could sue the slcc and the Law Society but after fighting a tribunal case and a personal injury claim in which I had some sucess in both unfortunately those sucesses were not enough to be joyous about, but after a long 7 years fighting these battles I no longer have the strength or resources to ensue another battle.
I am only glad that my plight may help those fighting to improve the system for all.
Best wishes to all
----------------------------------
WE KNOW WHAT THIS IS LIKE, ALL LAWYERS ARE FILTHY EVIL CRIMINALS WHO TORTURE CLIENTS AND THE SLCC/ LAW SOCIETY ARE WORSE.

DOCTORS AND LAWYERS POWERFUL RUTHLESS CRIMINALS, WEAR A T SHIRT WITH BOLD WRITING AND EXPOSE THEM IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH WRITTEN EVIDENCE, IT WORKS I CAN ASSURE YOU.

Anonymous said...

These judges think they are like Henry VIII, they can do what they want. Those with power are above the laws they expect everyone else to live by.

Anonymous said...

There is not much lower than a lawyer, save perhaps a doctor or accountant. Satanic professions, evil incarnate. People who have never found out their darker side are oblivious to what they are really like.

From my own experience I have no doubt they would put people in gas chambers to protect their own colleagues, insurers, like the Nazi's. You get into trouble with one, their colleagues treat you the same. If they could have protected Harold Shipman from prosecution I believe they would have. Evil people only accountable to more evil people, Satans representatives on Earth.

Anonymous said...

The real criminals in Scotland are the self regulators because they are answerable only to their own.

The client complaining to Law Society or SLCC is like a black man complaining to the Klu Klux Klan, with the exception that so far the client has not been murdered? Cover up will always happen because these people cannot stand clients. Lawyers careers, that is all they care about and Hamilton (forget the title) is a lawyer himself. Because someone works in a certain profession, they should not be above the law. They are, and a fair society would apply the law without prejudice. This system must be corrected at all costs.

Anonymous said...

This Lord Hamilton chap, who is he answerable to? Can he do what he wants? Why is he not taking legal action against Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Peter
If you expose the wrongdoings of powerful people they will use every dirty trick in their book to wipe you out and I'm sure the Law Society have had more than one go at you.
Its good they haven't succeeded and you are here to keep us all informed of these shocking events in the legal world.More respect to you laddie!

12:26 AM
==================================
YOU ARE RIGHT, THE LAW SOCIETY HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED BECAUSE THEY ARE CORRUPT. PETER HAS RIGHT ON HIS SIDE LIKE ALL VICTIMS OF SELF REGULATING CRIMINALS.

Anonymous said...

I urge all people who have complained to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, to forward their experiences to Mr Cherbi.

Anonymous said...

I have seen a lot of articles on corrupt lawyers in the Sunday Mail. The Judge should be writing an article warning readers lawyers control access to justice in Scotland.

Sunday Mail please note we need your support to tell readers they have no rights against a lawyer so they need McKenzie friends implemented now. The Law Society SLCC are protectors of lawyers not clients.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for your continued comments.

Someone asked who Lord Hamilton is accountable to ... well, if you watch the following video clip : Lord Hamilton - accountable to himself it seems he is accountable to himself !

I would welcome more copies of investigations carried out by the SLCC .. the more that are published .. the better.

Someone also asked about RIP(S)A orders in Scotland relating to journalists and whether the SNP would make comment.I doubt any comment will be made because the current administration are well aware, and are probably benefiting from the results of any monitoring of journalists, for whatever concocted reasons have been made ...

Readers should watch tomorrow's (Monday) newspapers, where the results of the SLCC's research into the Master Policy will be announced.

I can exclusively reveal today the Law Society of Scotland REFUSED to hand over a copy of the Master Policy to the Research team. I was told this several weeks ago by SLCC insiders and it was confirmed by a source at the Law Society itself.

With the release of the research will now come questions as to whether the SLCC will do anything or not about the hundreds or thousands of cases over the years of claims against crooked lawyers which have been blocked by the legal profession and their insurers ...

My own opinion is that the SLCC will do nothing, other than continue to excuse themselves and turn a blind eye to the endemic corruption within Scotland's legal profession.

Anonymous said...

Sunday, 12 July 2009

SUBJECT : MCKENZIE FRIENDS IN SCOTTISH COURTS

Dear Mrs McDonald,

I write regarding the implementation of McKenzie Friends in the Scottish Courts. I believe this is vital bearing in mind that lawyers control access to our courts, and there are many individuals who have no rights due to discrimination from the legal profession. This is in conflict with the principles of natural justice,

Your views expressed at the Public Petitions Committee were very encouraging, and hopefully many more MSP’s will support you on this. In my view justice should be available to all citizens, and I am interested to hear the views of the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on this matter. Clearly it is not in there interests, because they have a stranglehold on the provision of legal services at the present time. Mr MacAskill as Justice Minister should have dealt with this before now. There is something seriously wrong with a justice system where individuals have no legal remedy because they cannot get a lawyer to act for them. In many cases this is because it is not in the legal professions interest to take the case on.

Clearly disputes could be resolved without a lawyer if the McKenzie Friend system was implemented. This is of paramount importance in my view, and it will give many people rights they do not have at the present time. There is widespread support from consumer groups, and I understand Lord Gill will advise on the implementing of McKenzie Friends in his review.

Mr John Swinney MSP clearly demonstrated at the Justice 2 committee that the Law Society of Scotland director Douglas Mill was interfering with claims against lawyers. We need more MSP’s like you and Mr Swinney who will support their constituents, and if Mr MacAskill cannot do this he should resign. It is time Scotland had a Justice Minister who will stand against the legal profession and end the self regulatory stranglehold that is a barrier to justice for so many members of the public.

Yours Faithfully

Anonymous said...

I can exclusively reveal today the Law Society of Scotland REFUSED to hand over a copy of the Master Policy to the Research team. I was told this several weeks ago by SLCC insiders and it was confirmed by a source at the Law Society itself.

With the release of the research will now come questions as to whether the SLCC will do anything or not about the hundreds or thousands of cases over the years of claims against crooked lawyers which have been blocked by the legal profession and their insurers ...

So more non-action from the Law Society who are controlling the show as they usually do ?
What good is the SLCC doing if no one is ever going to get their cases resolved ?

Anonymous said...

Interesting
I had to search for your other stories on the Master Policy so now I know what you are talking about.
If the Law Society are so unwilling to give it up they should have it taken off them by force!

Anonymous said...

If a judge can ask the parliament to delay a public petition then parliament should be asking the judge to get a bloody move on after 39 years of sitting around not allowing this mckenzie friend in the first place!

Anonymous said...

I do not think it is morally acceptable for one man like Lord Hamilton to be answerable only to himself. Just like a king in former times, a form of despotism. No Hamilton should be answerable to the public because because he has been accused of dishonesty, and like his colleagues has not taken any legal action.

Anonymous said...

last comment - spot on

how can judges be accountable to themselves ? its corrupt

Anonymous said...

Trusting a judge is not on the agenda after what we've all been through with the politicians.One as bad as the other and what a cheek asking to delay something thats already been delayed for 40 years !!!

Anonymous said...

It is money and the protection of reputations that binds this legal riff raff together.