Taylor Review consultation on costs of justice aims to tackle widespread evidence that litigation in Scottish courts is expensive, exclusive & unproductive. GOING TO COURT is like being taken to the cleaners, whether its down to the fees of your own solicitors, the fees of the other side’s legal team or the court’s fees. No matter how you word the dreaded ‘access to justice’ equation, going to court in Scotland is a bit of a rip-off. There is no escaping the fact that justice, and access to it, is, with ample evidence, widely perceived to be the domain of the rich, vested interests, someone who can slip a judge a benefit on the side, or the ones who know how to bend legal aid rules to pick up public funds for taking on cases for convicted rapists, murderers & fraudsters which make the rest of the nation sick.
Put it this way, if you’ve ever had the feeling a serial child murderer stands a better chance of obtaining access to court & millions in taxpayer funded legal aid for a dispute over prison rights, as opposed to your own court case involving claim against a swindler who stole your investments, a lawyer who ruined a will or took your house, a medial professional who committed negligence or who caused a death in your family, or some other professional who, through their actions ruined your life and then kept on ruining your life in some kind of vendetta, you are in the right country. It all happens here, every week of every month of every year.
Those of you who attempt to pursue a case through Scotland’s antiquated “Victorian” court system to gain ‘justice’ simply end up joining a queue of thousands of people who walk in & out of Scotland’s revolving door courts system each year achieving nothing more than lining the pockets of the legal profession, the courts, & the judge who sits there on a £200K plus salary, managing an occasional grumble or mumble in some kind of inaudible verbal abortion more reminiscent of a silent horror movie, while frequently finding or ruling for the vested interests who his or her lordship dare not upset.
In an attempt to address the cost aspect of obtaining justice in Scotland’s Victorian civil courts, the Scottish Government’s Taylor Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland has announced a consultation which readers and anyone with an interest in access to justice issues in Scotland should participate in. I also encourage anyone who does participate in the Taylor Review to ask their msp to participate. After all, you can bet your last penny the vested interests of the legal profession are participating in the consultation, and demanding costs be kept as they are, so justice can be delivered at great expense rather than being delivered on the cheap.
Heaven help Scotland’s greedy multi billion pound legal services rip-off industry if costs of going to court or conducting litigation were ever likely to be reduced …
The Taylor Review consultation paper is available to download here:
Consultation Paper (Word Document) 2253.5 kb
Consultation Paper (PDF Document) 856.85 kb
An announcement from the Taylor Review Team encourages participation in the consultation, stating : We hope that the consultation process will generate considerable debate and that you will feel able to respond to the questions that we pose. Please do not feel that you must respond to every question. There may be particular issues which interest you and you should feel free to limit your answers to such areas. If there are additional points that you wish to make that are not covered by the Consultation Paper then please feel free to do so.
You can find out more about the Taylor Review HERE and readers should note responses to the consultation are to be received by the review team no later than Friday 16 March 2012.
Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland
STATEMENT BY SHERIFF PRINCIPAL TAYLOR
LAUNCH OF TAYLOR REVIEW CONSULTATION
In September 2009, the Scottish Civil Court's Review (SCCR) under the chairmanship of The Rt. Hon. Lord Gill presented its Report to the Scottish Government. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has responded so positively to the recommendations in the Report.
The Board of the SCCR knew that Lord Justice Jackson was undertaking a Review of Civil Litigation Costs in England and Wales and would be reporting in early 2010. Accordingly, the Board thought it would be prudent to await the outcome of LJ Jackson's Report before formulating recommendations on judicial expenses in this jurisdiction.
LJ Jackson reported in 2010 and the Westminster Government has responded to that Report. The Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is presently making its way through the Westminster Parliament.
Earlier this year I was invited by the Scottish Government to chair a Review into the Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland. Part of my remit is to consult widely. Since the Review commenced, we have spoken to a number of people with an interest in the Scottish civil judicial process in order that we might identify those areas where it is thought that reform is necessary. We wrote to over 90 individuals and bodies seeking guidance on the issues upon which we should be consulting. I am also deeply indebted to the members of the Reference Group who have given of their time both generously and free of charge. Their contribution has been invaluable. This consultation document is the product of these discussions and responses. The responsibility for the content is, nonetheless, mine.
The consultation document covers a wide range of issues which have a significant impact on access to justice. Access to justice is a right and it has been said with some force that its absence is "an enemy of the rule of law". For example, we ask for views on whether access to justice would be improved if lawyers in Scotland were allowed to enter into agreements with clients whereby the lawyers could express their fee as a percentage of the damages recovered. We also give an opportunity for members of the public and lawyers alike to give their views on the desirability of referral fees which is an issue which has generated considerable interest south of the border.
It is a matter of chance that we embark upon consultation at a time when the Westminster Bill is being debated in the House of Lords. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of access to justice and has adopted a different approach from its English and Welsh counterparts. It does not intend to make major changes to the scope of legal aid even in these times of austerity. It would however wish legal aid to become "a funder of last resort."
I hope that there will be considerable debate generated by this document and that I will receive responses from as many sources as is possible. By so responding the Scottish public and professions will hopefully draw attention to all aspects of the issues contained in the consultation document. To assist the consultation process we propose to have public meetings in Aberdeen, Dumfries, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth. A wide range of responses should minimise the risk of there being unintended consequences arising out of the recommendations which will eventually be contained in my Report. I intend to report before the end of 2012.
17 comments:
"Those of you who attempt to pursue a case through Scotland’s antiquated “Victorian” court system to gain ‘justice’ simply end up joining a queue of thousands of people who walk in & out of Scotland’s revolving door courts system each year achieving nothing more than lining the pockets of the legal profession, the courts, & the judge who sits there on a £200K plus salary, managing an occasional grumble or mumble in some kind of inaudible verbal abortion more reminiscent of a silent horror movie, while frequently finding or ruling for the vested interests who his or her lordship dare not upset. "
ABOUT TIME WE ALL TOOK OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM AND COURTS BACK FROM THE LAWYERS!
WELL DONE FOR NAILING THE JUDGES AGAIN PETER THEY ARE AS CRIMINAL AS MANY BEFORE THEM WEARING GOWNS & WIGS
and the irony is the Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland Consultation is being chaired by a Sheriff!
Wouldn't the Scottish Govt have been better putting someone more independent in charge of the review instead of yet another judge?
So much for independence!
He intends to report at the end of 2012 and then MacAskill will take another three years to announce nothing will be done just in time for the next election.
Just another time waster.We should be exploring other ways of taking back our justice system.
Yet again we have the spectacle of another internal review on the justice system which will end up in a bugger all doing approach upon its conclusion.
Where are you now Lord Gill after all those mutterings about a Victorian justice system unfit for purpose?
Just how long does it have to stay Victorian and unfit for purpose,Lord Gill?
Is this the same review in which they said lawyers and their like could make confidential submissions without fear of them being published?
So much for openness!
The Taylor review is holding a number of public meetings throughout Scotland to seek views in relation to the issues raised in the Consultation Paper on Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland.
Venue: A K Bell Library, York Place, Perth PH2 8EP
Date: Wednesday 1 February 2012
Time: 3.30-5.30pm
All with an interest are welcome. If you wish to attend, please email enquiries@taylorreview.org
Something I admire about you is your ability to rip the credibility of the entire justice system to shreds in a single sentence or paragraph.Today you have managed it yet again and some more.
You are a formidable chap Mr Cherbi and no matter how this review turns out in the end we know who will be telling the truth - people such as yourself who have been through the system already and are decent enough to warn us all of its evils.
Keep up the good work and all the best for 2012.
A fan.
For all the time wasting MacAskill and his supposedly pro Scots SNP are doing with the courts we could have had access to justice years ago.No change no matter who is in charge.If anything justice will be more out of reach than ever and more expensive which is exactly what Sheriff Taylor's 'review' is to achieve.
Yes I agree with the other comments this review is just another talking shop under the SNP and MacAskill who said there will be no more talking shops.Actions speak louder than words!They can release convicted bombers who were set up in the courts quicker than give any of us justice because there's no oil or money in it for the politicos..
Lets be honest we all know this is just a meaningless paper exercise with the intention of kidding the public, changing their perception that MacAskill has the guts for any real change.
Why do we the people not run our own survey of proposals on say Facebook, which will be open and transparent and unfiltered by vested interests and then we can present this to MacAskil at the same time as this Sheriff led Review.
What is more we could put it into Parliament as a Petition to be actioned with so many hundreds of thousands of votes for?
Let's take Scotland back from the criminal gangs?
Lets banish self interest, nepotism, corruption and greed and bring in fairness, access to justice for all regardless of means, equality before the law. A level playing field.
The way it should be?
The Scottish Government have today announced a review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review of the review
and in 2067 nothing ever happened.
Dont put your faith in the justice system because it only helps itself
Going to court IS like being taken to the cleaners but dont expect Sheriff Taylor's review to do anything about it!
SNP politicians like others often talk long and loud about Cabinet responsibility, and a collective decision making process.
It has long been clear to me that Mr Swinney has long since 'sold out' and no supports this further episode of lopsided window dressing.
well said it's high time someone had a go at the rip off
lawyers it's high time we took the justice system back from the lawyers
I know someone who has MacAskill as his msp and he's been trying to get him to help about a lawyer problem will ask him to contact as there is little help on offer from what I've heard so far.
Why not get a reputable impartial organisation to do the Review like Which?
Could it be that there is no Political Will to do anything to improve the lot for Scotland's People?
So much for the SNP being for Scotland's People!
McAskill is a solicitor by trade - if he loses his seat he'll go back to soliciting - and so he's no more likely to make things better for 'the client' than cut his own throat.
Q.E.D.
The old Scots Law presumption is - where a person's interest and his duty conflict, the law (based upon the plainest maxims of common sense) presumes that he will put his own interest ahead of his duty.
Put short - A PERSON WILL ALWAYS ACT IN HIS OWN BEST INTEREST.
All these reviews are simply the legal profession moving the chairs around on the deck of the Titanic - don't kid yourself that any meaningful change is the purpose or intent - its all PR based window dressing, equivalent to green-wash.
On the other hand - don't be silent, register your disapproval of the system having the characteristic of a 'protection racket' operating in favour of solicitors/QCs extorting money out of the public - submit it to the inquiry and tick the box for your submission to be made public. They'll still try to pretend that its just a matter of perceived cost (rather than admit existence of any perception that it is just a rip-off mechanism set up for the lawyers' gain) but it'll get harder for McAskill etc. to ignore if there are numerous public submissions. FYI Ignore their guiding questions, and simply submit the over-arching perception/experience, in accordance with the invitation in the introductory passages.
Bon chance.
Post a Comment