Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Vested interests breathe sigh of relief as Lord Hamilton bans “Tweeting” in Scottish courts ‘for now’, while English ‘tweet on’ with judicial blessing

Lord Hamiltion TwitterSpot the difference : Scotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton continues ban on tweets in Scottish Courts for now while England can tweet away. TWEETING from a mobile phone or other electronic device in a Scottish court is still likely to get you sent down for contempt of court “until full consideration can be given to formulating suitable guidance” said Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton today after the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales cleared journalists & legal commentators to use text based devices such as mobile phones & laptops to communicate from court.

While the guidance from England’s courts confirm journalists & legal commentators south of the border can now tweet with judicial blessing & without asking the court’s prior permission, members of the public are still required to make an application to tweet.

A Press Release, issuing the guidance from the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales states : Interim guidance on live, text based communications from courts in England and Wales was first issued on 20 December 2010, following which the Lord Chief Justice consulted widely including the media, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Attorney General and members of the public After considering the responses he has published NEW GUIDANCE

The Lord Chief Justice for England & Wales, said : “A fundamental aspect of the proper administration of justice is open justice. Fair, accurate and, where possible, immediate reporting of court proceedings forms part  of that principle,” Interim guidance on live, text-based communications from courts in England and Wales was first issued on 20 December 2010, following which the Lord Chief Justice consulted widely including the media, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Attorney General and members of the public.

Under the interim guidance journalists had to make an application to the judge to request permission to use electronic devices to send text. The new guidance makes clear that there is no longer any need for representatives of the media/legal commentators to make an application to use text-based devices to communicate from court. Members of the public should make a formal or informal application if they wish to use these devices. Use of devices should not cause a disturbance or distraction. The judge always retains full discretion to prohibit live, text based communications from court, in the interests of justice. The “paramount question” for the judge in deciding whether to allow live text-based communications is whether it may interfere with the administration of justice. “the danger ….is likely to be at its most acute in the context of criminal trials, eg where witnesses who are out of court may be informed of what has already happened in court and so coached or briefed before they then give evidence” or where legal discussions in the absence of the jury may appear on the internet and be seen by jury members.

The guidance emphasises that anyone using electronic text is strictly bound by the existing restrictions on reporting court proceedings, under the Contempt of Court  Act 1981. Photography in court remains strictly forbidden under the Criminal Justice Act 1925.

Responding to the development in England & Wales, Scotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton issued a statement continuing the ban on tweets & the use of electronic devices in Scotland’s Courts. Lord Hamilton said : “I note the Guidance issued today by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales on the use of live text based communication from court.  I will give full consideration to this Guidance and its implications with a view to formulating suitable Guidance in Scotland”.

The statement from the judicial office for Scotland went onto say “Currently the permission of the court is required to use devices that allow live text based communication from court.  That position remains unchanged.”

Tweets were first used in the trial of Tommy Sheridan earlier this year, where the judge, Lord Bracadale agreed tweets could be used in court for the first time in the perjury case' sentencing phase which also saw leaks of interview tapes from Lothian & Borders Police of Mr Sheridan’s wife being accused of adopting ‘terrorist tactics’ of looking at a fixed position during interrogation. No inquiry has ever taken place into who at Lothian & Borders Police leaked the tapes to a media organisation and no one has been arrested for leaking the tapes, an act which is thought to be a criminal offence in itself.

Clearly Scottish Courts may not be too happy about court observers tweeting yet another crooked lawyer or some other vested interest managed to wriggle out of a court case against them … possibly because Twitter would end up collapsing under the weight of Tweets of injustice … or that the numbers might start adding up on who is actually being provided access to justice in Scotland … not ordinary Scots, that’s for sure.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

So, The Scottish Judicial System has gone from Victorian to Medieval and now we seem to have taken another backwards step.

Does this mean we have a Middle Aged Judicial System.

WoW!

Maybe they are thinking about bringing back hanging, drawing and quartering for breach of the peace?

Or maybe there is to be a new William Wallace figure to free Scotland's oppressed people from the tyrannical state, who seem to get away with...?

Or maybe it's just a simple case of pragmatism, so that a Judge can misrepresent what he said at the previous hearing to a new Counsel to achieve his twisted objective?

Anonymous said...

“A fundamental aspect of the proper administration of justice is open justice. Fair, accurate and, where possible, immediate reporting of court proceedings forms part of that principle”

No wonder Lord Hamilton wants nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

Ah, so only 2 years behind the times on this particular issue Lord Hamilton.

The sooner he retires the better it will be for the Scottish Public.

Anonymous said...

The thing is as Lord Hamilton and his colleagues know full well,certain advocates & solicitors have been recording court hearings on digital equipment they sneak into the court for years and nothing has been done about it.

One example of this is now well known where a senior well known QC played a verbose waffle of a judge (recorded during a court sitting) in an Edinburgh pub and laughed about it with his chums not realising the whole establishment tuned in.

Dear Lord President where are your court rules now?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 14 December 2011 16:55

Information on, or identities of any advocates or solicitors or anyone else using audio recording equipment in court please send to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com for further investigation.

Anonymous said...

Oh well better telling you than Hamilton because if he already knows about it and has done nothing then there is something VERY CRIMINAL GOING ON IN THE COURTS SYSTEM

Go get em Peter!

Anonymous said...

Another chance for England to leave Scotland behind in the justice game.Why anyone may choose to litigate in Scotland's antiquated corrupt jurisdiction is beyond me.The answer however probably accounts for why MacAskill has failed each time to attract major players to litigate in the Scottish justice system - probably because they know it will bite them in the ass just as much as it bites everyone else who goes anywhere near it.

Job well done Peter.I think you have taken out any credibility Scottish justice ever had with your excellent reporting.It just goes to show what someone who cant be bought up or murdered too easily can do for the rest of the country and anyone with an interest in justice anywhere around the world.

Tweet that,Lord President!

Anonymous said...

I never even knew it was done in the Sheridan case anyway might go along to some of these crooked lawyer trials and give it a try if they ever happen so be sure to let us all know Peter!

Anonymous said...

A good Clerk of Works on a construction contract acts as the eyes and ears for the client. His remit to make sure the contractor does the work to specification in materials and quality of workmanship.

The problem with lawyers is that the eyes and ears for the client is another lawyer investigating the clients original lawyer. hence the corruption we see now.

If the Law Society looked after construction contracts the way they deal with complaints buildings would collapse everywhere. The Law Societies crimes are invisible.

Anonymous said...

A very important case on the 15th December 2011 are these in the High Court in London.

At 2 o’clock
APPLICATION NOTICES
IHQ/11/0823 Edwin Coe LLP & anr v Jones
IHQ/11/0836 Jones v Edwin Coe LLP

Before Justice Eady

link to listing http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/hearing-lists/list-queens-bench.htm

Jones is the owner of a website called Nick The Nasty Greek
http://nickthenastygreek.com/

Anonymous said...

You would think that if Lord Hamilton was wanting the Scottish Judicial System not only to be Transparent but to be seen to be Transparent in all of it's dealings, in the background of a catalogue of apparent corruptions within the Scottish Crown Office and the Court System that he would want all Court business to be televised as they do in USA.

Afterall, we have the technology?

The technology has become inexpensive?

There is absolutely NO REASON WHATSOEVER to having everything recorded by HD TV Cameras with Sound, so that NO 'MISTAKES' CAN BE MADE.

Here are the Benefits:

1) Nothing can be miscontrued or misconceived, as the record can be referred to

2) Time-keeping and pace of Court process can be monitored (i.e no more Sheriff's turning up at 1045)

3) Unlawful statements cannot be made in Court or bullying tactics

4) Lawyers will be less inclined to tell lies and will have to rely on skill

5) Easy visual record to be used as a training tool to improve the service

6) Unconventional Court practices will cease, like a Sheriff bawling at a party from the passage-way leading to the bench within the Court room, without ever having met the party before and showing a clear prejudice towards them before hearing a word of 'evidence'!

7) More efficient, streamlined, modern, accountable and cheaper system that is equitable

Negatives as seen by vested Interests:

1) They cannot continue to protect themselves and run a system that only serves their own narrow interests (This is actually a positive benefit because the Crown Office & the Judiciary are the PUBLIC)

Anonymous said...

HD TV Camera Lenses can can be produced nowadays less than the size of a 2p piece very cheaply, meaning that multiple camera's could be set up within a Court room to provide blanket detailed coverage and cheaply.

These Cameras could also be virtually invisible due to their size, dispelling any dissenting claim from the vested interests that having cameras there would have an effect on those appearing in front of them (be they QC's, Jurors or Judges or Sheriff's) for fears that they may act differently in front of them.

In reality, all Court users would probably forget that they were even there after a couple of weeks and lapse back into their usual methods - leading to interesting developments I am sure.

Maybe that is the real reason for the resistance to REAL JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND

Anonymous said...

Spot the difference in the pictures


This is easy

The blue twitter bird allows everyone to talk about the crap which is going on in the courts and which crooks/vested interests are getting away with robbing people/causing injustice when the judges protect their friends in the legal profession or industry (hoping for a directorship or adviser post no doubt with a favourable ruling)

The judge wants to keep the rotten courts system under wraps so people dont find out the courts are crooked - which they are.Crooked.Yes I said it.Crooked.Did you hear me Lord Hamilton? I said the courts are rotten and crooked and most people are beginning to feel it.How long can you hold back the tide Lord Ham?

Anonymous said...

The Law Society radical evil.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society
113 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1PL
England
Mr Hudson
Today is a day where the legal profession has again disgraced itself. Therefore let us provide coverage of the organisation that protects the significant minority of fools which make up its members.

The Law Society seems to lurch from one crisis to another. They have paid huge amounts of money to shut down the Solicitors From Hell website. Initially the actions were confined to its members suing for libel. O.K some solicitors were unfairly listed.

However, in the latest action the Law Society include harrassment claims for good measure. But what a mistake that was and the judge gave the game away in his judgement. If you cannot sue a journalist or blogger because the publication is true – it’s fine to sue for harrassment instead. So the message seems to be to solicitors and everyone in fact - if the publication is untrue and you are defamed – sue for libel. Or if you are correctly exposed for wrongdoing, sue for harrassment as an alternative.

That part of the judgement will go down as a grave error. The Law Society could have confined this to libel and probably still succeeded. However, by introducing harrassment into this they have got a whole bunch of folks steamed up. When journalists and the Libel Reform Campaign sit down and digest the implications for free speech there will be hell to pay.

And now the floodgates are open which one of the Law Society’s members is going to be the first to bring a harrassment claim. Keep a close eye on the court listings – that might be sooner than you think.

And in the meantime just see how busy the three websites which have replaced Mr Kordowski’s site get. According to Mr Hudson of The Law Society these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’. Glad to hear that Mr Hudson. We thank you for confirming that and the research which must have been carried out by the Law Society to qualify you to make such a statement on the public’s behalf.
=============================
The sites "pose no danger to the public". What a nutter this guy is.

Anonymous said...

According to Mr Hudson of The Law Society these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’. RIGHT HUDSON LET US LOOK AT THIS. AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD I TRUST A MAN WHO DEALS WITH COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC IN THE PRIVATE REALM OF A CORRUPT UNION OR WOULD I TRUST WHAT A VICTIM OF THAT CORRUPT UNION ACTIVITIES TOLD ME. IF I WANT AN OPINION OF A CAR I READ REVIEWS FROM THE PUBLIC, I DO NOT JUST TRUST THE MANUFACTURER. YOU AMAZE ME, "A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC" NO WEBSITES ARE A DANGER TO YOUR COHORT OF SELF REGULATORS.

Glad to hear that Mr Hudson. We thank you for confirming that and the research which must have been carried out by the Law Society to qualify you to make such a statement on the public’s behalf.

IT BEGGARS BELIEF HOW THIS MAN HAS ATTITUDES LIKE THIS. IN THE HOUSEHOLD VALUES ARE TAUGHT BY PARENTS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, JUST LIKE THE LAW SOCIETY, AND FROM THE RISE OF INTERNET DISSENT AGAINST LAWYERS THE ONLY VALUES THAT ARE TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL AND LAW FIRMS IS PROTECT THE PROFESSION.

THE ONLY WAY I WOULD GO INTO A LAW FIRMS OFFICE FOR REPRESENTATION IS IF SOMEONE STUCK A KALASHNIKOV IN MY BACK.

NO MR HUDSON WE DONT NEED LECTURES FROM SUPERCILLIOUS PEOPLE LIKE YOU, SO GO VISIT A TAXIDERMIST. LAWYERS ARE RADICAL EVIL.

Anonymous said...

The sites "pose no danger to the public". What a nutter this guy is.
==================================
This attitude that everyone is wrong except the legal profession tells us something about the principle of universality. The lawyer is never wrong. Hudson and his counterparts in Scotland all have attitudes like this and the tragic fact for them is that they really believe we the public need protecting.

I will paint the picture this wad Hudson. If buyers on E Bay could not leave feedback where would be the incentive for sellers to sell quality products. Similarly if sellers could not leave feedback regarding how quickly buyers paid etc, the E Bay web site would not work.

You are terrified of feedback Mr Hudson because the Law Societies of Britain are corrupt to the core and I am telling you you will never see that. Web sites a threat to the public, get real, your ship is sinking and you are helping to sink it.

Anonymous said...

Oh Peter as a balanced intelligent individual I am worried that bloggers sites "may be a threat to the public." You know a big chief at the Law society is making a statement to this effect. I would like to thank him for his concern for my and others welfare and I am sure if he thinks we are at risk he will donate a lump sum from his £400,000.00 a year salary to help us. He really is a wonderful individual showing great concern for the public he cares about so much.

My father used to tell me I should have a knighthood, he called me Sir Castic.

Keep up your good work telling the public whow things really are, that big chief, perhaps he spends his spare time at the Samaritans helping those less fortunate than himself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Truth is what the voice within tells you - Mahatma Ghandi

This is exactly what the likes of the Law Society of Scotland and Judges seek to crush from our broken bodies.

They want us to believe blindly in 'THEIR TRUTH' because they know what is good for us. YES LIKE THE TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP, THE NAZI'S USED VIOLENCE TO CONTROL THE PEOPLE; THE BRITISH LEGAL PROFESSION USE THE LEVERS OF STATE POWER TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.

We are no longer treated as human beings, free people, born equal on the earth. YES NOW YOU ARE SPEAKING LIKE HANNAH ARENDT, BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT BUT LAWYERS WANT TO MAKE US ALL THE SAME, INCAPABLE OF ACTING AGAINST THEM, USING DRACONIAN LAWS TO SILENCE CRITICS OF THEIR SELF REGULATING IDEOLOGY. I LIKE YOU HAVE DEALT WITH LAWYERS, THEY ARE AS EVIL AS HITLER. AS ARENDT STATED IN THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, PEOPLE HAVE TWO THINGS CRITICAL TO WELLBEING ACTION IN STARTING SOMETHING NEW AND SPEAKING. TUGENDHAT WANTS TO STOP BOTH.

They are acting out a mendacious belief that they are our overlords and we are unthinking, unemotional, undeserving, plebian PERSONS, without any rights in Society. YES THEY ARE THE MASTERS AND WE ARE THE SUBHUMANS, GOOD JOB THEY DONT HAVE AN ARMY AND GAS FACTORIES.

Mere pawns of the State to be used and discarded as they-see-fit and to be expected to know our place. YES THEY WANT TO CRUSH OUR ABILITY TO ACT, SPEAK, THE TWO VITAL MECHANISMS IN A FREE SOCIETY. CRUSH ACTION TO START WEBSITES (THEIR LONG TERM GOAL) AND FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, RICK'S WEBSITE REMOVED FROM CYBERSPACE. THE THIN END OF A TOTALITARIAN WEDGE. Do as we are told. Keep Silent. And let them continue to lie, cheat, steal and deceive in their persuit of power.

YES BUT HANNAH ARENDT WARNS POWER NEEDS TO RENEW ITSELF. LET US SAY HITLER DOMINATED THE WORLD, THEN DISSENT WITHIN NAZISM CHALLENGED HIS POWER. IT IS THE SAME HERE TO A MUCH LESSER EXTENT, POWER RENEWING ITSELF THROUGH DISSENT, BUT IF WE WERE IN NAZI GERMANY VIOLENCE WOULD CRUSH DISSENT.

I SEE PARALLELS BETWEEN THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND NAZISM IN THAT THE FORMER WANT TO CRUSH OUR ABILITY TO ACT, TO UNIFY, TO WARN OTHERS.
IF YOU CANNOT ACT, UNIFY, WARN OTHERS, YOU ARE SUBHUMANS AND THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT TO US. MY OPINION I WOULD RATHER BE MURDERED BY THEM THAN BEND THE KNEE TO THEM.

TUGENDHAT MOVING THE LEGAL GOALPOSTS IS HIS ATTEMPT TO STOP US FROM ACTING. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED READ HANNAH ARENDT'S THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, A MASTERPIECE IN POLITICAL THEORY.

LORD HAMILTON FOUGHT HARD TO REJECT MACKENZIE FRIENDS IN SCOTLAND, ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO STOP US ACTING BECAUSE HE WANTS US UNREPRESENTED OR PAYING EXTORTIONATE LEGAL BILLS.


THEY ARE THE NEW NAZI'S, THANK GOD THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SS.

Anonymous said...

A political theorist. Mosca if my memory is correct stated that "an organised minority can control an unorganised majority" and this we see with the Law Societies and their victims.

The Tudendhat ruling and the Law Societies want to break up networks of dissent so their organised minority can leave their victims rightless, therefore powerless, suplicant to their entrenched ideological views. It must not happen because what this profession taught me was I could not get a lawyer to sue a lawyer.

I was blocked from action, a leper outside the political community where paedophiles, rapists and murderers get a defence the rightless subhuman victim of a crooked lawyer does not.

The foundation of their power is keeping us rightless, unable to act against them, unable to unite.

I had no money for five months because a doctor lied in my medical records and stopped my money to starve me into submission in a litigation case. My lawyer sharing the same insurer as my doctor protected him. Had I a mortgage instead on living in my mothers house I would have lost my house, car. I felt like suicide and ten years on I cannot get a job and the Law Society would not investigate the lawyer. He moved from Ross Harper to Drummond LLP recently.

Please believe me lawyers and doctors are extremely dangerous, evil, they are the state.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society seems to lurch from one crisis to another. They have paid huge amounts of money to shut down the Solicitors From Hell website. Initially the actions were confined to its members suing for libel. O.K some solicitors were unfairly listed.

However, in the latest action the Law Society include harrassment claims for good measure. But what a mistake that was and the judge gave the game away in his judgement. If you cannot sue a journalist or blogger because the publication is true – it’s fine to sue for harrassment instead. So the message seems to be to solicitors and everyone in fact - if the publication is untrue and you are defamed – sue for libel. Or if you are correctly exposed for wrongdoing, sue for harrassment as an alternative. WE LAWYERS WILL GET YOU ANYWAY.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’.
================================
We are touched by the Law Societies concern for members of the public. A bit too late if it was genuine. The Law Society have only one concern,

Silencing the public through closing all web sites, they is what they need to do to continue their evil trade.

Here is one web site the public must never trust

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/home.law

Find a solicitor

This section contains our searchable database to help you find a solicitor, advice on what to expect, guides to common legal problems and what to do if things go wrong.

Look for Lexcel - your search results will indicate firms with the Law Society's Lexcel accreditation. This is only awarded to legal practices that meet the highest management and customer care standards.

Further guidance in this section covers paying for legal services, specialist solicitors, lawyers for businesses, complaints, directories and frequently asked questions. Choose from the options on the left.

Search our database below to find contact details for thousands of law firms worldwide.
Note that a firm may opt out of this list.
=================================
Warning DO NOT TRUST THE LAW SOCIETY, CHECK WEB SITES BEFORE YOU LOOK FOR A LAWYER. THIS UNION POSE A GREAT RISK TO YOU THE CLIENT, DO NOT TRUST LAWYERS.

Anonymous said...

What does Tugendhat say. Even if all listings on Solicitors from Hell were true, the site amounts to harassment of lawyers.
===================================
So the protection of potential clients "even if postings are true" are irrelevant because lawyers are getting harassed. Christ Tugendhat you want them protected so they can ruin more members of the public. You are a nutter.

Your legal brain is clogged up by prejudice. How you think this ruling is just beggers belief. Truth and justice are the same.

Anonymous said...

According to Mr Hudson of The Law Society these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’.
===============================
Look Hudson old chap, the only genuine concern you have is for the cohort of criminals you are in charge of.

You would be a lousy spin doctor.

Anonymous said...

16 December 2011 00:53
I know your pain! You are right.

16 December 2011 00:20
Couldn't agree more!

We need to use legal remedy to defeat them though.

What about a Petition to remove the SLCC for failing, also the LSS for failing in its Statutory duty of care under the SSA 1980?

What about complaints to the Police about specific incidents where no action has been taken?

Anonymous said...

According to Mr Hudson of The Law Society these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’.
-----------------------------------

This man has been eating too many fruit loops...

He is clearly being completely disingenuous or he is genuinely deluded.

If I was a lawyer from England and Wales, I would be looking at this statement and thinking to myself, 'Is this the statement of a balanced individual capable of justifying a £400,000.00 salary representative of me and my profession'.

The only sane answer is simple,


'NO CHANCE'