Documents uncovered from Court of Session case files reveal the Faculty of Advocates and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission failed to act on evidence where a Scottish Advocate now working as a Barrister in London - Craig Murray of 12 Kings Bench Walk - submitted two versions of written evidence in connection with an investigation of a senior QC - John Campbell QC.
John Campbell – a well known figure in Scottish legal circles - was found to have demanded cash payments direct from clients for legal work at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
However, while Campbell was receiving cash from his clients – a move strictly forbidden by the Faculty of Advocates – court files also revealed Campbell removed – without instruction - over £4million and a costs claim from the same Court of Session case where he had also sought cash payments from his clients.
Now - a fresh consideration of the same court files which identify Craig Murray as junior counsel to Campbell in the same Court of Session damages claim – show Craig Murray was also paid for his own work from the same irregular cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.
Material previously obtained by the media established Advocate Craig Murray as the author of two versions of the same letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) in connection with their investigation of serious allegations against John Campbell QC.
And, while Mr Murray communicated to his clients by email he was writing a letter of evidence in connection with their complaints against Campbell – it transpired Murray’s second version of the same letter was used by the Faculty of Advocates to dodge taking any action against John Campbell.
Critically - Records from the Faculty of Advocates reveal Gordon Jackson QC was Vice Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - and Scotland’s current top prosecutor – Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC was the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - during the time of the Faculty of Advocates investigation of John Campbell.
Gordon Jackson & James Wolffe’s terms of office at the Faculty of Advocates also match up with Craig Murray’s two versions of the same letter to legal regulators in connection with the probe against John Campbell.
The media investigation prompted by papers obtained from legal regulators focused on Craig Murray’s role as Junior Counsel in Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd, and the conduct of legal figures in the case – spanning eight Court of Session judges - one a member of the privy Council, several Sheriffs, high profile QCs and Levy & Mcrae – the law firm identified in the £400million collapse of a Gibraltar based hedge fund - Heather Capital.
The letter was sent by Mr Murray to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in relation to a complaint against John Campbell QC – who lists Planning law as a speciality.
Crucially, however, a significantly altered version of the letter - still bearing the name of Advocate Craig Murray as the author – removes references to ‘offers of a bribe’ to elected councillors at a Scottish local authority, and detailed references to evidence in a high value civil damages claim in the Court of Session – Nolan v. Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.
Enquiries by the media established the version of Murray’s letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, on the subject of John Campbell’s role in Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd – was sent to the Faculty of Advocates via the law firm Clyde & Co (formerly, Simpson & Marwick) – who are known to represent members of the legal profession who are subject to complaints, allegations of dishonesty, corruption and negligence claims.
The complaint against John Campbell QC arose from his provision of legal services and representation to former National Hunt jockey & trainer Donal Nolan, who was the pursuer in - Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd – a case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary where Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC) failed on multiple occasions to disclose the fact his own son was representing the defenders in the same court.
The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, was reported here: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Papers lodged at Holyrood judicial interests register probe reveal Court of Session judge heard case eight times - where his son acted as solicitor for the defenders
Upon scrutiny of the two letters sent by Craig Murray to legal regulators – serious questions arose regarding the extensive differences between Murray’s two versions of the same letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the version which was eventually sent to the Faculty of Advocates.
It is important to note both versions of the same letter used by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and the Faculty of Advocates - identify Craig Murray as the author.
Significantly, certain references to allegations of bribery involving employees of a construction company and elected councillors, have been altered in a second version of Mr Murray’s letter - which bears no date.
However, the second version of the letter, has the references to bribery removed from the end of the sentence.
The undated letter still bearing Craig Murray’s name and Advocates address, then reads: “The most accurate account of Councillor Taggart's position will be in that statement. My recollection of Ms Moore's summary is that a person, whose identity was unknown to Mr Taggart, telephoned him about this case. There was nothing to connect that person to the defenders.”
Then, both versions of the letter from Craig Murray to the SLCC continue: “An allegation that the defenders had been involved in bribing an elected public official to commit perjury in court would have been extremely serious. There was no basis upon which an allegation of that sort could have been made by a responsible solicitor or advocate. There could also be no further investigation (particularly in the midst of the proof diet) as it was not known who made the telephone call.”
Councillor John Taggart - who is referred to by Murray, was interviewed late last week.
Councillor Taggart’s role in discovering the dumping of contaminated waste by Advance Construction Ltd, and his further efforts to assist Mr Nolan, and constituents affected by events, was crucial in bringing the case to court and into the public eye.
In discussions with a journalist, Councillor Taggart made clear in his own view, the evidence in relation to the offer of an inducement related to an event occurred at the opening of Calderbridge Primary School (former site of Coltness Primary School), and NOT in a telephone conversation as Mr Murray claimed in his letter to the SLCC.
Further, Councillor Taggart indicated the “person, whose identity was unknown to Mr Taggart” – according to Craig Murray’s statement, had in fact handed his business card to the Councillor during the school opening event.
The Councillor further alluded to the identity of the person as an employee of a main contractor for North Lanarkshire Council.
It has since been established both Advocate Craig Murray, and Fiona Moore of Drummond Miller were present with the Councillor when his precognition of evidence was taken.
Further enquiries by journalists have now revealed the person who allegedly offered the inducement is an employee of a major construction contractor on North Lanarkshire Council’s list of approved contractors.
When it became known the incident involving the inducement was to be used in evidence, the person who approached the councillor left Scotland for Ireland and did not return for a number of months – despite being cited as a witness to attend court to give evidence in the Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd case.
The record later shows – John Campbell QC - failed to call the witness even though the individual alleged to have offered the inducement to the councillor appears on the final witness list for the proof hearing before Lord Woolman in 2014..
If the evidence of bribery had emerged during lines of questioning at the Court of Session, the testimony may well have had a significant impact on the case, and most probably initiated a Police Scotland investigation into the companies involved, and North Lanarkshire Council.
However, Senior Counsel for Mr Nolan - John Campbell QC - chose not to introduce the conversation about the allegations of bribery in court.
Curiously, the undated version of Murray’s letter then surfaces at the Faculty of Advocates – who chose to rely on this heavily altered version of Murray’s original letter - in relation to an investigation which ultimately dismissed the complaint against John Campbell QC.
In a letter dated 7 October 2015 from the Faculty of Advocates to Melanie Collins, Iain WF Fergusson QC confirmed the Faculty of Advocates preferred the lesser content of the undated letter to be used in the complaint against the QC.
Fergusson wrote: ”The earlier of your two e-mails refers to two versions of a letter by Mr Craig Murray, Advocate to the SLCC. The committee relied on the undated version of the letter as support for Mr John Campbell QC's version of events. This has brought to light an administrative error - the version of the letter dated 22 July 2015 was not before the committee when it considered and determined your complaint”
In a letter of 2 May 2016 to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, law firm Clyde & Co - acting as legal agent for John Campbell QC against the complaint attempted to explain the discrepancy between the two versions of Craig Murray’s letter and how the undated version ended up at the Faculty of Advocates.
Anne Kentish, of Clyde & Co wrote: “We have reviewed our files and have ascertained the sequence of events surrounding the letter. When the complaint was originally made against Mr Campbell, we were provided with a copy of the undated version of the letter from Craig Murray to the SLCC. It was provided to us on the basis that it set out the background to the complaint and Mr Murray’s recollection of events.. We did not, at that time appreciate that the letter was in draft. It resembled a file copy letter.”
“When senior counsel for Mr Campbell, Alistair Duncan QC prepared the response to the complaint on behalf of Mr Campbell, he indicated that Mr Murray’s letter to the SLCC should be included in the appendix to the response. When we prepared the appendix, we used the version of the letter that we had within our files which was the undated version. We did not at that time appreciate that the final, dated version, existed.”
“Later that day, Mr Duncan forwarded to us some emails which happened to have the dated version of the letter attached. We understand that Mr Duncan had been provided with the final version of the letter by Mr Murray. Neither we nor Mr Duncan realised that we were working from slightly different versions of the same letter (one being a draft and one being a final version)”
“As soon as we realised a final dated version of the letter existed (the day after the response was submitted to the Faculty) we provided Faculty with the final dated version of the letter and asked it to replace the undated version.”
“Mr Murray has confirmed that the undated version is a draft version of the final version dated 22 July 2014.”
However, the lengthy and laboured explanation from Clyde & Co to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and the email from Iain Fergusson QC are completely at odds with a written explanation provided by Advocate Craig Murray to Mr Nolan’s partner, Ms Collins.
Seeking to explain the situation regarding his letter, an email dated 23 June 2015 from Craig Murray to Mr Nolan’s partner, Melanie Collins, stated the following: “I finished writing this letter on 22 July 2014. I signed it and sent it to the SLCC that day. Copies were also sent to you and to John Campbell QC. I did not submit one to the Faculty of Advocates, nor did any Office-bearer or member of Faculty staff see the letter before it was sent (or for that matter have I passed a copy to any Office-bearer or member of Faculty staff since). I do not know how the Faculty of Advocates came to have a copy of the letter. Could you possibly provide me with a copy of the letter or email from the Faculty of Advocates, enclosing my copy letter?”
“I note that you have provided two copies of the letter. One is dated 22 July 2014 and has page numbers and footnotes. That is the letter I submitted to the SLCC and copied to you. The letter you have labelled 5B has no date, no page numbers and no footnotes. This letter is not in a form which I saved on my computer or sent to anyone else. It appears to have the same content, font and (roughly) layout as the dated version, but I have not checked on a line-by-line basis.”
It is unusual for such material to be made public as papers submitted to the SLCC remain unreleased due to confidentiality rules.
However, the papers have been made available to journalists who are investigating the litigation process of Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd - after the case was brought to the attention of MSPs at the Scottish Parliament.
And, given the author of the letter - Craig Murray also works as an ad hoc Advocate Depute prosecutor in Scotland’s courts, concerns were raised over the implications of a Prosecutor writing various versions of the same letter – where one version contained alterations to witness testimony in relation to criminal acts - and references to evidence in what has now become a key case of judicial failures to recuse, and accusations of bias in the courts.
The Crown Office were previously asked for comment on the matter and the impact on Murray’s role as a prosecutor when the court files first came to light in 2017,
Initially, the Crown Office refused to comment, and demanded any request for media reaction be put in the form of a Freedom of Information request.
Pressed on the matter, a spokesperson for the Crown Office then suggested: “..as Mr Murray is not a COPFS employee any request for formal comment in relation to his professional conduct as an Advocate should be submitted to Mr Murray himself, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates or the SLCC. Any allegations of criminal conduct should be raised with Police Service of Scotland.”
However, there are clearly public interest questions in relation to a prosecutor named as the author of a letter where one version, used by a law firm with direct connections to the judiciary - removed evidence in relation to criminal acts and bribery.
The Crown Office was then asked if the Lord Advocate intends to act to protect public confidence in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service by ordering an investigation into the use of altered versions of Mr Murray’s letter to the SLCC, and act on the status of Mr Murray as an Advocate Depute.
No reply was received.
However, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates during the sequence of events which lead to the Faculty of Advocates investigation of John Campbell – is the current Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC.
As part of his current role as Lord Advocate - James Wolffe QC can call Craig Murray to prosecute criminal cases while acting as an ad hoc Advocate Depute.
The National newspaper carried an exclusive investigation into the Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd case, here: Couple's human rights breach claim raises questions about how judicial conflicts of interest are policed.
Papers from the court files, and digital evidence now being considered by journalists indicate the legal team of John Campbell QC, Advocate Craig Murray & Gregor McPhail who acted for Mr Nolan in Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd - received disbursements from John Campbell from funds Campbell obtained by personally collecting substantial cash sums from clients.
The payments - outwith the normal procedure of paying advocate’s fees via a solicitor and to faculty services – have previously been reported in the media and Diary of Justice due to concerns in relation to irregularities and potential tax avoidance issues.
During the earlier media investigation, Craig Murray was contacted for his comments on material handed to the press.
Craig Murray was asked why there were significant differences between two versions of his letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, one dated, the other undated.
Craig Murray refused to comment.
Craig Murray was asked to confirm if his letter was altered by someone other than himself.
Craig Murray refused to comment
Craig Murray was asked if he was aware of Lord Malcolm's true identity (Colin Malcolm Campbell) and his relationship to solicitor Ewen Campbell, one of the legal agents working for the defenders.
Craig Murray refused to comment.
Lastly, Craig Murray was asked to comment on both versions of the letter he sent to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. He was asked which one he wrote and if he was aware anyone altered the second undated version of his letter.
Craig Murray refused to give any comment.
A billing document from Craig Murray’s Compass Chambers to the client, revealed he was to be paid £800 +VAT per day for proof preparation and £1,250 + VAT per day for Court, which ran to 8 days. A bill was subsequently received from Mr Murray’s stables for around £39,000.
It has since been established, the SLCC relied on the dated version of Murray’s letter, while the Faculty of Advocates relied on the heavily altered undated version of Murray’s letter regarding their consideration of a complaint against John Campbell QC.
Papers obtained from case files and published in this investigation confirm the second, undated version of Craig Murray’s letter appears to have originated from the Edinburgh law firm – Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick).
The letter from Clyde & Co also confirms the second, undated version of Murray’s letter was sent to the Faculty of Advocates, on the instructions of Alistair Duncan QC.
Duncan was tasked with defending John Campbell QC in relation to the complaint investigatoin launched by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
However, Court papers record the same Alistair Duncan QC – who went on to defend John Campbell QC against the legal regulator’s complaints investigation - once appeared for the defenders against Mr Nolan - in the Nolan v Advance Construction case - on 9 November 2011.
Previously - the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was provided with the two versions of Craig Murray’s letter, and a copy of a letter from Clyde & Co, admitting their role in providing the second, undated version with alterations to the Faculty of Advocates.
The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were asked for a statement on the existence of the two versions of Craig Murray’s letter in connection with the investigation of John Campbell QC - and what action the regulator intended to take.
The SLCC refused to comment.
However, the SLCC confirmed a meeting had taken place between their Chief Executive – Neil Stevenson – and former Cabinet Minister Alex Neil MSP - who has provided powerful backing for his constituent – Donal Nolan.
A spokesperson for the SLCC said: “I can confirm that a meeting between our CEO and Alex Neil MSP took place. The meeting was to discuss the SLCC’s process: what powers we have; actions we can take; and what we can’t do.”
The case involving Murray was brought to the attention of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee – who are probing judicial interests, failures of judges to recuse over conflicts of interest, and opposition of Scotland’s current Lord President – Lord Carloway – to calls for the creation of a register of judicial interests.
Had a comprehensive and publicly available register of judicial interests existed at the time of the Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd case, details of judicial links in the register could have prevented injustice in the Nolan case – and many others in the courts - from the very outset.
Scrutiny of publicly available legal profiles for Advocate & barrister Craig Murray now reveal there are NO REFERENCES on his current work profiles to his role and legal representation in Nolan v. Advance Construction [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 - the same land contamination case he served with senior counsel John Campbell QC - which led to investigations by two legal regulators in Scotland, and evidence Murray was paid from secret cash payments collected by John Campbell QC.
Craig Murray currently maintains a practice at Compass Chambers in Edinburgh while also working as a barrister in London. Murray also continues to advertise his work as a Prosecutor for the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
GLOWING LEGAL PROFILE: Craig Murray – Advocate, Barrister & Advocate Depute:
Craig Murray - Year called: 2008
Qualifications: LLM in Commercial Law (Distinction),University of Edinburgh Member, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Faculty Scholar, Faculty of Advocates LLM in Human Rights Law, University of Strathclyde, Dip Forensic Medical Sciences, Society of Apothecaries, Dip Legal Practice, University of Edinburgh LLB (Hons), University of Edinburgh.
Craig has a busy defender personal injury practice in the Court of Session, representing insurers and local authorities. A substantial practice part of his practice is in defending fraudulent claims at all levels, in particular employers’ liability cases and road traffic claims.Craig also represents claimants in medical and dental negligence claims.
Craig has been instructed in a number of complex product liability cases, including pharmaceutical cases (Vioxx and Celebrex) and medical products (mesh surgical implants and PIP silicone implants).
Craig has substantial experience in property damage claims and other aspects of reparation.Craig occasionally acts in public law and human rights cases, including judicial review, mental health appeals and immigration.Craig has previously been a tutor on the Diploma in Regulatory Occupational Health & Safety at the University of Warwick and on the Civil Court Practice course at the University of Edinburgh.
Craig was appointed as an Advocate Depute ad hoc in July 2015. He is a member of the Children’s Panel for the Scottish Borders.
Craig Murray – Biography 12 Kings Bench Walk
Craig Murray Call: 2017 Areas of expertise Personal Injury Clinical Negligence Product Liability Industrial Disease Public Authority Liability Fraud
Call: 2017 – Bar of England and Wales 2008 – Scottish Bar
Craig joined 12 King’s Bench Walk as a tenant in December 2018, having successfully completed a practising pupillage at these Chambers.
Craig has been an Advocate at the Scottish Bar for over 10 years, where he has considerable experience in a full range of personal injury and clinical negligence work. He has appeared in the Supreme Court (Campbell v. Peter Gordon Joiners Ltd [2016] UKSC 38) and has conducted a civil jury trial without a leader (Bridges v. Alpha Insurance 2016 SLT 859). He has appeared in an 8-day trial against experienced senior and junior counsel (Pocock v. Highland Council [2017] CSOH 40 (aff’d [2017] CSIH 76). He has appeared in numerous appeals to the Inner House of the Court of Session, with and without a leader. He has prosecuted serious crime (including attempted murder) in the High Court of Justiciary. Craig is primarily instructed by UK-wide insurers and local authorities, but accepts instructions to act for claimants, particularly in clinical and professional negligence cases. He is regularly instructed in high-value RTA claims involving fatalities or brain injury. He has considerable experience in defending stress at work, harassment and assault claims, in particular those arising in schools and care establishments. Craig has an interest in local authority liability and issues of justiciability. During his pupillage, Craig had experience of motor insurance law. Craig is available to accept instructions throughout the jurisdiction. He maintains a practice at Compass Chambers in Edinburgh.
Personal Injury: Craig has experience in all aspects of personal injury law, including high value road traffic accidents, employers’ liability claims, occupiers’ liability claims, disease cases and common law liability.
He has acted for defendants and claimants in high value RTA claims involving vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. He is familiar with preparing and leading evidence on driver perception, conspicuity and accident reconstruction. He regularly prepares and leads evidence from motor engineers and forensic collision investigators. He has experience of a full range of employer liability claims, including: work equipment cases, accidents at height, accidents on construction sites, and fatal diving accidents. Craig has successfully defended occupiers’ liability claims concerning listed buildings (Brown v. Lakeland 2012 Rep LR 140; Norgate v. Britannia Hotels [2018] 8 WLUK 71). Craig has acted for claimants and defendants in mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease cases. He has acted for claimants in noise-induced hearing loss cases, HAVS cases and silicosis claims. He has acted for claimants and defendants in Legionella claims. Craig is regularly instructed by Scottish local authorities. He has succeeded in novel arguments concerning the non-justiciability of certain claims (Ryder v. Highland Council [2013] CSOH 95; Macdonald v. Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar [2015] CSOH 132) and recently appeared in the important appeal of Bowes v. Highland Council [2018] CSIH 757.
Clinical Negligence: Craig has a keen interest in clinical negligence and the wider aspects of medical law. He holds a Diploma in Forensic Medical Sciences. He has acted for claimants in clinical negligence and dental negligence cases in Scotland for 10 years. He has also acted for defendants in clinical negligence and ophthalmic negligence cases.
Recent cases include:A fatal claim concerning a failure to diagnose lung cancer. A substantial claim by a young competition dancer for a failure to diagnose a mid-foot fracture, leading to 5 operations, arthrodesis and life-long disability. A failure to diagnose deep vein thrombosis, leading to amputation of a lower leg.
Product Liability: Craig has been instructed in some of the largest group litigations in Scotland concerning product liability, including:
Medicines. In a claim against Merck relating to Vioxx, an NSAID painkiller, 6.5 million documents were produced by the defendant. Claims concerning the drug Celebrex are ongoing (see Richards & Jarvie v. Pharmacia [2017] CSOH 77 (aff’d [2018] CSIH 31).
Surgical mesh products. PIP implants. Metal on metal hips. Craig also has experience of claims arising from motor vehicles and surgical stents.
Industrial Disease: Craig regularly acts for claimants and defendants in mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease cases in Scotland. He is familiar with the aetiology of lung disease and the latency period of asbestos-related disease. He has acted for claimants in noise-induced hearing loss cases, both cumulative exposure and ‘acoustic shock’ cases. Craig has been involved in HAVS cases and silicosis claims. He has acted for claimants and defendants in Legionella claims.
Public Authority Liability: Craig is regularly instructed by Scottish local authorities. He has succeeded in novel arguments concerning the non-justiciability of certain claims (Ryder v. Highland Council [2013] CSOH 95; Macdonald v. Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar [2015] CSOH 132) and recently appeared in the important appeal of Bowes v. Highland Council [2018] CSIH 757. Craig has represented Scottish police forces in a number of cases.
Fraud: Craig is regularly instructed in Scotland to represent insurers in personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents where fraud is suspected. He has run several trials of 4 days’ duration or more, in which fraud has been pled on the basis of contrived accidents, fictitious accidents or phantom passengers.
Agricultural Accidents: Craig has a particular interest in personal injury claims arising from agricultural accidents.
Recent cases include: Defending numerous claims of injuries caused by cattle at market. Defending landowners in respect of accidents involving trees (Craig holds a LANTRA tree felling qualification) Defending a claim by a worker who lost an arm in a thresher (ongoing) Road traffic accident involving a tractor, in which Craig was trained on a John Deere 6930 tractor Work equipment cases involving JCBs, grain dryers, crushers and fence post drivers.
Qualifications & Awards: LLB (Hons), University of Edinburgh LLM (DIst), Commercial Law, University of Edinburgh LLM, Human Rights Law, University of Strathclyde Dip Legal Practice, University of Edinburgh Dip Forensic Medical Sciences, Worshipful Society of Apothecaries Member Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Faculty of Advocates Scholarship (2007)
Appointments & Memberships: Personal Injuries Bar Association Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
Directories: Legal 500, Leading Individual, 2019 “His written work is of an impeccably high standard.” Legal 500, 2019 “His attention to detail is phenomenal; he has an excellent legal mind. He always gives advice in a clear manner and is very pragmatic and thorough. He also has very good negotiation skills.” Chambers & Partners, 2020
DO you have a complaint with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or Faculty of Advocates?
What is your experiences of dealing with the SLCC or the Faculty? Has your solicitor, advocate or QC demanded cash payments from you at any stage of a civil or criminal case? Tell us more about it in confidence, by email to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Writing two versions of the same letter to help a crooked QC in a complaints probe is nothing short of fraud.How can anyone who does such a thing ever be trusted again.Murray should be immediately suspended as an advocate and banned from the legal profession.
ReplyDeleteNot coincidental he ends up as an ad hoc advocate depute for the same James Wollfe who covered up for his activities at the Faculty of advocates.
ReplyDeleteThese people are utterly shameless and corrupt.
Murray and 12kbw should be reported to the Bar Standards Board.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/
a lawyer writing 2 versions of a letter to get his pal off the hook
ReplyDeletehe should be struck off!
Fabulous reporting, every detail covered and backed up by evidence.
ReplyDeleteNo-one can seriously suggest that the Scottish Legal profession can continue to be allowed to effectively regulate itself, and the evidence supporting the Petition for a register of judicial interests is clearly beyond doubt.
Come on MSPs - DO YOUR JOB!
Mr Campbell QC has form;
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1448051/Silly-mistake-by-QC-in-not-disclosing-his-friendship.html
Goodness only knows what artistic qualifications he has, in any, that would qualify him to sit on the arbitrator panel in the Hague;
https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/john-campbell-qc-appointed-panel-arbitrator-at-art-court-in-the-hague
Perhaps the powers that be there would reconsider his position had they had known of these events.
The failure to even offer any form of reply by the The Crown Office and Mr Murray tells the whole story - the legal profession circling the wagons once again.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the SLCC knew that Alistair Duncan QC – who defended John Campbell QC against the legal regulator’s complaints investigation - once appeared for the defenders against Mr Nolan?
That stinks, as does the rest of the nefaious, underhand goings on you report.
Scotland's legal system is a National Disgrace.
Understatement of the Year;
ReplyDeleteA recent report Competition and Markets Authority says
Scottish legal sector ‘may not be providing good outcomes for consumers’
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scottish-legal-sector-may-not-be-providing-good-outcomes-for-consumers-comp_15279.htm
I read your report and the two letters from Craig Murray.
ReplyDeleteTwo versions of a letter smacks of outright and deliberate dishonesty.
All court cases and any legal action Murray has been involved in should now be investigated with a view to striking him off from the legal profession.
James Wolffe doesnt come out of this too well.
ReplyDeleteWolffe becomes Lord Advocate then he takes a compromised advocate who appears to have been paid from collections of cash resembling an attempt to defraud tax authorities
same advocate also writes two letters to defend his senior counsel who collected the cash and both escape investigation
Wolffe should also resign.
The whole story stinks of corruption all the way up to the Lord Advocate and the person who gave him the job.
He probably wrote one version in the knowledge his client would get to read it and the other version to beef up Campbell behind their backs
ReplyDeleteNasty and despicable obviously cannot be trusted in or out of court
LOL Craig Murray advocate enjoys writing about how great he is look at his twitter https://twitter.com/craigadvocate
ReplyDeleteToo bad he dumped his client and took the cash time for the POLIS to put the cuffs on this crook
Brill blog Peter
ReplyDeleteHope people read this one right through because your article also proves the biographies written by the legal mafia are very deceptive and dishonest.
Never trust any lawyer or advocate who write about themselves in 50 shades of lies
I wouldn't hire an attorney who fitted up his own client to protect some low life grandpa attorney who goes around collecting cash on the side.
ReplyDeleteTell your IRS about him!
The Faculty of Advocates must be rotten to the core with people such as Campbell and Murray getting away with ruining clients
ReplyDeleteSomeone should look into why 12kbw hired Craig Murray - probably enough going on there to warrant major concerns given his history of falsifying accounts of his colleagues in litigation.
ReplyDeleteWas Campbell in on the re-write of Craig Murray's letter by any chance?
ReplyDeleteVery duplicitous and dishonest any lawyer who writes several versions of evidence is unfit to practice.
Thanks for this article I always wondered why CM not keen to talk about Scotland
ReplyDeleteThorough with detail and published evidence.Very good as always Peter.
ReplyDeleteI hope you raise the case of Craig Murray and John Campbell with the Scottish Parliament as examples of dishonesty in the legal world.
Keep up the good work!
What I want to know is why aren't the police making arrests?
ReplyDeleteWe apparently have The Faculty of Advocates involved in fraud together in coohoots with the SLCC in order to protect lawyers from being held personally accountable for their misdeeds.
It also sounds as though the advocates may have been involved with hiding bribes to protect the other side.
It also sounds like there was VAT fraud being perpetrated by the advocates, with the tacit agreement of The Faculty of Advocates, where they have stayed silent therefore, may be party to the fraud?
With all of the other unsavoury baggage to this case, this amounts to a very smelly case, with more than a whiff of fraud, corruption and protectionism.
With all these goings on, it is no wonder that the Scottish Legal System is likened to the 'Wild West', a lawless and ruthless place full of crooks, liars and thieves which is no place for honest folk.
As usual, very good investigative, public service journalism.
The way I see it
ReplyDeleteThere is literally no one from the legal fraternity who could undertake any form of independent investigation into Nolan v Advance, Craig Murray, John Campbell and Lord Malcolm.
Fact is anyone appointed to look into this will have some sort of vested interest or be at the end of a rope carefully tugged by those with a stake in keeping their names out of the press.
Cherbi has done the work and published the evidence.
Murray,Campbell and Lord Malcolm are as guilty as sin.
I imagine counsel for the defenders have an equally suspicious role.
Lord Malcolm's deliberate silence regarding his son over what appear to be several court appearances is inexcusable and brings the judiciary into serious disrepute.
Anyone defending reputations of those involved are aiding and abetting those who carefully set out to take advantage of the claim against the construction firm and all that came with it.
Those two letters stink!Like someone else said why isnt Murray arrested this is FRAUD!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSomeone should look into why 12kbw hired Craig Murray - probably enough going on there to warrant major concerns given his history of falsifying accounts of his colleagues in litigation.
8 April 2020 at 12:12
Yes exactly my line of thought anyone hiring crooks are just as bad so clients be aware unless clients are also crooked!
Thanks for your comments, and particularly some interesting suggestions.
ReplyDelete@ 10 April 2020 at 11:49
Police only act if it is within the Lord Advocate's orders and interest (political, or other) to do so - as demonstrated time and again in any controversial case - particularly those such as the Heather Capital scandal that linked directly back to Scotland's judiciary.
@ 11 April 2020 at 14:19
Always open to the possibility of an independent inquiry into this case, however as you correctly say - the possibility of finding someone who is independent enough to look at the evidence and arrive at an impartial conclusion is probably nil.
Put it this way - even Scotland's top judge was asked about this case and proceeded to fumble, misinform and mislead a Scottish Parliament Committee on critical aspects of what occurred. If that is the best a top judge can do, well .. only media scrutiny and a proper, open and very public investigation by MSPs and media will find answers and help ensure the public are protected in court from such events as have been reported in this article and others to come.
Regarding unpublished comments, views are noted. With regards to a query on the issue of digital evidence regarding Advocates and others mentioned in this article - this material is currently being studied and will be published in due course.
Very good.
ReplyDeleteAlso your published evidence.Love your blog!
12 Kings Bench Walk are heavily involved in the United Arab Emirates and have ties to orgs and individuals of interest
ReplyDeletePay attention to 12kbw lobbying and interests https://internationalandtravellawblog.com
ReplyDeleteYour publicising this matter was very much in the Public Interest and You have done a sterling job of it. From years of bitter and personal experience of Scottish Lawyers and the Scottish Legal system I enjoin the General Public to back all those who have fought and are still fighting the whole Scottish Legal system and exposing it for what it truly is ...... a series of Arm's Length Criminal Organisations, dressed up in wigs and gowns.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the excellent work.
Anonymous
Thanks for additional comments.
ReplyDeleteIn response to information provided regarding 12KBW, arbitration and UAE, am keen to discuss further via stated indicated pref.
In response to a query - Craig Murray was Junior Counsel to John Campbell QC in Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd - notes in relation to funding, payments, communications, court files & new material will be posed as matters are considered further.
In relation to an additional query, this is an open investigation - new material including digital evidence has now been provided and will be published in due course.
In relation to unpublished comments from identified legal reps - am keen to discuss off comments section. Confidentiality assured at all times under usual rules.
"12KBW is a long-established set of chambers with a reputation for excellence in PI, industrial disease, clinical negligence, international travel & employment."
ReplyDeleteand they also employ barristers who write alternative versions of letters to get their friends off the hook from investigations
not much good as a barristers chambers then
I had completely forgot Jackson was vice dean.
ReplyDeleteClever you!
Those I know who met Murray do not rate him at all.
Presenting two versions of evidence is dishonesty in the extreme.All concerned know this to be true.
ReplyDeleteMurray is well known for his role in the Advance case,possibly why he fled to London.
ReplyDelete12kbw are not up to much.
@ 26 May 2020 at 14:07
ReplyDeleteHeard similar.
12KBW are interesting given their role in arbitration cases .. have been looking into hearings in UAE/Gulf states linking back to UK and Scots judges who serve in same courts and double dealing/dishonesty in arbitration cases. Some are keen to talk thanks to following trail of Mr Murray to London, and who got him there ...