The files – in the form of a witness statement from Advocate Ewen Campbell – who is Lord Malcolm’s son – directly contradict statements by Lord Carloway - to the Public Petitions Committee and MSP Alex Neil in a hearing on 29 June 2017.
During the evidence session - Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil on the Court of Session case - where judge & Privy Councillor Lord Malcolm (real name Colin Campbell QC) – heard a land contamination case - up to EIGHT TIMES while his own son represented the defenders - Advance Construction Scotland Ltd in the same court room.
In response to questions from the MSP, Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) furiously claimed that Lord Malcolm’s son DID NOT have any “active involvement with the case whatsoever.”
However – a witness statement dated May 2013 - signed by Ewen Campbell – covering the time Campbell worked for Glasgow law firm Levy & Mcrae – contains a written admission Mr Campbell confirming he did in-fact represented the construction company, alongside lawyer Peter Black Watson – who was at the time a Sheriff and partner at the same law firm.
During the hearing, Alex Neil - MSP for Airdrie & Shotts - asked Lord Carloway: “If, in any case—without referring to a specific case—a close relative of a judge is participating in the case, rightly or wrongly, the perception is that there may be a degree of prejudice.”
Mr Neil said there were concerns the reputation of the judiciary should be protected and added: “I would argue that, certainly in at least one case recently, which we have referred to briefly, the perception is that there may have been unfairness and prejudice in the way in which the matter was conducted, particularly as the judge concerned was involved in the case not once but on a number of occasions.”
In response – a clearly flustered Lord Carloway claimed no such events had taken place.
Carloway took a strong line against the questions, and replied to the MSP stating: “I disagree entirely with your analysis of that particular case and I repeat what I said earlier. The case that you refer to did not involve the judge’s son having any active involvement with the case whatsoever.”
However - on page one of the released witness statement of Ewen Campbell – Mr Campbell confirms he did work for the defenders – Advance Construction.
Ewen Campbell states: “In September 2011 I was asked by Professor Peter Watson (witness) to assist in a new case in which we were to act for Advance Construction (Scotland) Limited (“Advance”).”
Ewen Campbell goes on to admit he worked on the case for nearly a year: “I assisted with this case until Friday 15th June 2012. At this point I ceased assisting Professor Watson as I was informed by Senior Counsel that I was a potential witness in the matter.”
The exchange between Alex Neil and Lord Carloway can be viewed here:
Alex Neil & Lord Carloway on conflict of interest case Scottish Parliament June 29 2017
The released witness statement of Ewen Campbell – the contents of which call into question the honesty of Lord Carloway’s evidence to MSPs, can be found here: Ewen Campbell - Witness Statement - Nolan v Advance Construction
In just one example, Ewen Campbell states: “At approximately 4 p.m. I left Levy and McRae’s offices and attended at Branchal Road. I was driven by Ian Butler, a colleague at Levy & McRae. On arrival at the site I observed that a number of vehicles were at the gate of the site. Mr Butler and I therefore parked our vehicle just round the comer from the entrance of the site.”
Ewen Campbell is later forced to account for allegations a Grangemouth based firm - IKM Consulting Ltd – employed by Levy and Mcrae as their ‘experts’ in the case – dumped contaminated materials at a site owned by the pursuer – Mr Nolan.
Despite Lord Carloway’s abrupt statement that Lord Malcolm’s son did not have “any active involvement with the case whatsoever” - Ewen Campbell goes on to say in his witness statement he personally talked to a legal representative of the pursuer - and talked the solicitor down from his client’s initial allegation IKM Consulting Ltd dumped contaminated material during their on-site activities for Levy and Mcrae & Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
Ewen Campbell states: “I contacted [solicitor] regarding this who detailed that his clients had originally stated to him that IKM had dumped contaminated materials on the site but after further questioning reduced the allegation to having dumped soil like materials on site.”
Bizarrely, Lord Malcolm’s son adds within his statement he did not instruct IKM Consulting Ltd to dump any materials during their on-site activities under his supervision.
Campbell also admits to accepting additional instructions to work on the case in which Carloway claimed he played no active role in.
Ewen Campbell further stated: “Before I ceased assisting Professor Peter Watson in relation to this case, I was instructed on a number of occasions to prepare and send letters and emails to those acting on behalf of Mr Nolan.”
It should be noted that despite Ewen Campbell’s ‘account’ of events around the IKM Consulting incident - Advance Construction were subsequently forced to admit in the Court of Session before Lord Woolman that they had in-fact illegally dumped contaminated materials on Mr Nolan’s land.
Melanie Collins, partner of Mr Donal Nolan – who was the pursuer in Nolan v Advance - said: “I found Lord Carloway’s evidence to be entirely dishonest during his responses to out MSP Alex Neil. I was astounded by how he misled Mr Neil and the entire committee on what happened in our case and how we were treated very badly by Lord Malcolm and others.”
Last night, a legal expert who viewed the material and video footage from the Committee hearing, suggested it was difficult to see how Lord Carloway could make such a false statement to the Scottish Parliament and not expect to be asked to explain himself.
Commenting on the new evidence, the legal expert said: “I am concerned Scotland’s top judge feels secure enough in the environment of a Scottish Parliament hearing – and public expectation of transparency - to make such false and egregiously misleading claims.”
He continued: “The written evidence and records of multiple court hearings suggest Lord Carloway is entirely wrong, and is determinedly at odds with the facts of this case, in his account of events to the Public Petitions Committee and Mr Alex Neil.”
Now, Carloway’s account of events to Mr Neil and the Petitions Committee is to be submitted to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee alongside a report on conflicts of interest of key stakeholders in Scotland’s justice system.
A full investigation into Ewen Campbells's father - Lord Malcolm - and his role in the Nolan v Advance case – including serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail 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.
The further revelations of Lord Carloway’s links to the land contamination case come after an earlier investigation revealed Lord Carloway failed to declare his own son – Alexander Colin Maclean Sutherland – also worked for the merged law firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley - which was trying to evict a couple at the centre of the case raised by Mr Alex Neil during the Committee hearing in 2017.
Mr Neil was invited to attend Committee hearing to quiz Lord Carloway on what legal experts say is one of the most serious cases of judicial conflict of interest in Scotland’s courts – Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.
In the outburst from the top judge, Lord Carloway said to Mr Neil: “The suggestion is that we should start registering what our relatives are doing, where they are working and matters of that sort, which I suspect would go way beyond even what is expected of politicians.”
Alex Neil replied to Lord Carloway, stating: “No—we have to register what close relatives do.”
Lord Carloway - clearly rattled by questions from Alex Neil and fellow MSPs about another top judge who concealed he heard a case involving his own son - hit out at Mr Neil and members of the Public Petitions Committee in video footage which can be viewed here: Lord Carloway - Judges should not declare relatives interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017
The terse exchange – one of many in the evidence session - led to material obtained during a probe by journalists which revealed Lord Carloway’s son – Colin Alexander Maclean Sutherland – worked at the time for the merged law firm Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley - who became key players in the aftermath of Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
However – Lord Carloway did not declare this conflict of interest during the Holyrood hearing.
Instead; the top judge went on to attack other Committee members and Mr Neil - over their backing for a cross party supported petition to require judges to declare and register all their interests.
Minutes before the exchange, Carloway had even denied even receiving any communications from the couple at the centre of the case - however records show Carloway’s legal secretary - Roddy Flinn – now himself a Sheriff – sent acknowledgements to the couple on 24 May 2016.
Papers show Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley were acting on behalf of Kenneth Pattullo of insolvency practitioners Begbies Traynor – who were appointed by Advance Construction’s lawyers – Levy and Mcrae – to seize the home, land, a farm, and all assets of Ms Melanie Collins & retired National Hunt jockey Donal Nolan.
The couple took on Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd - over a land contamination incident on their land in Wishaw.
The construction company - owned by businessman Seamus Shields was ultimately forced to admit illegal dumping of material in the Court of Session case before judge Lord Woolman.
Roderick William Dunlop QC of Axiom Advocates, Ewen Campbell of Axiom Advocates and Peter Watson – now formerly of Glasgow based Levy & Mcrae - represented Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
It should be noted Peter Watson - who ran the case for Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd was later suspended for a record three years plus over his links to a £28M writ involving the £400M Heather Capital Hedge Fund collapse - and then resigned in 2019.
An earlier investigation of this case revealed when Lord Woolman (who heard the proof after the case was passed to him by Lord Malcolm) - stated in court papers that Mr Nolan had a case, John Campbell QC removed – without instruction – most of his client’s own case including over £4million and a claim for legal costs – after he had discussions with the current vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates – Roddy Dunlop QC.
A full report on how the couple’s legal representative in court - John Campbell QC reduced his own client’s financial claim almost to zero and without any instruction or consultation - can be found here: CASHBACK QC: Legal regulator’s files reveal senior QC reduced claim without instructions, withheld key evidence & witnesses including Cabinet Secretary from Court of Session case
A full report on Watson’s suspension from the judicial bench can be found here: CAPITAL JUDGE: As top judge suspends sheriff over £28m law firm writ alleging links to £400m Heather Capital collapse, what now for Lord Gill’s battle against a register of interests & transparency for Scotland’s judiciary
Watson’s suspension from the judicial bench lasted for over three years – a record term of suspension of a member of Scotland’s judiciary and ended with Watson’s resignation in 2019, reported in further detail here: SHERIFF WALKS: Scottish Courts confirm lawyer & part-time Sheriff Peter Watson - who was named in £28M Heather Capital writ linked to collapsed £400M hedge fund – resigned from the judiciary in 2018
The full exchange between Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) and Alex Neil MSP at the Public Petitions Committee can be viewed, with transcript, below:
Alex Neil questions to Lord Carloway Register of Judges interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017
Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP): I apologise for being slightly late. I had to go to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee. I apologise in advance if I cover ground that has already been covered.
Lord Carloway, as an issue of principle, do you think that it should be left only to a judge to decide whether they are going to recuse themselves, or should you or the keeper of the rolls be able to insist on recusal if you believe that there is a potential conflict of interest?
Lord Carloway: The short answer is that I do not believe that there is any problem with the current system, which is that the judge, who knows what his connection is to the case or the parties to it, should make the initial decision. That decision is made in open court, when the parties are present, and it is subject to review on appeal. In other words, if somebody is dissatisfied with that decision and if the litigant eventually loses the case, the decision will come before three judges who will review whether it was correct. If it was incorrect, the decision on the case would fall.
Alex Neil: The person bringing the case to court may not be aware of any conflict of interest that the judge may have and may never find out that there was one, but the judge may well have been influenced by a particular interest. Surely that is not right. If there is any potential conflict of interest, surely there should be a declaration or commitment by the judge, making an explicit statement that there is no conflict of interest. People may not have the resources to appeal, for example. Is the system not balanced against people who come to court for justice?
Lord Carloway: No, it is not. I go back to something that I mentioned earlier, which is very important. Scotland does not have a corrupt judiciary. The matter has been examined by independent persons, notably the GRECO anti-corruption body that operates under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which examined the UK judiciary, including the Scottish judiciary. It was clear that, fortunately, we, as distinct from many other countries, do not suffer from corruption in the judiciary. For that reason, it did not consider that a register of interests was necessary. If one introduces such a measure, one has to be satisfied that it is necessary and also that it is proportionate. If one analyses its proportionality, one has to look at what exactly we are guarding against. If the situation were to be that there was corruption in the Scottish judiciary—which we would discover at some point or another—of course we would have to consider measures to prevent that, one of which might be a register of certain interests. Until such time as it is demonstrated that there is corruption in the Scottish judiciary, I am entirely satisfied that there is no requirement for a register of interests and that it would be positively detrimental to the administration of justice, particularly in relation to the recruitment of judges and especially at the higher level of the judiciary.
Alex Neil: I want to draw a parallel with the register of interests that members of the Scottish Parliament have to sign and regularly update. That came about not because of any allegations or belief that the system was corrupt or that members of the Scottish Parliament are corrupt. In the 18 years that we have been here, I have not heard one allegation of corruption. The register is there not because of allegations of corruption but to ensure that there is no prejudice. If I participate in a debate and I have an interest that I have not declared, I will be open to an allegation not of corruption but of prejudice. Because there is a register of interests and because I have to declare interests in a debate or in a committee meeting such as this one, there is a transparency to ensure that I do not act in a prejudicial fashion.
To go back to the case that Mr MacDonald cited as I came in—the case of Advance Construction and Donal Nolan, in which Lord Malcolm’s son was involved as a lawyer for one of the parties—the issue there was not an allegation of corruption but one of possible prejudice or perception of prejudice. That is a very good example of why either a register of interests or a more robust system of recusal—or perhaps both—might serve the judiciary very well.
Lord Carloway: I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s actions were entirely honourable and that he acted in accordance with the code of judicial ethics. I am not sure what is—
Alex Neil: Have you investigated it?
Lord Carloway: I am aware of the background to it.
Alex Neil: No, but have you investigated it?
Lord Carloway: I have read the papers that it involves.
Alex Neil: With all due respect, Melanie Collins and Donal Nolan have written to you on numerous occasions, and at no time have you replied to them, let alone met them, so you have not heard the other side of the case.
Lord Carloway: I am sorry, but I am not aware of letters to me by those particular persons.
Alex Neil: Your office—
The Convener: Alex, let us be careful that we do not get into anything specific on that.
Alex Neil: Yes—absolutely. My point is about how Lord Carloway can reach that conclusion if he has not heard the other side.
Lord Carloway: I have read documents emanating from the persons that you have mentioned. As far as I am aware, they were not addressed to me, but I could be wrong about that. The position is that I am aware of the circumstances of the case. I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s conduct was entirely correct in the circumstances. That is part of the problem that you have perhaps highlighted. That case has nothing to do with a register of pecuniary interests. The suggestion is that we should start registering what our relatives are doing, where they are working and matters of that sort, which I suspect would go way beyond even what is expected of politicians.
Alex Neil: No—we have to register what close relatives do.
Lord Carloway: Can I deal with the difference between MSPs and the judiciary, which I think I dealt with earlier this morning? It is quite a different function. A politician is by nature someone who is not independent in the sense that the public expect the judiciary to be. That is not a criticism; it is a reality. As a generality, judges do not deal with the type of issues that politicians deal with. Politicians have executive power. They are dealing with major economic interests of one sort or another. As a generality, judges are not dealing with that type of thing. They are dealing with issues that are usually between private individuals but can be between private individuals and Government or others. Judges are not dealing with the type of issues that politicians are dealing with such as planning inquiries and so on at a local level or major economic development in society as a whole.
The need for independence in the judiciary is different from the kind of independence that a politician requires, because with a politician it is primarily, as Alex Neil has pointed out, about issues of a pecuniary nature. Those are not the issues that arise in most of the recusal cases with which we are concerned. What we are concerned with as judges is that we appear to be independent of all connection with the case. It is not a question of having a pecuniary interest.
If one looks at the register of recusals in the past year, I do not think that any of them were to do with pecuniary interest at all. They were to do with social connections with people—whether someone is a friend; whether a party to the litigation is a friend of a friend; and matters of that sort. Those are the types of situations that are raised by people in the practical reality of litigation and those are the issues that are being dealt with. Unless you are suggesting a register of one’s friends—and presumably, therefore, one’s enemies—the real issue with recusal in the judicial system would not be addressed.
The Convener: Last question, please, Mr Neil.
Alex Neil: If I can just finally draw the parallel between our register and what has been talked about in terms of either recusal or financial interest, MSPs—as individuals and collectively—do not have executive power per se unless they are ministers, but what is very important is the perception of fairness and the perception that justice is being carried out.
If, in any case—without referring to a specific case—a close relative of a judge is participating in the case, rightly or wrongly, the perception is that there may be a degree of prejudice. It might be very unfair, but the point is to try to ensure that the excellent reputation of the judiciary down the years in Scotland is retained. That reputation is not just for not being corrupt, which we all accept—we are not accusing anybody of corruption. The perception of fairness and the perception of not being prejudiced are also extremely important. I would argue that, certainly in at least one case recently, which we have referred to briefly, the perception is that there may have been unfairness and prejudice in the way in which the matter was conducted, particularly as the judge concerned was involved in the case not once but on a number of occasions.
Lord Carloway: I disagree entirely with your analysis of that particular case and I repeat what I said earlier. The case that you refer to did not involve the judge’s son having any active involvement with the case whatsoever. We have very clear rules in our statement of principles of judicial ethics on how to deal with such matters and it is made very clear in that statement that if a relative is the advocate in the case before one, the modern approach is that the judge should not hear the case, or one could put it another way round—the relative should not be presenting the case. Whichever way it happens to be put, the situation that we had 20 or 30 years ago, when it was commonplace for the relatives of judges of one sort or another to be advocating the case, no longer exists.
That practice no longer exists not because it was thought that there was any actual problem with the decision making but, as you say, because of a perception of unfairness. There is a clear judicial rule about that and I am not aware of any case in which it has been breached. I myself have been in a situation in which my son was involved in a firm that was litigating before me. In such a case, the judge would be expected to declare it and the parties would then decide whether to take the point. However, if they took the point and the relative just happened to be a member of the same firm operating in a different department, I would not encourage the judge to recuse himself.
The Convener: There are no final questions, so I thank you very much for your evidence. It has been helpful to clarify many of the issues that you presented to us in written evidence and to have an opportunity to explore some of the issues around prejudice, for instance.
An earlier investigation revealed Lord Carloway failed to declare his son was linked to the same case: JUDGE OF CONFLICT: Top judge who attacked MSPs over judicial interests probe – failed to declare relative’s role at law firm targeting MSP’s constituents’ home & farm in £6M court case linked to Lord Malcolm conflict of interest scandal
A report being compiled for an investigation of judges’ conflicts of interest by Holyrood’s Justice Committee – has revealed Scotland’s top judge – Lord Carloway - concealed a critical conflict of interest while giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament on a proposal to create a register of judges’ interests.
Lord Carloway’s failure to declare his own link to a case he initially claimed to know little of - while answering questions from MSP Alex Neil - was made all the more serious after the top judge himself openly attacked Mr Neil and other members of a Holyrood committee - for daring to suggest judges should declare their relatives interests in a planned register of judges’ interests.
The report on Lord Carloway’s testimony to Holryood’s Public Petitions Committee will reveal that Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) did NOT declare to MSPs that his own son – Alexander Colin Maclean Sutherland – also worked for the merged law firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley - which was trying to evict a couple at the centre of the case raised by Mr Alex Neil during the Committee hearing in 2017.
The exchange between Lord Carloway and Alex Neil – one of many in the evidence session - led to material obtained during a probe by journalists which revealed Lord Carloway’s son – Colin Alexander Maclean Sutherland – worked at the time for the merged law firm Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley - who became key players in the aftermath of Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
However – Lord Carloway did not declare this conflict of interest during the Holyrood hearing.
Instead; the top judge went on to attack other Committee members and Mr Neil - over their backing for a cross party supported petition to require judges to declare and register all their interests.
Minutes before the exchange, Carloway had even denied even receiving any communications from the couple at the centre of the case - however records show Carloway’s legal secretary - Roddy Flinn – now himself a Sheriff – sent acknowledgements to the couple on 24 May 2016.
Papers show Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley were acting on behalf of Kenneth Pattullo of insolvancy practitioners Begbies Traynor – who were appointed by Advance Construction’s lawyers – Levy and Mcrae – to seize the home, land, a farm, and all assets of Ms Melanie Collins & retired National Hunt jockey Donal Nolan.
A recent perusal of Mr Sutherland’s online legal biography at Ampersand Advocates and the Faculty of Advocates - does not mention his time at the merged firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley in his online legal career:
Alexander Colin MacLean Sutherland BIO:
Year of Call: 2018; Since calling to the Bar in June 2018, Alex has developed a general practice centred on commercial law and public law, including judicial review and planning. He has appeared in the Court of Session, sheriff court and Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal. He has also provided Opinions on a wide range of matters, including contractual disputes, insolvency and property.
Before calling to the Bar, Alex trained with a commercial firm in Edinburgh. He completed his LLB at Glasgow University in 2014 and the Diploma in Professional Legal Practice at Edinburgh University in 2015. Before then, he studied German and English Language at Edinburgh University, during which time he spent a year studying in Vienna.
He speaks fluent French and German and is well placed to undertake work involving consideration of documents in those languages.
Selected recent cases: Community Windpower Ltd v Scottish Ministers (ongoing): Inner House, Court of Session; For the appellants. Appeal against a Reporter’s decision. With Ailsa Wilson QC.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh v (1) Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal and (2) Council of the Law Society of Scotland [2019] CSOH 104; 2020 SLT 1: Outer House, Court of Session; For the petitioner. Judicial review of the first respondent’s decision on expenses.
Saadi v Whiterock Investments Ltd: Outer House, Court of Session; For the defenders. Pursuer seeking reduction of the decree awarding his sequestration.
Ford v The Firm of W&AS Bruce [2020] SC KIR 9: Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court; For the pursuer. Action of damages against a firm of solicitors for failing to advise the pursuer to include a survivorship destination when disponing half of his property to his partner. Debate on prescription.
NCS Office Services (Scotland) Ltd v Emtelle UK Ltd: Glasgow Sheriff Court (Commercial Action); For the defenders. Proof before answer on whether one of the defenders’ employees had authority to enter into a contract with the pursuers on behalf of the defenders.
Law Society of Scotland v WM: Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal; For the respondent. Preliminary hearing on whether the complaint should be dismissed due to excessive delay.
However, when Ampersand Advocates welcomed Alexander Sutherland to their stable in 2018 – Mr Sutherlands spell at Addleshaw Goddard did gain a mention, without reference to his father being Scotland’s top judge - here: Ampersand welcomes Alexander Sutherland
HOLYROOD SUPPORT FOR REGISTER OF JUDGES’ INTERESTS:
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary – originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary.
This is disgusting how can people get away with this.it is time that the government stepped in and did something for all the people that have suffered through this judiciary.
ReplyDeleteTop judge who said there is no corruption in the Scottish judiciary turns out to be corrupt.
ReplyDeleteThis stinks from top to bottom and is a result of too few judges, resulting in a closed community taken from the old boy network, and the lack of any independent regulatory body overseeing judges.
ReplyDeleteThe need for such independent oversight free of any legal vested interests, with the power to suspend and fire judges, is needed more than ever.
And while the MSPs are at it they should set up a similar body with the same powers to oversee the Faculty of Advocates who are obviously up their collective necks in much wrongdoing.
Well spotted Peter.
ReplyDeleteThis was no mistake.
Your "top judge" made a knowingly false statement to msps.
Lord Carloway should consider his position and resign.
Obviously now we know why the judiciary keep telling us they must remain independent.
ReplyDeleteThis is because they are rotten to the core and stitching up court cases to their own personal and family gain!
Did you know his colleagues on the bench refer to Carloway as "court jester" because of frequent issues and misdirection of the jury. I understand he is aware, feel free to print my comment
ReplyDeleteI continue to marvel at how you obtain and publish all this material while much of the media struggle with any law related headline
ReplyDeleteI watched the video myself. What a bare-faced liar.
ReplyDeleteThis man as Scotland's head judge sums up just how corrupt Scotland is where you can buy-off the opposition QC and buy-off judges to get the decision you want and then use unlawful means to keep pursuing this poor couple in a never ending trail of spite.
I hate what Scotland has become with criminality perpetrated in plain sight for all to see, safe in the knowledge that the long chain of people involved know they are above the law.
I think Transparency International who report on corruption will be getting a few letters.
I have read your report and history of the Nolan v Advance Construction case. Having fought corruption in the Scottish Legal Justice system for many years your report on this case comes as no surprise whatever to me. The same applies to the hundreds of other cases appearing on your superb Blog. Keep up the good work Peter. The Scottish Public is, and will forever be, grateful to you.
ReplyDeleteStuart.
Carloway obviously lied to the Scottish Parliament now you published the Campbell statement he must resign and every MSP should be calling for an investigation of what happened!
ReplyDeleteI swear I saw Lord Carloway waddling down the Royal Mile today with his pants on fire.
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish judiciary and Scottish politics in general is like the Mafia.
ReplyDeleteAbove the law.
Racketeering.
Motivated by cash.
Secretive.
I am not sure if they bump people off but nothing would surprise me in Scotland.
Cock-eyed Carloway is toast.
ReplyDeleteCarloway is a clown.He regularly displays his ignorance of the law and prefers to bully counsel appearing for accused.
ReplyDeleteCrown Office habit of selecting his preferred choice of AD to obtain result.
You must be the only journalist alive to:
ReplyDeleteTwice show a country's top judge to be a top liar
Publishing the evidence and video
Survive to write about it on twitter
Well done Peter for exposing this dreadful case and high praise for Alex Neil MSP who supported this couple there should now be an immediate enquiry into this case and the corrupt QC ,s and Judges no one is above the law not even Carloway your work and attention to detail is superb. No false statements from you only the truth supported by evidence you are a trooper Peter for the people
ReplyDeleteWhat a great blog! You put the mainstream media to shame.
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts on this,Peter?
ReplyDeleteNow you have published the statement from Campbell why do you think Carloway lied so blatantly to the committee ?
Carloway:Nil
ReplyDeleteCherbi:2
Nice one sinking Scotland's top judge and the HMS Liar!
ReplyDeleteIt's a pity Scotland became so corrupt a country your judges lie their heads off in your legislature
ReplyDeleteFabulous work Peter it s interesting to note after viewing the video several times that it is Lord Carloway who mentions corruption no one else on the committee mentions corruption, and Mr Neil states clearly that the committee were not accusing anyone of corruption nor had there been any accusations that MSP were corrupt now the corruption in that case has been exposed again supported by documented evidence will Lord Carloway instigate an immediate investigation into Nolan V Advance Construction case and overturn the decision. It is his duty as Lord President to see that justice is administered. This certinally didn't happen in this case. (Peter can you advise who made the judgement against Mr Nolan and where the opinion can be viewed )
ReplyDeleteI scrutinised your article carefully because I simply did not believe it but you are 100% correct, according to his own voice he lied and lied again, contradicted himself, invented the law on the hoof to avoid accountability.
ReplyDeleteIf this is an example of the judgement of Scotland's top judge, what does this say about the standard of the judges in Scotland where lying seems to be acceptable.
It seems to me that the judges in Scotland are protesting too much to Peter Cherbi's Petition because they are irrevocably corrupt and want both the public and MSP's to butt-out of their right to run their cartel to protect their own self interest.
It is plain for all to see that Scotland's judiciary is no longer fit for purpose and that Lord Carloway has single-handedly brought the Office of The Lord President and the Scottish judiciary into disrepute.
Another point worth noting is that these lies to MSP's were told nearly 2 years ago, which begs the question; should all of the cases Carloway has presided over since these lies be annulled because he has shown that he is a liar, ergo did not have a character above reproach required to be a judge from that day and that by his own tongue he evidenced that he cannot be trusted?
This is precisely why Scottish judges are paid exorbitant salaries, because they are unimpeachable in everything they do. They command respect instead of demand respect.
Maybe standards have slid so far down the greasy pole of patronage and privilege that the pool of candidates we choose Scottish judges from is full of piss.
The designers of this problem lies with the self-protectionist regulatory bodies of Scottish lawyers who by year after saving the crooked lawyers from justice has infected the industry to create a critical mass of Scottish lawyers that are nasty, crooked sods, only interested in cash, power and control who couldn't give a hoot about candour or doing the right thing.
All of the MSP's should hang their heads in shame too, as they have allowed themselves to acquiesce to the instruction of The Law Society of Scotland and have allowed them to become the criminal organisation that they are.
As one notable Procurator Fiscal said, "The Law Society of Scotland are above the law and untouchable"
I overheard two QC's talking on the train today agreeing that Lord Carloway's position is untenable.
ReplyDeleteApparently it is the talk of the steamie.
Although, they sounded more concerned that the police may already be investigating QC's financial probity.
A friend is an expert in Statement Analysis, which is a scientific discipline used by police to examine the spoken word to reliably determine if a person is telling lies.
ReplyDeleteIt examines the way that we use pronouns in sentence structure, which gives an autonomic understanding of what the individual is thinking or trying not to reveal.
Similarly, the use of distancing language and hesitation or ticks.
Some excellent work has been done on this through Richard D. Hall's website on Madeleine McCann's parents and the Manchester Bombing.
So, my friend, the expert says his analysis of Lord Carloway's shows multiple examples of dishonesty but the one that stands head and shoulders above the others is Lord Carloway's Freudian Slip by mentioning Corruption when corruption was not proposed.
This is an admission of guilt, an admission of knowledge of corruption, which Lord Carloway went on to confirm, hanged by his own petard.
Am reading your twitter and the posts about the attack on the farm and the land sales!
ReplyDeleteWhy haven't the thugs who firebombed their farm and horses been arrested?
Shouldn't this Lord Carloway be forced to resign for this?
ReplyDeleteHe obviously lied the whole way through the video clips.
If anyone ever deserved to be paid the following compliment it is you Mr. Cherbi.
ReplyDelete"The man who fights for his fellow-man is a better man than the one who fights for himself"
Clarence Darrow.
I want to know why the police are sitting on their hands over this extraordinary corruption.
ReplyDeleteThey know who the criminals are, what part they played in the corruption and who was involved in cash to protect creeps.
Could it be that this corruption could risk drawing in even more dodgy QC's, Sheriffs and Judges or indeed if the police have been paid-off to keep their noses out of it.
Considering the commonly known hidden secret about the chief of police being compromised, it would not be a surprise if his controllers have him on a short leask.
I have watched and listened again to Lord Carloway's testimony before MSP's in Parliament and it is like a gift that keeps on giving.
ReplyDeleteLord Carloway made the flabbergasting statement that things have improved from (the good ol' days) when Judges and their family members used to pally up on the same case and then in the same breath he claims that nobody was making an issue about it back then.
I can say with some confidence, if the public had known that the system was a free for all and completely without any sense of propriety and morals they would have lynched the sheriff's and judges and put them in stocks in the street.
This statement reveals all, that the Judges have been screwing the people over and running a racket for decades and have been allowed to get away with wanton corruption, which pervades the system today.
They have an ingrained hatred for the people because they know that they are shafting the people and if the people found out there evil games there would be a riot.
Lets be frank about this. Scotland is not a democracy because it does not have the rule of law and the judiciary have lost the trust of the people.
When the people find out what has been going on behind their backs there will be a bloody outcry.
at least now we know Scotland's top judge is as much a top liar as the first liar
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the comments on this article.
ReplyDeleteMaterial in comments and other contact in relation to cases involving Lord Carloway is of relevance and will be looked at.
@ 30 May 2020 at 15:53
Lord Carloway's actual statement regarding Lord Malcolm's son appears to be more of a threat than a claim in the aggressive way it comes across in the video, and the accompanying body language of the Lord President.
Lord Carloway's statement is as follows:"The case that you refer to did not involve the judge’s son having any active involvement with the case whatsoever.”
This is not consistent with the facts.
Lord Malcolm's son Ewen Campbell - very clearly states he had a lengthy and very direct involvement in the case referred to by Alex Neil (Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
Ewen Campbell states: “In September 2011 I was asked by Professor Peter Watson (witness) to assist in a new case in which we were to act for Advance Construction (Scotland) Limited (“Advance”).”
Ewen Campbell goes on to admit he worked on the case for nearly a year: “I assisted with this case until Friday 15th June 2012. At this point I ceased assisting Professor Watson as I was informed by Senior Counsel that I was a potential witness in the matter.”
Lord Carloway earlier claims he is content with Lord Malcolm's actions in accordance with judicial ethics - and on that basis then goes on to claim Lord Malcolm's son had no active involvement in the case.
Responding to Alex Neil - Lord Carloway said: "Lord Carloway: I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s actions were entirely honourable and that he acted in accordance with the code of judicial ethics."
Watch the video footage at the point Lord Carloway makes the claim Lord Malcolm's son had no involvement in the case and it is evident the way this statement is presented is an overtly aggressive reaction to a question to which we all now know the answer.
The statement from Lord Malcolm's son leads us to the inescapable conclusion Lord Carloway deliberately misled MSPs and the Scottish Parliament - and - three years on from the Lord President's testimony - he has not sought to correct the record and retract his false claims to the Public Petitions Committee.
Nor has Lord Carloway sought to correct the record and declare his conflict of interest in the case in which his son - Alexander Sutherland - worked for the same law firm who were targeting Mr Neil's constituents in efforts to evict them from their home.
These are serious issues for Scotland's top judge - and anyone who is using Scotland's courts - because this case clearly shows how the justice system, judicial ethics and rules are used by the judiciary to justify what are horrendous failures to declare conflicts of interest, and then go on to cover up for judge after judge and law firms linked to the judiciary who have pick pocketed clients for hundreds of thousands in legal fees and property & land titles.
If anyone or any client in court - thinks this wont happen to them, everyone better think again after viewing Lord Carloway at the Scottish Parliament in this video footage.
And, if any client is banking on assurances from their counsel or legal reps - go and read the investigations on John Campbell QC and advocate Craig Murray who - both - in many ways - are the root of these investigations and all the material which has now found its way to the media and the ongoing investigation.
Always keen to hear from those in similar circumstances - but please make sure verifiable documents must be included with emails and other contacts to enable journalists to look at the case and decide how to proceed to publication.
Somebody should change the sign on the Court of session to the Court of Corruption
ReplyDeleteScotland's top fudge wants to deflect people away from questions about his own honesty and the BBC likes to play along in the pocket of the fat wallet judicial mafia
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53104412
Coronavirus: Lord Carloway calls for court backlog legislation
20 June 2020
Scotland's most senior judge has called for new legislation to help address the growing backlog of court cases.
The Lord President, Lord Carloway, said measures proposed so far had simply been "tinkering at the edges" of a major problem.
He warned that if things continued as they had been, there could be a backlog of 3,000 jury trials in the high and sheriff courts by next March.
Some cases have now resumed but social distancing has reduced capacity to 30%.
The Scottish government said a working group had been set up to consider the practical and operational requirements needed to resume jury trials and that it was working to explore options.
In a strongly-worded statement, Lord Carloway paid tribute to the court service for the speed at which it had developed digitally-based techniques of working, but he said new legislation was needed.
He said that while progress had been made in conducting civil cases and non-jury trials remotely, proceedings that required a jury had proved more difficult.
"This is not the time for a defence of tradition," he said. "The cry of 'it's aye been' cannot prevail. We have to seize the momentum and opportunity to respond to the particular challenge."
The first jury citations since March have now been issued, but jurors will have to sit in more than one courtroom to observe the proceedings.
Lord Carloway said this would reduce trial capacity to 30% of normal,
"We need to stop thinking about tinkering at the edges," he said.
"There is a keenness across the justice sector to find ways to address the serious backlog of solemn cases. I have been absolutely clear that I will not contemplate any measure to aid recovery which might compromise the basic principle of a fair trial.
"The fact remains, however, that the requirements, for physical distancing and self-isolation in order to protect public health, are extraordinary inhibitors on the conduct of all kinds of court business."
He said he had "no doubt" that legislation would be needed to address some of the technical constraints.
"None of the measures proposed by others have so far come close to offering practical answers to what are real difficulties," he said.
"They are simply tinkering at the margins of a major problem which, as long as social distancing and self-isolation are in place, requires a political solution."
I also read from your earlier freedom of information report on the closed door recruitment of Carloway
ReplyDeleteHis friend Lady Dorrian who helped give Carloway his job will be the public relations front for fiddling up the courts and juries and BBC play along again to their tune
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53104412
Lady Dorrian, the Lord Justice Clerk, is currently leading a working group on restarting jury trials.
One option being considered is reducing the size of juries from 15 people in order to enable social distancing.
Margaret Mitchell, chairwoman of Holyrood's justice committee, said: "In such unprecedented times it is important that we continue to be open minded to innovative suggestions and not limit ourselves to bitesize change.
"This will require looking more broadly at the system, with the aim of ensuring justice is carried out swiftly and effectively and of course with the necessary safety measures in place.
"The committee stands ready to play its role in this whether through legislation or other options such as the use of other appropriate venues for trials."
The Scottish government said: "The difficult but necessary decisions taken by the courts in order to protect public health have inevitably led to a backlog of cases.
"As the Lord President makes clear, we must aim to remain dynamic and agile, and continue to embrace new technologies for the longer term, for a resilient, modern justice system.
"A judicial-led working group, chaired by the Lord Justice Clerk, is reviewing the practical and operational requirements for resuming jury trials while complying with physical distancing rules."
The statement added: "We welcome the pragmatic approach taken by all partners and we are currently considering operational and legislative options, such as sentencing powers for sheriffs, which can be agreed to help to address the backlog and mitigate its impacts."