tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-207229892024-03-18T09:47:58.636+00:00The Justice DiariesIndependent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-89405655509487397512024-01-11T18:00:00.004+00:002024-01-12T11:51:46.995+00:00NEW COP ON THE BLOCK: Complaints, infighting & resentment inside Police Scotland as files reveal new Chief Constable Jo Farrell was judged “Best candidate to meet the challenge of stability & operation excellence” at Scotland’s single national Police service<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2023/06/police-scotland-non-disclosure.html" title="POLICE SCOTLAND: Non Disclosure Agreements, whistle-blower witch-hunts, £Ms paid to silence victims, institutionally discriminatory & corrupt – The Scottish Govt Policing PR machine & lawyer-led Scottish National Police service that simply ran out of lies"><img align="left" height="474" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ABLVV868igdFbf-IpcUjO76SxeH80oPfDqbFJ4BOoAfNyOBDj6FfEWmyZw4TQB6xsAnYzE0G33K8kk8yW_OqMehb82QrZenwr8tlGcyZ7gv2Ewq7l9wf3Tc=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Candidate for change:</i> Jo Farrell <b>FOLLOWING</b> a series of reports raising questions of judgement of the new Chief Constable of <a href="http://www.scotland.police.uk/"><b><u>Police Scotland</u></b></a>, it has emerged the Scottish Police Authority were of no doubt the ex Durham Constabulary Chief Jo Farrell - was the best candidate to lead ‘rapid cultural change” at Scotland’s national Law enforcement agency.</p><p align="justify">Documents obtained via Freedom of Information on the recruitment process for a new Chief Constable to replace ex Chief Iain Livingstone – reveal Lynn Brown, Chief Executive of the <a href="http://www.spa.police.uk/"><b><u>Scottish Police Authority</u></b></a> (SPA) - informed Don McGillivray Director of Safer Communities at the Scottish Government of the SPA’s intention to appoint Ms Farrell as the new Chief Constable of Police Scotland</p><p align="justify">Lynn Brown wrote: <b>“Ms Farrell performed and scored consistently strongly across all elements of the assessment process, including the final interview, and against all the core Competencies and Values Framework for a senior officer in Scotland. It was the unanimous view of the panel that she should be appointed to the role.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“Overall the panel's view is that Ms Farrell is the best candidate to meet the challenge of stability of operational excellence and the requirement for rapid cultural change against a back drop of financial constraints.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“The Board met on the afternoon of Monday 12 June 2023 and agreed unanimously to approve the panels recommendation.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“The Board approved that a 4-year contract (legislation allows for a contract of between 2 and 5 years) should be offered, although at this point this remains to be discussed and agreed with the recommended candidate. In addition, an appropriate start date will need to be agreed with the candidate.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“The Authority will contact all the candidates and move to announce this appointment as soon as practicable if Ministers approve this appointment.”</b></p><p align="justify">Writing to Craig Naylor, the current HM Inspector of Constabulary - Martyn Evans, Chair of the Scottish Police Authority stated:<b> “Jo Farrell is an outstanding and highly experienced senior police leader who has made an exceptional contribution to policing over her extensive career. Her appointment will bring exceptional professionalism, building on the high level of policing operational stability and effectiveness achieved in recent years and further accelerate the culture change programmes in Police Scotland”</b></p><p align="justify">It has since emerged the only other candidate for the Chief Constable role was Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Graham.</p><p align="justify">Earlier this week, <a href="https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2024/january/deputy-chief-constable-malcolm-graham-to-retire-from-policing/" title="https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2024/january/deputy-chief-constable-malcolm-graham-to-retire-from-policing/"><b>Deputy Chief Constable Graham announced his retirement from Police Scotland, leaving the force on 8 April 2024</b></a>.</p><p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gm-0PHn9p3-7X_2V2g5BIZauqMyadTjV/" title="LET 20231208 FOI Response - 2023-24-052 incl appendices collective"><img align="left" height="419" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ABLVV84JVbV_MB6gH8gSbN1NMOcSL1XrCreu4A2kSRZCsvtQPFrjri2nXhwdkNBWZwzEDQ7vYflvnwchwkQrdduTb1jfwu4ff56K7-r4sGMlwMg0N1UF7IE=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="290" /></a>The full Freedom of Information disclosure on the recruitment round for a new Chief Constable of Police Scotland can be read or downloaded at the following link: <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gm-0PHn9p3-7X_2V2g5BIZauqMyadTjV/" title="LET 20231208 FOI Response - 2023-24-052 incl appendices collective"><b>LET 20231208 FOI Response - 2023-24-052 incl appendices collective</b></a></p><p align="justify">In additional reporting this week, it has been revealed a complaint has been made against Chief Constable Jo Farrell - by the civilian Deputy Chief Officer of Police Scotland - David Page - who is responsible for finance, procurement, and estates at the cash strapped force.</p><p align="justify">This complaint comes after an incident in November 2023, where Chief Constable Farrell was forced to apologise for an "error of judgement" after it emerged in news reports that a police officer drove the Chief Constable and Gary Ridley - chief finance officer for Durham Constabulary - home to England after her train was cancelled during Storm Babet in October.</p><p align="justify">There are suggestions from sources within Police Scotland that complaints now circulating against the Chief Constable are a result of anger that the new Chief brought in ‘outside help’ to look at how the force has been financially run into the ground by the Scottish Government and senior Police officers.</p><p align="justify">It is of note that while Police Scotland now faces severe financial constraints in spending cuts – the final months of Iain Livingstone’s lead of Police Scotland saw the force dubbed “Institutionally racist” by the now former Chief Constable - who has now moved on to another Police job in Northern Ireland.</p><p align="justify">Livingstone has been given a position as Officer in Overall Command of the ‘independent’ Kenova probe in Northern Ireland – which is tasked with examining Troubles-era offences, including more than 200 murders as well as kidnaps and torture.</p><p align="justify">There has been an extensive PR war by allies of the former Chief Constable to PR Police Scotland’s flaws and faults as other people’s responsibility. </p><p align="justify">However the reality in which Scotland’s single Police service now finds itself has became increasingly apparent with the crumbling of Scottish Government PR tactics to spin any issue as far from reality. </p><p align="justify">A previous report on on the reality of Police Scotland and the five years of Iain Livingstone’s leadership and SNP Government meddling in policing can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2023/06/police-scotland-non-disclosure.html"><b>POLICE SCOTLAND: Non Disclosure Agreements, whistle-blower witch-hunts, £Ms paid to silence victims, institutionally discriminatory & corrupt – The Scottish Govt Policing PR machine & lawyer-led Scottish National Police service that simply ran out of lies</b></a></p><p align="justify">More questions on Iain Livingstone’s leadership at Police Scotland can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/03/top-cop-secrets-transparency-lacking-at.html"><b>TOP COP SECRETS: Transparency lacking at Police Scotland as spy scandal cops refuse to disclose files on complaints & historical sexual assault case details involving Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone</b></a><b></b></p><p align="justify">Any information sources wish to share with blog journalists on matters in relation to Police Scotland and policing matters, please contact via usual and known routes. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-76592061810138533412023-12-11T17:30:00.002+00:002023-12-11T17:40:47.723+00:00COPS CASH TO LAWYERS: Scotland’s single Police Service name Law firms who were paid TWENTY FOUR million pounds - during last Three years of Iain Livingstone’s term as Police Scotland Chief<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2023/06/police-scotland-non-disclosure.html" title="POLICE SCOTLAND: Non Disclosure Agreements, whistle-blower witch-hunts, £Ms paid to silence victims, institutionally discriminatory & corrupt – The Scottish Govt Policing PR machine & lawyer-led Scottish National Police service that simply ran out of lies"><img align="left" height="478" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ADCreHcD8329fXFGKUMR8vDCYnUVawN34m_HZsPdySdL-l5lrofL50KC3KyerqhHiEpvaSthMYSuXzDcVgeOuXEpwC1k-KLydBTNghWY7x4Rbvds4ocfLHM=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Scots lawyers cash-in on cops</i> <b>SCOTLAND’s</b> hard-up national police force – <a href="http://www.scotland.police.uk/"><b><u>Police Scotland</u></b></a> – paid over<b> TWENTY FOUR million pounds</b> to lawyers, advocates and Kings Counsel in just under a three year period – according to documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation.</p><p align="justify">And some of the biggest earners among Scots law firms each received over <b>THREE MILLION pounds</b> from the SNP Scottish Government’s single Police service - which was until a few weeks ago run by Iain Livingstone – a ‘former’ lawyer whose <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/05/police-declared-cops-interests-register.html" title="POLICE DECLARED: Cops Interests Register reveals controversial Chief Constable retains Law Society of Scotland membership, holds seat on ‘Sentencing Council’ quango – yet details fail to give clear picture of highly paid top cops links, interests"><b>register of interests</b></a> earlier revealed he was still a member of Scotland’s dominant legal regulator and pro-lawyer lobbyist - the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><b><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></b></a>.</p><p align="justify">A <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aTNHFi-fMXCKtbcrLcwrxup9Hu5nhI93/" title="list of law firms named by Police Scotland in the Freedom of Information disclosure"><b>list of law firms named by Police Scotland in the Freedom of Information disclosure</b></a> reveal the sheer scale of law firms, solicitors and advocates cashing in on Scotland’s beleaguered and broke law enforcement agency.</p><p align="justify">Journalists continue to look at the scale of payouts - declared, and undeclared from Police Scotland in relation to wrongdoing, the use of Non Disclosure Agreements and a range of other ‘confidentiality agreements’ to cover-up issues including misogyny, criminality and other wrongdoing at Scotland's National Police Service, including issues this blog earlier reported here:<b> </b><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2023/06/police-scotland-non-disclosure.html"><b>POLICE SCOTLAND: Non Disclosure Agreements, whistle-blower witch-hunts, £Ms paid to silence victims, institutionally discriminatory & corrupt – The Scottish Govt Policing PR machine & lawyer-led Scottish National Police service that simply ran out of lies</b></a></p><p align="justify">The new list of law firms identified by Police Scotland reveal high earning law firms such as Digby Brown, Pbw Law – run by ex-Sheriff Peter Watson, Glasgow based law firm Levy & Mcrae and other law firms of interest named in the FOI disclosure.</p><p align="justify">The list includes all payments ‘currently declared’ by Police Scotland in the FOI disclosure - in UK pounds sterling to law firms, and Faculty Services Ltd – the ‘accounting arm’ of the <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><b><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></b></a>.</p><p align="justify"><b>Digby Brown £3,542,599.74; Faculty Services Limited £3,278,006.95; Pbw Law £3,125,900.10; R S Vaughan & Co £2,416,844.59; Levy & McRae Solicitors LLP £2,289,992.27; Ledingham Chalmers £1,921,785.46; Km Law £1,688,753.90; Clyde & Co £932,049.54; Morton Fraser Llp £788,754.02; Miller Beckett & Jackson £665,000.00; Thompsons Solicitors £460,255.00; Slater & Gordon £412,075.54; Gildeas Ltd £275,645.02; Reid Cooper Partnership £272,696.20; Bdo Llp £247,219.86; Macroberts Llp £145,329.69; Thorntons Law £111,842.70; Balfour & Manson Llp £96,791.77; BTO Solicitiors LLP £94,000.00; Jackson Boyd LLP £90,814.14</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Watermans Solicitors Ltd £84,908.93; £Tlt Llp 82,305.60; £Kerr Brown 79,337.49; £Dac Beachcroft 70,985.38; £Horwich Farrelly 64,717.72; £Lawford Kidd 63,580.00; £MML Client 50,000.00; £Keoghs LLP £46,582.99; £Anderson Strathern Llp £44,611.80; Jane Gordon Legal Consultancy £42,126.10; Newlaw Scotland LLP £39,112.38; Kindertons £38,763.30; Brodies Llp £36,405.05; DJ MacKay £33,896.04; Livingstone Brown £31,976.30; John Boyle £30,170.00; Harper Macleod Llp £29,927.98; G A Fordyce & Co Solicitors £28,542.20; Lyons Davidson Scotland LLP £27,292.63; Brechin,Tindal,Oatts Solicitors; £26,076.90; Dla Piper Scotland Llp £25,240.76; D J McFall £25,000.00; Carpenters £20,572.94; DWF Law LLP £19,242.50; Curle Stewart £14,574.87; SatchellMoran £13,000.00; Irwin Mitchell £11,581.30</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Mullen&Co £9,799.68; Parabis Scot £9,351.50; P I Campbell t/a Campbell McCartney £9,250.00; Aamer Anwar £8,598.20; Kudos Legal £7,952.66; Grant Smith Law £7,625.20; Braenalli&Or £7,500.00; Belmont Legal £7,064.20; DallasMcMillan £7,011.60; Rollos Law £6,603.20; J Myles & Co £6,568.80; Bridge Litigation £6,509.59; Bonnar Accident £5,742.20; Sheperd&Wedderburn £5,500.00; HEDS Law £5,497.20; Jones Whyte £4,615.09; Grigor & Young £4,500.00; Winn Sols £4,500.00; Crawford Legal £4,270.12; Henderson Chambers £3,240.00; Friends Legal £2,883.38; Bond Turner Limited £2,675.40; Spectra Drive Ltd £2,527.33; MacLeod & MacCallum £2,386.80; Lindsays £2,240.15; Burness Paull Llp £2,137.20; Keoghs £2,062.98; Gray&Gray £2,000.00; Kennedys £1,786.31; Mclennan Adam Davis Solicitors £1,248.00; I M S Ltd £1,128.00; Canford Law £1,107.90; McCready / Co £1,094.00</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Strata Sol £829.35; Russells Gibson & Mccaffrey £804.00; McLennan Adams Davies £780.00; MSM Law £720.00; Walker & Sharpe Solicitors £652.15; RSAMotability £549.33; Legal Services Agency Limited £504.25; Corrigall Black £324.00; Cullen Kilshaw £312.00; Hunter And Robertson £306.00; Morgan Law £285.00; Boyd Turner £218.50; Killean & Co £194.78; Tc Young Solicitors £132.00; W & As Bruce Solicitors £84.00; Mcmullen Law Limited £72.00; Linda George Family Law £48.00; Milne/Burge £19.40</b></p><p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aTNHFi-fMXCKtbcrLcwrxup9Hu5nhI93/" title="Police Scotland legal fees 2021 to 2023 23-2908"><img align="left" height="385" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ADCreHcbFaDGpPEoe2jVZmRnV1qkAZTH_t_DfP547LvqfHNOKX4IhXFCvIWrCLauakLGXNLClPlWSnsLI9oJiaMrHQDvtszafac_isgc9anM8ujnSnAfrcg=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="272" /></a>The Freedom of Information disclosure from Police Scotland stated: <b>“I would ask that you note that the figures provided relate to all categories of payments made to law firms. Accordingly, the attached information encompasses payments in respect of compensation, legal fees and outlays - all in relation to firms instructed by Police Scotland, and firms on the opposing side of a court action or a claim.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“Additionally, the figures provided are inclusive of payments made to firms and the Faculty of Advocates relating to Police Scotland’s participation in Public Inquiries, most notably the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry.”</b></p><p align="justify">However, Police Scotland refused to release the identities of advocates and Kings Counsel who received substantial public cash payments from the underfunded force – claiming their names were exempt from release.</p><p align="justify">The FOI disclosure stated:<b> “Finally, in relation to advocates, payments are made to the Faculty of Advocates, however, the individual names of advocates instructed to represent the Chief Constable is considered exempt.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“In terms of section 16 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, I am refusing to provide you with this information.”</b></p><p align="justify">Commenting on the scale of payments to law firms, a solicitor who did not wish to be named said: <b>“While some of the smaller payments to law firms relate to administration and other genuine legal work, the scale and frequency of larger payments to some law firms identified in the disclosure give us all an idea of the scale of secrecy, wrongdoing and cover up at Police Scotland.”</b></p><p align="justify">A now retired Police Officer described Police Scotland as<b> “a sinister work environment” adding “senior officers prefer to cover up crime and wrongdoing within policing to please their political masters in the Scottish Government”</b></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-21632615092747396212023-10-31T15:35:00.002+00:002023-11-04T21:51:09.198+00:00RULE BY JUDGE: Top judge Lord Carloway declares Lord President’s office & unelected judiciary - should remain final regulators of Scotland’s lawyer-regulates-lawyer legal profession & legal services market<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway" title="Scotland's top judge - Lord President Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland)"><img align="left" height="443" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ADCreHeuVvXsPGbDtOJutZGAICaRzjpgLT0H7a2XP41nQfiZRYKaULSRSMxwgwDZAniGiuFbdoc2XMaKMCrrYRuRKW1O7GFtMZt4PUDlJyDBLP2O8Z3zUlY=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Top judge says judiciary must regulate lawyers.</i> <b>SCOTLAND’S </b>top judge – Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) has declared his role as Lord President, and <a href="https://judiciary.scot/" title="https://judiciary.scot/"><b>Scotland's unelected judiciary</b></a> - should remain as the final regulator of Scotland’s legal services market - currently composed of around 11,000 self-regulating solicitors, advocates & Kings Counsel. </p><p align="justify">The statement by Scotland’s top judge came in Lord Carloway’s address to lawyers, judges and other legal vested interests in his recent Opening of the Legal Year 2023-2024 speech – where Carloway attacked plans to reform how lawyers regulate themselves in the <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill/overview"><b>Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill</b></a> which is currently at Stage 1 consideration a the Scottish Parliament.</p><p align="justify">In a jibe at the Scottish Government’s admittedly feeble plans to reform regulation of the Legal profession in Scotland, Lord Carloway claimed the reforms to lawyers looking after themselves in complaints regulation – <b>“gives rise to serious constitutional concerns about the rule of law …”</b></p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway said: <b>“The first is the Regulation of Legal Services. The senior judiciary recently responded to Parliament's call for views on the Bill. They were unanimous in the view that the Bill, as currently drafted, gives rise to serious constitutional concerns about the rule of law and the separation of powers. It is a threat to the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Scotland will be viewed internationally as a country whose legal system is open to political interference. This will have serious adverse consequences.”</b></p><p align="justify">Scotland’s top judge went on to declare his unelected office of Lord President and his judiciary, should instead remain the ultimate regulator of rogue lawyers facing any complaint or question about their provision of legal services to clients.</p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway stated: <b>“The rights of clients, who are the ultimate consumers of legal services, to obtain legal advice, must be protected from interference by the government. The only way to ensure that lawyers will be able to stand up for the individual, whether a person or an institution, against the government of the day, is for the Lord President, and the Court of Session, to remain as the ultimate regulator of the legal profession.”</b></p><p align="justify">Regulation of lawyers in Scotland is currently controlled by the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk"><b><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></b></a>, <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><b><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></b></a> and a lawyer dominated <a href="http://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.com/"><b><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></b></a> (SLCC)</p><p align="justify">The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is funded by client fees to solicitors and Advocates who then pay the complaints levy to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.</p><p align="justify">In Scotland, a decades old, repressive and at times highly vindictive regime of lawyers looking after themselves – has seen thousands of clients & consumers of legal services each year – ripped-off by their own solicitors with little or no recompense for the millions of pounds lost to legal services overcharging, theft, embezzlement & outright solicitor client fraud each year in Scotland’s legal services market.</p><p align="justify">In some of the most appalling cases of Scots lawyers found to have looted their clients assets - legal regulators have reacted to unwanted media coverage by using private briefings and turning newspapers and journalists against each other. In some well known cases, legal regulators encouraged articles against legal reforms, blocked publication of newspaper reports on identified lawyers & law firms, and personally went after ;law reform campaigners who seek nothing more than removing the self regulation element from regulation of legal services and legal representatives in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">However – despite the public protests of Lord Carloway and other ‘leaders’ of Scotland’s legal profession – including the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates who has also attacked the proposed legal reforms, the reality is the Scottish Government’s Regulation of Legal Services Bill falls far short of what is needed to quell Scots lawyers appetite for ripping off consumers and clients. </p><p align="justify">And unsurprisingly, according to legal and political sources - there are allegations much of the Scottish Government’s claimed solicitor regulation reform proposals are ‘deliberately deceptive’ and have already been negotiated away with legal interests and political partners in deals to water down what is currently in the bill.</p><p align="justify">Speaking on condition of anonymity, an MSP who along with others is said to be facing de-selection by their own embittered party – informed journalists of private briefings and meetings between MSPs of all parties - and lawyers and legal regulators who are anxious to ensure much of the already watered down proposals in the reform of legal regulation bill are eliminated or that the entire bill is stalled or axed completely. </p><p align="justify">No references to any of these meetings appear to exist in entries of the Holyrood lobbying register but it has been established meetings did take place and lawyers who met MSPs appear to believe they succeeded in their lobbying aims, stating so in private lawyer-only social media chat groups.</p><p align="justify">You can read more about the Scottish Government’s Reform of Legal Services Bill here: <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill/overview"><b>Reform of Legal Services Bill - Scottish Parliament</b></a></p><p align="justify">This latest attempt by a Scottish Government and the pro-lawyer Scottish Parliament to reform regulation of lawyers is the third attempt since 2000 – where in 2001 – and amid bitter evidence sessions - Holyrood’s Justice Committee led by Christine Grahame threw out calls for reform of how lawyers cover up complaints for their own colleagues.</p><p align="justify">A second attempt by another of Holyrood’s Justice Committees in 2006 saw arm twisting from legal regulators to shelve much of the proposals in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Bill, which became law in 2007 after multiple amendments lodged by MSPs, including Scottish Conservative MSPs on behalf of legal vested interests.</p><p align="justify">What became the LPLA Act 2007, which led to the formation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in 2008 – which in turn has led to some fifteen years and counting of disastrous complaints regulation by an overly false legal regulator which is in fact staffed and run by the same lawyers and vested legal interests who ran complaints at the Law Society of Scotland.</p><p align="justify">To make matters worse, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission later set into policy a system which intimidated clients who had already been ripped off by their solicitors – into signing <b>Non Disclosure Agreements</b> to conceal thousands of complaints against Scots multiple law firms over the last decade – with many law firms appearing week after week at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to demand complainants sign more NDAs to conceal some of the worst and repetitive acts against clients which even the old Law Society of Scotland regime failed to keep away from public gaze.</p><p align="justify">And, it should be noted the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has cost clients of Scottish solicitors around £40million pounds in complaints levies – paid for by law firms hiking client fees to meet their annual complaints levy.</p><p align="justify">Lord President Lord Carloway’s Legal Year address to lawyers, which takes the usual Judicial Office tone of launching threats against one piece of reform legislation, then absorbing another piece of legislation – the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill as a form of pro-justice system judicial PR and follow-the-money-supply-to-law-firms – is well worth a read.</p><p align="justify">It should be glaringly obvious to all the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill – more of which can be read here <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/victims-witnesses-and-justice-reform-scotland-bill"><b>Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill - Scottish Parliament</b></a> has only come about because Scotland’s judges, courts & lawyers have been mistreating and preying on victims of crime, abuse & countless other crimes for decades to the point the public and victims themselves demanded action – rather than the action coming willingly from the judiciary or legal profession who seem to believe they own the law.</p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway’s Opening of the Legal Year 2023-2024 speech can be downloaded here <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZvHHxFPpvekogUl3fLpEWfTESl34_wCe/"><b>Lord Carloway - Opening of Legal Year Scotland 2023-24</b></a> with relevant content below:</p><p align="justify"><b><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZvHHxFPpvekogUl3fLpEWfTESl34_wCe/" title="Lord Carloway - Opening of Legal Year Scotland 2023-24"><img align="left" height="399" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ADCreHfWT37Kg6Y1Ts64XXp74c9H1Ue4Vaol_FDClVsvzOZQPsa4QWsuy3a3viQqryH4yCZ24EDvBhxqatElDBsya9ajgWrCfEmDlHoobkZKqQ7PX7PKUf0=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="290" /></a>Welcome to the opening of the legal year. I thank you all for coming. Since the abolition of formal court terms, today is primarily a ceremonial occasion, but it remains a useful opportunity to reflect on the progress we have made in the past year, and on what will, or at least might, happen next.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>I extend a special welcome to Lord Burnett of Maldon, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and thank him particularly for his work during his years in office in ensuring that Scotland's voice was heard on legal matters in the Halls of Westminster and elsewhere.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Law Reform: Regulation of Legal Services and Criminal Justice</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Looking to what it is that might happen next, there are two Bills on which views are currently being sought. Each proposes a series of notable reforms to the justice system.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The first is the Regulation of Legal Services. The senior judiciary recently responded to Parliament's call for views on the Bill. They were unanimous in the view that the Bill, as currently drafted, gives rise to serious constitutional concerns about the rule of law and the separation of powers. It is a threat to the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Scotland will be viewed internationally as a country whose legal system is open to political interference. This will have serious adverse consequences.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The rights of clients, who are the ultimate consumers of legal services, to obtain legal advice, must be protected from interference by the government. The only way to ensure that lawyers will be able to stand up for the individual, whether a person or an institution, against the government of the day, is for the Lord President, and the Court of Session, to remain as the ultimate regulator of the legal profession.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>On a more encouraging note, the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill contains proposals for significant reform of the criminal justice system, many of which are based on the Lord Justice Clerk's Review. The judiciary welcome the reforms insofar as they aim to make giving evidence a less traumatic experience for witnesses, including the creation of a right to anonymity and to independent legal representation for complainers in relation to applications under the rape shield legislation, the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court and the abolition of the not proven verdict.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Overall, the judiciary believe the Bill proposes a number of measures which, in principle, represent improvements to the existing system.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The Criminal Courts: Recover, Renew, Transform</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Following the build-up of criminal cases which have waited for a considerable period of time to go to trial as a result of lockdown, the court service began the Recover, Renew and Transform programme in September 2021.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The recovery aspect aimed to restore the courts to their pre-pandemic capacity. It involved recruiting more sheriffs and court staff and the setting up of more High Court and sheriff trial courts. Good progress has been made. The challenge now is an ever-increasing volume of indictments and complaints which libel sexual offences. In the face of this new volume of criminal business, we no longer expect to restore matters to the pre-pandemic position. We need to adjust our expectations and set a new reasonable baseline for the number of cases waiting to go to trial at any one time.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Our modelling predicts that the number of High Court cases waiting for trial will recover to a new reasonable baseline level by March 2025, and sheriff solemn trials by March 2026.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Prisoner escort services are causing those in custody to arrive at court late. This has an impact on the smooth operation of the criminal courts. We are looking to accelerate plans to move to virtual custodies. Pilots have already taken place. As I have said many times before, the need to bring those arrested before a court as soon as practicable, must remain a priority.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The purpose of renewal is to establish better ways of working which promote the resolution of cases at the earliest opportunity. The Summary Case Management pilot continues in Dundee, Hamilton and Paisley Sheriff Courts. It aims to reduce the number of hearings to those which are necessary, by encouraging early resolution through early disclosure. Early disclosure has allowed the Crown to take a more targeted approach to the citation of witnesses. There has been earlier resolution of proceedings brought in the pilot courts and a reduction in the number of witness citations being issued in those proceedings. Work is underway to roll the pilot out to Glasgow Sheriff Court.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Specialist online courts are being set up to deal with domestic abuse cases. The idea is to ensure that the complainer and the accused do not require to meet each other. This reduces potential trauma for complainers.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Juries continue to be balloted remotely, thus sparing the public the inconvenience of coming to court. Over the course of the past year, over 450 police and expert witnesses have given their evidence remotely in High Court trials.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>A key component of transformation lies in the implementation of the recommendations of Lady Dorrian's Review. The court service has been making substantial progress in relation to those recommendations which do not require legislation. The creation of facilities to pre-record the evidence of children and vulnerable witnesses and the giving of evidence remotely is being accelerated. We now have designated facilities for commissions in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness and Aberdeen.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Earlier this month, I visited the Bairns' Hoose. The Hoose is designed to feel like a family home. It is based on an international model first developed in Iceland, called the Barnahus, which brings together justice, health, social work and recovery support for children in one location. The Hoose is, in essence, a comfortable and safe space in which children can give evidence, receive medical care, take part in decisions about their protection and obtain support to recover from trauma.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The Hoose is the first of its kind in Scotland. The Barnahus model was first advocated for in early 2016, as part of SCTS's Evidence and Procedure Review. I am very pleased to see it implemented into the system, and I hope that we will see more of them developed in due course.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The Civil Courts: Technology and Transparency</b></p><p align="justify"><b>On the civil side, there have been a number of notable technological improvements this year.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The importance of making the people's courts as accessible as possible cannot be understated. The advent of new technology means that we can implement new, more efficient and convenient ways to do this. In June, we officially launched Court of Session Live, a new streaming service for Inner House proceedings. I thank Lord Pentland, and his cross-departmental task force, for their hard work in getting this up and running.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Alongside Court of Session Live, we are publishing information about, and summaries of, upcoming appeals much earlier than we have ever done before. We hope that this will enable those who are interested in viewing proceedings, whether online or in person, to make plans to do so.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We launched the new and improved Civil Online portal in May and have significantly expanded the level of service which the portal offers. In Simple Procedure cases, court users can now raise and respond to actions through the portal.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We secured funding from the Scottish Government to start developing a new case management system for the Office of the Public Guardian. The new interface will provide a more accessible and broader range of online services to the public.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Many of our Tribunals are experiencing growth in the volume of business. The work of the Social Security Chamber is expected to increase significantly. The new Local Taxation Chamber has inherited over 40,000 cases from its predecessor, the Valuation Appeals Committee. We are working closely with the Government to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to support this. Reform of the Tribunal system generally also continues, with the further expansion of the General Regulatory Chamber's jurisdiction, and the potential transfer of the MHT into the First-tier Tribunal during 2024.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The court service are in discussions with the Faculty about the re-establishment of the practice of making justiciary and session papers available to the Advocates Library. This will enable advocates and, via the National Library, members of the public, to view them.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We are working hard to deliver these improvements, but, as ever, we can only do as much as resources allow. We will continue to do what we can within budgetary constraints. I ask only that the government continues to support us by providing us with sufficient funding to continue to deliver core services, as well as these improvements to the system.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Ends.</b></p><p align="justify">Earlier relevant coverage from this blog - of how the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act (2007) was deliberately mangled by the Scottish Government, and Scottish Parliament – which allowed lawyers to continue to regulate themselves to the current date, can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/LPLA%20Act" title="The Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007"><b>The Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007</b></a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com46tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-18646548624380620982023-10-30T15:57:00.002+00:002023-10-30T15:57:34.962+00:00TARGET BENEFITS: As Scots politicians raid public cash to prevent unwanted headlines - Law firm clients claim SNP Govt Social Security Scotland Agency are unfairly targeting & delaying PIP payments to disabled, long term sick, abuse victims & Covid victims<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://www.socialsecurity.gov.scot/" title="Social Security Scotland"><img align="left" height="457" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ADCreHfgwWg7Kp7TvrOR2lS8itHa3o5qaQtoMpuY2flSGovwZql0aTID7iw1Ns-qEqTZTsmwBgVUAAtvhrh5TF1pQirZ13HT0kcSEjCCYXDRjGc3ikmHgZs=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Devolved SNP Benefits powers face misuse claims.</i> <b>AMID</b> a series of headlines relating to<b> </b><a href="https://www.socialsecurity.gov.scot/" title="https://www.socialsecurity.gov.scot/"><b>Social Security Scotland</b></a> mishandling certain benefits considerations and unexplained lengthy delays in payments of Cold Weather Payments, and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) to the long term sick, disabled, victims of abuse and Covid victims - a law firm has contacted journalists with cases revealing delays, perceived attrition to delay or make difficult applications and appeals, and even cases where disabled claimants feel they are being subtly questioned on their politics.</p><p align="justify">Journalists have been given access to several clients who told us of sudden, unplanned reviews to their PIP benefits claims including threats to cut off benefits payments to victims of long term disability - and lengthy, confusing telephone consultations in which searching questions were asked of claimants lifestyles and their politics.</p><p align="justify">In cases now being assisted by legal advice, claimants alleged they were made to fear information on their politics and voting intentions may end up being used as a condition to maintain their current benefits payments.</p><p align="justify">Material ingathered by claimants - which journalists have now had sight of within their legal representative’s office - does appear to support accusations the new devolved benefits powers - passed to the SNP Government by the Conservative Government at Westminster – are subject to a litany of delays, withholding of, or cancellation of payments and potentially motivated consideration of benefits payments to persons across Scotland in areas where<b> some may consider a ‘target voter pool’ could make a difference in what may become a bitterly contested Scottish General Election in 2026.</b></p><p align="justify">Noting the material provided by claimants in just two of Scotland’s local government areas – none of the allegations raised with journalists by solicitors and their clients appear to have been explained by Social Security Scotland in any reasonable way to claimants – who include terminal cancer victims, very seriously disabled persons unable to walk, victims of serious sexual abuse and several long term Covid victims – all of whom claim they are being treated worse than under the DWP system when Personal Independence Payments and related benefits were reserved to Westminster.</p><p align="justify">And in several cases, journalists have been able to speak with Local Authority staff who backed up issues relating to lengthy delays in payments and unreasonable withholding of benefits.</p><p align="justify">One Local Authority source said “claimants are being unfairly targeted because of who they are because they are too weak to fight back and we don’t have the staff to help all cases”.</p><p align="justify">A solicitor representing a PIP claimant said: “People are being seriously let down by Social Security Scotland.”</p><p align="justify">Information on cases where compensation cash for victims of abuse has been raided by politicians to fund pay rises to stave off strike headlines, and political ventures and other PR related issues which have already been aired in the media. </p><p align="justify">Several abuse victims who have spoken to journalists now fear their PIP payments may also end up going the same way and “into the hands of desperate politicians trying to cling to power” as one victim told us.</p><p align="justify">Journalists understand the law firm’s clients are being assisted by an MSP on cases of irregular reviews and unwarranted withdrawal of PIP benefits claims and payments under the SNP Government’s Social Security Scotland.</p><p align="justify">Solicitors representing the claimants requested journalists not publish material currently in their hands, as they feel clients – particularly those in receipt of Legal Aid - could be maligned in their access to legal advice – until such time more fuller scrutiny and assistance can be provided.</p><p align="justify">However Justice Diaries has been asked to publish a short list of recommendations to any benefits claimants who feel they may <b>(and should)</b> require to keep careful notes on any interaction or contact whatsoever with Social Security Scotland.</p><p align="justify"><b>1. </b><b>Maintain “careful notes” of any contact via phone or personal visits, interviews or consultations regarding your benefits claims.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>2. </b><b>Ask for and note down the names and role of anyone from Social Security Scotland whom you are speaking with and ensure you have an accurate record of what was said.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>3. </b><b>If you are in need of assistance or any form of help for any benefits issues relating to Social Security Scotland – seek out help from your Local Authority benefits team immediately and do not delay.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>4. </b><b>If you feel your benefits claim or PIP payments under the SNP Scottish Government rules are being subject to unwarranted interference or intimidation, you may require to contact a solicitor and seek legal advice without delay. </b></p><p align="justify"><b>5. </b><b>If you are required by Social Security Scotland to attend interviews or consultations, take a witness or someone to assist you.</b></p><p align="justify">In the case of “Careful Notes” readers may interpret that recommendation as to how you record information via any means.</p><p align="justify">It may also be helpful for you to ensure a witness is present to ingather a verbatim, word-for-word account of any telephone interview or consultation you are required to attend.</p><p align="justify">Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government were not contacted for comment on this report, as Scottish Government agencies now often ignore or issue delays to media enquiries then ultimately refuse to respond. </p><p align="justify">However, material scrutinised by journalists – does appear to corroborate claimants experiences now being dealt with by legal representatives, Local Authorities and Disability support groups.</p><p align="justify"><b>If readers have any similar experiences with Social Security Scotland or concerns about how they are being treated and wish to find help, the advice is to contact your Local Authority Benefits Team and any Disability support groups and your area MSP immediately – and if you feel the need – contact a reputable qualified solicitor who may be able to provide legal advice and representation.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Additionally, it’s always good to contact any Scottish newspaper journalists via their respective news desk or contact details with your story as these are national issues affecting all Scots. </b></p><p align="justify"><b>And of course keep journalists informed of related issues you experience in matters addressed in this article at Justice Diaries via our email: </b><a href="mailto:scottishlawreporters@gmail.com"><b>scottishlawreporters@gmail.com</b></a><b> </b></p><p align="justify"><b>Be informed everyone - and inform others to help others, and get the help you need.</b></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-3392169062819324692023-06-27T18:17:00.006+01:002023-07-27T17:49:53.295+01:00POLICE SCOTLAND: Non Disclosure Agreements, whistle-blower witch-hunts, £Ms paid to silence victims, institutionally discriminatory & corrupt – The Scottish Govt Policing PR machine & lawyer-led Scottish National Police service that simply ran out of lies<p align="justify"><a title="TOP OF THE COPS: Police Scotland media team in row over “wrong” word in transcript of top cop explaining away suspension, demotion & reinstatement after male-led cop tribunal cleared him from FIVE allegations of serious sexual assault" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/03/top-cop-secrets-transparency-lacking-at.html"><img width="390" height="440" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mXQmfOflQBXYsf6Jr-FYfcrTI5kFJbqWbnIjFP9b6vwHsgKuadvzlGH7apFUNCMQbNDrg0FwB6aBGkhfa2UhKjNXtDpwOhsaVFSia2CRIKpszS1rziiddPp2dQsRDtb0oYrepihoBQ=w2400"></a><em>Outgoing Chief Constable Iain Livingstone.</em> <b>FOR FIVE YEARS</b> and despite publicly aired views of former senior Police officers against his appointment - Scotland’s National Police service has been <a title="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/05/police-declared-cops-interests-register.html" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/05/police-declared-cops-interests-register.html"><strong>lawyer-led by a Chief Constable</strong></a> - who was once accused, then ‘cleared’ by a Tribunal composed of male Police colleagues - of <a title="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/03/top-cop-secrets-transparency-lacking-at.html" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/03/top-cop-secrets-transparency-lacking-at.html"><strong>FIVE allegations of serious sexual assault</strong></a> made against him by a female Police officer.<p align="justify">On 23 February 2023, just days after<strong> </strong><a title="Nicola Sturgeon" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicola%20Sturgeon"><strong>Nicola Sturgeon</strong></a> announced her resignation as First Minister on 15 February 2023 - Chief Constable <a title="Iain Livingstone" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Iain%20Livingstone"><strong>Iain Livingstone</strong></a> announced his own resignation and intention to ‘retire’ from leading <a title="Police Scotland" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Police%20Scotland"><strong>Police Scotland</strong></a> – with a lengthy departure date of August 2023.<p align="justify">However, in the weeks which followed the Chief Constable’s long goodbye to Scotland’s decimated national Police service - Mr Livingstone took the opportunity to brand Police Scotland as Institutionally discriminatory, institutionally sexist and instructionally racist.<p align="justify">What followed was a very scripted set of headlines involving public inquiries, SNP politicians praising the outgoing Chief Constable, and gangland representing lawyers seeking their own ego boosting headlines in what many came to realise was a carefully orchestrated exercise in press releases and organised spin.<p align="justify">However – Chief Constable Iain Livingstone was certainly not wrong in his accusations against his own Scottish National Police service.<p align="justify">Indeed, across five years of presiding over Police Scotland, the outgoing Chief Constable – who was branded unfit to lead Police Scotland by former Assistant Chief Constable Angela Wilson, and a host of public critics & campaigners – must shoulder some of the blame for a dysfunctional Police Service which – at low points – assisted the Lord Advocate & Crown Office in fitting up prosecutions against persons whose crimes did not exist – most notably the Administrators & Accountants of Rangers Football Club.<p align="justify">However, fitting up prosecutions on a £100 Million scale with the cooperation, orders even – of Scotland’s top law officers, top prosecutors and even with the evidenced involvement of the judiciary itself in the plot to lock up a few accountants for events which were mostly made-up – are but one entry in a long list of greed, avarice & corruption within Scotland’s National Police service and across key stakeholders in Scotland’s justice system – from the Crown Office to the Scottish Government itself.<p align="justify">But lets not kid ourselves everyone. We knew it all along, right?<p align="justify">The Scottish Government and it’s slavishly political, critic & media hostile - intensive Civil Servant-Special Adviser Policing group – were hell bent on control of almost every facet of Policing in Scotland and were grimly determined to ensure Scotland’s National Police Service drifted into the same chasm of control freakery, public relations and spin as the SNP Scottish Government live by each day and eek out their grim control over public life until the next week and the next scandal.<p align="justify">Few surprises there - as control freakery, PR and spin is so typical of the way the Scottish Government and every public organisation and regulator in Scotland operates – when faced with questions and scrutiny of the level of wrongdoing & dishonesty in whichever public authority is under the microscope that particular day.<p align="justify">To back up Iain Livingstone’s scripted admission of institutionally everything-wrong at his own five year grip on power Police Scotland, a series of senior officers were paraded on television to support the Chief Constable’s claims – with absolutely not one sounding believable in any of their responses.<p align="justify">And, to round off the increasingly diversionary campaign of ruining the reputation of Policing in Scotland to take the cameras and attention away from high profile political resignations and investigations into political funding – which appear to be more focussed on what they cannot prove rather than going after actual events and a rather complicated set of – lets call it “Heather Capital” type activities – the Chief Constable’s sexist, discriminatory & institutionally corrupt Police Service scandals were capped off with an arranged slew of new female officer appointments and the appointment of a female Chief Constable to replace Mr Livingstone.<p align="justify">If only it would be advantageous to publish the chat apps content of senior lawyers, civil servants and others on these few weeks of a dodgy Scottish National Police Service, and the dodgiest of dodgy Scottish Governments, ever.<p align="justify">Lets return to some of those issues in the headlines.<p align="justify"><strong><a title="Police Scotland - Non Disclosure Agreements FOI - 2019" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-ZouFLiPeHegBgZWCoZhBY-qJZtmag5/"><img width="290" height="410" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AIL4fc9OSHPlY3rv7Fg2IYkwKmoLaIL2o5PxZ-3mEzv1xaaTI2eu5Rg3x36mDhWq0hkGxAACEXIAPAYXzE9uIxY73O65Aajl3adGOcAZ-8W8mEPtFdtTAdU=w1920-h1080"></a>Non Disclosure Agreements</strong> at Police Scotland under Chief Constable Iain Livingstone – have seen millions of pounds in public cash paid out to victims of wrongdoing, corruption, sexism and misogyny during Livingstone’s five year grip on power at Scotland’s lawyer-led National Police Service – and millions of pounds more of public cash in the five years preceding Livingstone’s appointment as the preferred Scottish Government candidate of Chief Constable in 2018.<p align="justify">For years – cases of wrongdoing in policing – from the time of Scotland’s eight forces to the creation of Police Scotland by the SNP Scottish Government in 2014 – have been looked at by blog journalists.<p align="justify">The numbers are big, the pay-outs to victims even bigger, the wrongdoing, corruption, sexism, misogyny, vendetta witch-hunts of sources to journalists, pursuit of police officers who lodge legitimate grievances on issues relating to their service - and targeting of whistle-blowers has been – and remains to this day – off the scale.<p align="justify">It should not surprise readers that private law firms, solicitors, ‘leading’ members of the Faculty of Advocates & even some members of Scotland’s judiciary – have also collectively gained millions of pounds of public cash over the past decade in burying scandals for Police Scotland and forcing victims to sign Non Disclosure Agreements to prevent anyone talking to the media, public, their families and friends - or even their elected political representatives and the Scottish Parliament.<p align="justify">Readers can view earlier Freedom of Information disclosures obtained by blog journalists here <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F-ZouFLiPeHegBgZWCoZhBY-qJZtmag5"><strong>Police Scotland - Non Disclosure Agreements FOI - 2019</strong></a> which give some idea of the scale of pay-outs and a very limited understanding of the level of institutional wrongdoing at Police Scotland.<p align="justify">More than 20 victims of discrimination and wrongdoing who received financial compensation from Police Scotland were gagged from speaking publicly and the FOI material reveals Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) were used in at least 21 cases in which pay-outs totalling £677,389 were made to police officers, civilian staff and members of the public.<p align="justify">At least ten police constables, an inspector, a sergeant and four civilian workers were found to have signed Non Disclosure Agreements, involving a variety of discrimination disputes on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, disability and age.<p align="justify">Other Non Disclosure Agreements involving <a href="http://www.scotland.police.uk/"><b><u>Police Scotland</u></b></a> related to wrongful arrest, personal injury and unfair dismissal and a whistle-blower was required to sign an NDA.<p align="justify">In the figures which go up to the year 2019 – Scotland’s National Police service paid an additional £203,380 to cover victims’ legal fees – bringing the total cost to taxpayers to £880,769 over six years.<p align="justify">Initially – and as is routine with all Scottish Public Authorities – Police Scotland refused to identify the law firms which received public cash in relation to Non Disclosure Agreements. The data was only obtained after requests for FOI Reviews were lodged – naming the following law firms in figures: <b>Clyde & Co solicitors £50,782.20, Morton Fraser Solicitors £72,162.56, Thorntons Solicitors £4,910.40.</b><p align="justify">And in an additional refusal by Police Scotland to identify law firms involved in Non Disclosure Agreements – again for figures up to 2019 – the same law firms were again identified in an FOI review disclosure – <b>Morton Fraser Solicitors £22,208.80, Clyde & Co solicitors £41,460.01</b><p align="justify">Police Scotland’s key role in the malicious prosecution of the Rangers Administrators has been well documented on this blog <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2021/09/prosecution-advocate-conflicts-of.html"><strong>PROSECUTION ADVOCATE: Conflicts of interest, failure to recuse & judge swapping in court - Rangers Admin malicious prosecution case illustrates why Scotland’s Prosecutors & Judiciary must be required to register, declare & publish all their interests - and publish all details of judges’ recusals from court hearings</strong></a>, and more widely in the media.<p align="justify">There also remains no further disclosure by Police Scotland into the allegations of five serious sexual assaults against the outgoing Chief Constable Iain Livingstone – information which Police Scotland refused to release to Freedom of Information requests by blog journalists in an article reported earlier here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/03/top-cop-secrets-transparency-lacking-at.html"><strong><u>TOP COP SECRETS: Transparency lacking at Police Scotland as spy scandal cops refuse to disclose files on complaints & historical sexual assault case details involving Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone</u></strong></a><p align="justify">Curiously, in the past year – several media publications published articles identifying outgoing Chief Constable Iain Livingstone as a “Frontrunner” for the positions of Commissioner of the <a title="https://www.met.police.uk/" href="https://www.met.police.uk/"><strong>Metropolitan Police Service</strong></a> for London , and “Frontrunner” for the post of Director of the UK <a title="https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/" href="https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/"><strong>National Crime Agency</strong></a>.<p align="justify">As readers will be well aware - both positions were filled by other candidates.<p align="justify">Interestingly and perhaps coincidentally - <a title="https://www.interpol.int/" href="https://www.interpol.int/"><strong>INTERPOL</strong></a> – the International Police Agency recently announced – apparently after much lobbying – the annual Interpol General Assembly is to be held next year in Glasgow, 2024.<p align="justify">The choice, which would be as odd as a group of environmental campaigners choosing to hold their gathering in the middle of an oil refinery – is coincidentally slated for the same year to which candidates for the 2025 Interpol Presidency will begin lobbying for their chance to follow several well known – and even some later jailed figures – to become the new Interpol President in 2025.<p align="justify">A previous example of Interpol Presidency candidates cite the following:<p align="justify"><a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-20/debates/59705E54-A997-4F64-AFCA-2D4200158A62/InterpolPresidencyElection"><strong>https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-20/debates/59705E54-A997-4F64-AFCA-2D4200158A62/InterpolPresidencyElection</strong></a><p align="justify"><a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4107"><strong>The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin) </strong></a><p align="justify"><b>Interpol is currently holding its general assembly in Dubai, and a UK delegation, led by Lynne Owens, the director general of the National Crime Agency, is there at the moment. Interpol is electing a new president at the general assembly after former Interpol president and Chinese Vice-Minister of Public Security, Meng Hongwei, resigned from the position on Sunday 7 October after Chinese authorities confirmed that he had been detained and is being investigated on anti-corruption charges.</b><p align="justify"><b>Two candidates have formally declared for the post and remain in the running as candidates. They are current acting president South Korean Kim Jong Yang and Russian vice-president—one of four vice-presidents—Alexander Prokopchuk. Members of Interpol at the general assembly will vote on the next president on Wednesday. We do not speculate on the outcome of the election, but the UK supports the candidacy of acting president Kim Jong Yang.</b><p align="justify"><a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=207"><strong>Sir Vince Cable </strong></a><p align="justify"><b>Can the Minister confirm that the British Government are doing all they can to campaign against the candidacy of Mr Prokopchuk? Will she confirm that, until recently, he was head of the central bureau in Russia and was directly responsible for the issuing of red notices, which have been abused and used against opponents of the Putin regime—such as Mr Bill Browder, the proponent of the Magnitsky sanctions? Does she not agree that if this Russian gentleman were to become head of Interpol, it would be an absolute insult to the victims of the Salisbury incident?</b><p align="justify"><b>Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to pursue their own pursuit of red notices in Russia with that gentleman in this post? Does she not accept that, if this gentleman were to succeed in his election, this would be a massive propaganda victory for the Putin regime, just ahead of a vote in the European Union on fresh sanctions? Would it, in effect, not amount to accepting that Interpol has become a branch of the Russian mafia? I use my words carefully when I say that. Finally, does this not underline the absolute folly of undermining in any way Europol at a time when Interpol is becoming totally dysfunctional and potentially corrupted?</b><p align="justify"><a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4107"><strong>Harriett Baldwin </strong></a><p align="justify"><b>The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. The central point is to clarify for the House the role of the secretary general of Interpol, who, of course, is the German Jürgen Stock. He has the executive role of day-to-day responsibility for the conduct of Interpol, and the UK confirms that it has a very good working relationship with him.</b><p align="justify"><b>The right hon. Gentleman also raises the question about the candidacy of the current vice-president of the organisation. The UK, as I said in my opening remarks, will be supporting the candidacy of the acting vice-president, Kim Yong Yang. We always seek to endorse candidates who have a history of observing standards of international behaviour.</b><p align="justify"><b>With regard to the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the potential for misuse of Interpol, red notices are a very important point. He will be aware of the systems that are in place to protect individuals’ rights and, indeed, of article 3 of the Interpol constitution, which forbids any organisation to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. Of course, there need to be safeguards, and this Government take any misuse of Interpol notices very, very seriously.</b><p align="justify">Interestingly, the lobbying – both at National UK level and in Scotland – for a UK/Scotland candidate to ensnare, be ‘elected to’ or assume the Interpol 2025 Presidency - is highly reminiscent of recent attempts to place certain Scots figures in policing positions outside of Scotland – none of which appear to have succeeded given these individuals pasts.<p align="justify">The lobbying between administrations resorted to embittered strings of emails and Chat app platform communications, including claims several detailed reports in newspapers of officers pasts “had been withdrawn and therefore should be discounted in considering applications” and that “a segment in a television interview was misinformed and contained patently false information”.<p align="justify">The exchanges between advisers, media communications officers & administrations on lobbying attempts, currently cannot be published for legal reasons - however the attempts by some within government, at Scotland & UK level to engineer candidates for jobs without serious interviews, and deploy comms officers, even politicians to brief against the media in what became an increasingly bitter recruitment process and ultimately concluded in all parties engaging in infighting – are certainly of public interest in terms of who is appointed to which role in the UK, and why.<p align="justify">Historically, when it comes to any form of transparency and accountability for Police Scotland and policing organisation in Scotland – every effort appears to be expended to ensure secrecy on all fronts remains the case as this blog has previously reported: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/11/foi-probe-holyrood-committee-hear.html"><strong><u>FOI PROBE: Holyrood Committee hear Scottish Information Commissioner backed off promise to bring Freedom of Information to Scottish Police Federation - even after Info. Tsar knew England & Wales Police Fed. already complied with FOI legislation</u></strong></a><p align="justify"><b>And finally – Three sourced tips in relation to stories being looked into.</b><p align="justify">An audio file submitted to a number of journalists reveals a recently retired policing figure and frequent user of sauna shops - boasted of holding information in relation to politicians and a financial scandal relating to cash and goods - to which the existence of this information was used to gain political lobbying and favours. A crime journalist confirmed the identity of persons in the audio. <p align="justify">An opportunity for that person or others with knowledge of this matter exists to contact journalists and answer questions on why this policing figure’s organisation felt it could play politics and gain favours - in relation to information clearly accumulated as a result of investigations – and why ageing, named former politicians were paid to lobby for, and attack journalists, critics - on behalf of this policing organisation.<p align="justify">Long running enquiries into court cases and complaints investigations revealed the use of Scotland based Private Investigator firms recruiting former Police Officers to utilise in-person surveillance on litigants, solicitors and journalists. Certain of these cases saw persons working for PI firms gaining entry to offices and litigants homes, images of which were recorded on camera equipment. Blog journalists are open to hear explanations from these firms and any employees in relation to their activities.<p align="justify">A long running investigation of digital surveillance employed by organisations in Scotland – which began with the Emma Caldwell case – turned up evidence of a highly organised cyber-hacking ring – which appears to have involvement of former Police Officers from a UK force other than Scotland, England & Wales which continues to snoop on newsrooms and identified journalists, and others including what appear to be opposition politicians.<p align="justify">Emails between lawyers & identified former officers revealed these ex cops regularly offer their services to law firms and any organisation which will hire then. To put it bluntly, these former officers boast of their technical proficiency in defending against cyber-attacks and taking the surveillance and cyber war back to those who whichever entity or organisation perceive as an enemy.<p align="justify">One of the lawyers boasting to clients of how they can deploy ex Police professionals to hack their way through opposing clients and legal representation’s files – sits on committees formed by Scotland’s current top judge – making the link between the judiciary and this surveillance enterprise as clear as was the case in the Emma Caldwell case. If anyone wants to talk, get in touch.<p align="justify">Lastly – <em>Chose your method of giving tips to journalists carefully. Major social media platforms owned by a variety of anti-transparency vested interests - are a no-go area as your Direct Messages and similar are often read before the intended journalists gain sight of it – as a Digital Media employee from a political party recently confirmed in lengthy chats with example communications provided to journos.</em></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com86tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-27180910010731697142022-10-20T20:24:00.008+01:002022-10-26T12:13:13.076+01:00SCOTS LAW: Legal Highs, Legal Lows. A legal profession which prides itself in preying on clients, ripping-off Legal Aid, fixing court outcomes, concealing malicious prosecutions & judicial conflicts of interest, obstructing public access to justice - and - Why you should really question much of what your lawyer tells you.<p align="justify"><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2021/09/reform-justice-scottish-government.html" title="REFORM JUSTICE: Scottish Government announce host of justice sector reforms - including register of judges’ interests, reform to regulation of lawyers & legal profession, Police complaints transparency & consultation on not-proven trial verdict"><img align="left" height="473" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/8yE-NksjhihcJcXrYpp9I3_4Ow8hptH9O-cb3Xoa4vTx05qo9yV7HFP0ZhsIPPSaET2UdCJRcWMW33stCHMON22gqcPgok0gmevFFWoGHxjafUkhS3LdZ6gcvTxdEJjsCfgr_yczLA=w2400" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px;" width="390" /></a><i>World leading? Not a chance M'lud.</i> <b>ONE DAY</b> is a long time in Scotland’s legal world, let alone a full year – but we all can be assured the consistency of wrongdoing, industrial scale dishonesty, legal fee overcharging & outright malice - from Scotland’s legal profession - whether it be in dealing with clients, working in court in civil hearings or in criminal trials, or working for public authorities – is never ending.</p><p align="justify">While blog journalists have been working on real life cases for the past year, it may be worth reminding readers your rights with regard to regulation of your legal representatives, are as ineffective and futile as they have ever been in Scotland, right up to this date.</p><p align="justify">After all, since 2008 and some Thirty Five Million pounds plus, later – much of it recovered from fees you pay to your solicitors *and perhaps money & assets your solicitor strips you of when your case goes not the way you were told it would - the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/"><b><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></b></a> (SLCC) has not once named a corrupt solicitor or law firm – or actually had any impact on standards of legal service in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">Fourteen years for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - billed in 2008 as an “independent” regulator of Scotland’s legal services – to have absolutely zero material impact on the scale of dishonesty in Scotland’s legal profession – is itself a tribute to how corrupt Scotland’s legal mcmafia really is, and – an indicator of the sheer level of control exerted by professional groups such as the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><b><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></b></a>, and <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><b><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></b></a> (to name but two) on how MSPS and the Scottish Government can or cannot give increased rights to consumers of legal services in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">For instance, are you looking for a lawyer right now to conduct legal business or perhaps pursue a civil claim, or defend you in a criminal trial?The fact is, if you are trying to find out if a particular solicitor or law firm has any record of complaints, discipline issues, or are just plain corrupt - you - the consumer - are not going to find out.</p><p align="justify">So, why would you even bother going to a lawyer or a law firm who has perhaps fleeced one hundred clients before you go through their doors? Think first, readers .. do you really need to spend Five thousand pounds on a batch of letters to, say - your next door neighbour for the next Five years over a fence which is 10cm higher than it should be … and then lose the case in court and have to pay your own solicitor say .. another Twenty Thousand pounds for losing, and then end up sequestrated by the solicitor’s good friend the local Sheriff – when you cannot pay the legal fees?</p><p align="justify">Yes, it is that easy. It’s your money, your lives, your home, your family, your business – consumers. Think first, Tens of thousands of people have gone before you thinking they are smarter than a Scottish lawyer, and what happened next? Well, the statistics tell their own story. Thousands of complaints a year to Scotland’s so-called ‘independent’ legal regulators – staffed by lawyers and their families – and guess what, a tiny amount of redress if anything, and thousands of clients lives ruined.</p><p align="justify">The public debate on legal services in Scotland is rather odd, and very biased.</p><p align="justify">Mostly, any public debate on Scotland’s legal profession, is driven by the legal profession itself.</p><p align="justify">Having examined Scotland’s cliquey legal profession for decades, worked on thousands of cases, reported on hundreds more – and when assigned cases to assist clients through the often murky, dishonest world of legal services and Scotland’s institutionally dishonest courts system and not forgetting the institutionally everything bad Crown Office – it can be easily said – consumers of legal services in Scotland have about as much chance of obtaining a fair hearing, as a baked pie in front of a group of staring, salivating alligators with Scottish LLB Law degrees & judicial robes.</p><p align="justify">The world, of course – is a bigger place. And, with the advantage of the internet, and the ability to communicate on global platforms, away from the Scots legal mcmafia sponsored public relations spin, and bought up influencers, clients, consumers, journalists and readers can find a more open and less legal profession driven debate on justice, the courts, legal services, and just about anything else you can think of.</p><p align="justify">Example - If you are interested in US politics and the US Courts, and judiciary – and trust me – you should be - readers who want to expand their knowledge of what judges and lawyers do in and out of court, should start looking at how the US media cover America’s justice system and the US Supreme Court - because - in the US, journalists and lobby groups are much more open and willing to investigate and write up exactly what is going on with a judges' interests, conflicts of interest and recusals.</p><p align="justify">Even better, there are Law Professors and Academics in the US, who will tell you – the public - the absolute truth about the workings of the US Judiciary and 'SCOTUS' - otherwise known as the Supreme Court of the United States.</p><p align="justify">Expand your knowledge, people. Look at how other countries media deal with their justice systems and those parts of the judiciary which consider themselves too powerful to be held accountable to ethics, expectation of justice, or even – the law itself.</p><p align="justify">Reading up on how other countries report on their judges, courts and the workings of the justice system will easily bring even the occasional reader to conclude much of what you have just read, is never reported in Scotland or the UK. In fact, academics here can very easily be roped into (mostly willingly) in what are absolutely vicious campaigns against journalists looking at the workings of the judiciary.</p><p align="justify">There are of course, other advantages of reading media outside the sphere of Scotland’s legal profession reach in that journalists don’t have to put up with ranting calls from UK or Scottish Judicial Office Press Officers, who end up screaming down the phone at journalists and editors because the thorny question of judges conflicts of interest, judges unexplained wealth & lifestyle, and participation in political deals, lobbying, international bargaining and political lobbying here in Scotland come up for scrutiny.</p><p align="justify">As colleagues in the media have observed – reviewing the audio records of those calls, would indeed one day make a good book.</p><p align="justify">So, what have blog journalists been looking at in the past year.</p><p align="justify">A deep dive into certain long running news articles in relation to the plight of victims in all kinds of scandals, from medical to ill treatment at the hands of whichever Scottish public service, such as Health, Policing, Courts, Judiciary, Local and Central Government – have revealed that lawyers and their law firms quoted three paragraphs down in the articles – are demanding their ‘clients’ sign up to Non Disclosure Agreements – even before legal representation is taken on – and that any compensation recovered be subject to significant success fees for the law firm involved, with clients also forced to sign an agreement they will not raise a complaint, or their representation will be terminated.</p><p align="justify">And, it certainly does not take too long for lawyers who give quotes to the media on how they are so involved in representing their clients case – to call in a client for a menacing chat, which – now that we live in a world where everyone records everyone … is much more able to be reviewed by journalists and people outwith the legal profession.</p><p align="justify">The law firms involved, are – unsurprisingly – all “Award Winning Law Firms” – based in Scotland’s big cities and regularly quoted in whatever scandal is the headliner for the week, or weekend.</p><p align="justify">Still think you are smarter than a Scottish Lawyer? … hmmm!</p><p align="justify">Does the following example apply to anyone you know?</p><p align="justify">A meeting with your lawyer goes like this.</p><p align="justify">Hello, dear client. Tell me your case. Wow! I have never heard of your predicament before ... This is a disgrace! I can take you on as a client but first, you must sign up to our terms of business, give us Five grand, and you also have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement - and while you are at it, we would like to store your property titles, just in case you cant pay our fat padded faked-up legal fees and we will take your house instead.</p><p align="justify">Hey folks, this happens a hundred times a week in Scotland. And, for years. Decades even. So, why not get wise to it instead of being ripped off. Don't say you haven’t been told!</p><p align="justify">Here’s a question for readers:</p><p align="justify">Have you ever wondered why – in the past fourteen years from 2008 to 2022 – hardly anyone ever gets to see the actual detail in complaints investigations, outcomes, quantum on actual losses by clients compared to the derisory compensation (if any) paid out by predatory law firms after an ‘investigation’ by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission?</p><p align="justify">Small numbers, isn’t it. A handful. And, few if any law firms named – in the past Fourteen Years.</p><p align="justify">In an active case currently under scrutiny, journalists were handed recordings which reveal clients are being threatened during arbitration hearings organised by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.</p><p align="justify">Yes, you read that correct. Clients who agreed to arbitration hearings organised by Scotland's legal regulator - are being openly threatened and intimidated by solicitors - in front of 'qualified' arbitrators and Legal Complaints Commission staff.</p><p align="justify">Perhaps, upon reading this, you may think the Arbitrators and SLCC staff may step in, even offer to assist the client over the lawyer's shouting, threats and intimidation and their audible threats of using courts and Scotland's ever-puppet judiciary to go after clients.</p><p align="justify">Not a chance. In fact, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission denied the Arbitrators or their own staff members hear or witness anything – yet the audio records confirm these events.</p><p align="justify">In fact - journalists have also been handed communications where the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission actually threatened clients - who had already been threatened at SLCC run Arbitration hearings - that if they uttered a word of what happened - the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would act against them in some undefined way.</p><p align="justify">To say the above is corruption at work, would be an understatement at least - but you can be sure, when our investigation is complete, the material in these cases will be published.</p><p align="justify">Now, to some other issues journalists have been looking into.</p><p align="justify">Recent cases brought to this blog's attention reveal solicitors are requesting extra payments over legal fees from clients, in crypto currency.</p><p align="justify">These payments, in many cases appearing to be forced payments, with a threat that if they are not made legal work will cease on anything from claims against councils, to writing a will - are being demanded by law firms from a wide spectrum of clients, including the elderly - the latter of which first drew journalists attention to - as reports were coming in of elderly clients unable to handle technology to the point law firm employees were visiting home addresses to help their clients set up crypto currency accounts which would pay into accounts held by solicitors or 'other persons' connected to a law firm - but which strangely do not show up in the law firm's accounts to the Law Society of Scotland or HMRC.</p><p align="justify">So, if any readers have elderly or vulnerable relatives who are being forced into making off-the-books crypto currency payments to Scottish law firms - you can email this blog with the details to add to the information now being collected by journalists.</p><p align="justify">Oh, and if you were wondering how deep Scotland’s legal profession has dived into crypto currencies - to make it all nice and legal, the Scottish Government working group on crypto assets and crypto currency is headed by a UK Supreme Court judge - Lord Hodge.</p><p align="justify">A number of cases where criminal complaints and investigations have arisen in relation to activities at properties owned by Scots lawyers, and several members of the judiciary in EU countries and in the Gulf states, have been passed to journalists. </p><p align="justify">Allegations in respect of these cases range from financial crime to tax avoidance, domestic violence, and sexual assault.</p><p align="justify">Interestingly, many of those who have passed on information in relation to allegations and criminal complaints in such cases, are from Scotland or the UK, and have attended properties owned by certain high flying Scots lawyers & Advocates - in a guest role, of sorts.</p><p align="justify">Further information in relation to properties in the Gulf States - owned by leading figures of Scotland’s legal world, including the judiciary document cases where persons employed by the owners have been subject to threats, and in certain cases, swift deportation back to their countries of origin, mostly in Asia after events witnessed at the premises became subject to allegations and investigations.</p><p align="justify">Several key figures within Scotland's legal establishment - have sought to ensure these cases - do not come to light in the media, however the leads are now being investigated and publication may occur at a later date.</p><p align="justify">In a case which relates to a cover-up within Scotland’s NHS Estate – journalists have been investigating links between Scotland’s legal world & the misuse of evidence by key NHS organisations, over the past 15 months.</p><p align="justify">The case extends to cover significant patient risks, concealed by NHS Executives who were involved in switching multi million pound contracts and trying to cover their tracks.</p><p align="justify">Journalists have been investigating the NHS scandal involving NHS Grampian, in which NHS Executives and staff arranged, and colluded to target and discredit Scottish Medical Providers, in a malicious campaign to remove their business, and transfer the contracts to preferred providers.</p><p align="justify">The sums involved total millions of pounds, and investigating the trail of wrongdoing within NHS Grampian has led to the detection of organised fraud and collusion within Scotland's entire NHS estate and factual evidence revealing corruption right at the heart of NHS National Procurement.</p><p align="justify">Some of the documents in relation to the NHS Grampian fraud have been posted to Twitter. However a full investigation and publication of material will appear in due course.</p><p align="justify">Another issue journalists are looking into - is the wide and varied property ownership of solicitors and law firms.</p><p align="justify">In towns and cities across Scotland, local law firms and solicitors own and hold interests in multiple properties.</p><p align="justify">How these properties have come to be owned by solicitors is indeed, a very murky affair and a lengthy battle to reveal.</p><p align="justify">In many cases, there are solicitors who own twenty plus properties in very intricate ownership arrangements clearly designed to thwart persons from finding out the real owner.</p><p align="justify">Some lawyers have chosen to spread ownership around their families and relatives, whereas others have created offshore trusts and networks of companies of which the aim is clearly to defeat any link between the solicitor and the properties.</p><p align="justify">The family ownership link has been known about for some time, and frequently emerges when – for example – a solicitor’s partner decides to separate, and they then find out they own a selection of properties they were unaware of when their solicitor partner unleashes his colleagues on their subsequent separation and divorce.</p><p align="justify">An interesting revelation from the property scrutiny project – identifies solicitors who own significant numbers of rental properties and who are all receiving Housing Benefit paid rents from – in some cases – their criminal legal aid clients,</p><p align="justify">Yes, You read that correctly.</p><p align="justify">Solicitors are housing clients in what are in many cases – run down, rat infested flats and properties around Scotland AND – the rent on the property is paid to the solicitor in Housing Benefit, while the solicitor is also collecting Legal Aid cash for representing the client, his tenant in criminal trials.</p><p align="justify">There are hundreds of such cases currently being looked at. An example of one such case currently being investigated involves a solicitor and Tribunal judge - who represented a client who was found guilty of sexually assaulting paramedics. The client turned out to be the tenant of the solicitor, who was receiving Housing Benefit for his client’s rent, as well as Criminal Legal Aid for representing his client, found guilty of sexually assaulting paramedics. </p><p align="justify">Turns out the solicitor & Tribunal judge has been at this for years, raking in public cash for tenants he houses, and represents in criminal court at the same time – and – many solicitors are doing exactly the same.</p><p align="justify">The petition on the Register of Judges Interests. Yes, the petition rumbles on, and journalists await action by the Scottish Government. However, the time has been spent usefully studying the judiciary, watching how assets move, who talks to who, which judge is threatening who about transparency, and how judges waft around the world doing their wee bit for greed, avarice and sheer dishonesty in the legal world.</p><p align="justify">An update on the petition will be published in the coming weeks.</p><p align="justify">So, as you see - never a dull moment in the media, or in the legal profession.</p><p align="justify">And finally.</p><p align="justify">Whistleblowers. If you want to speak out on what is occurring in your public service, company or whatever the issue is - use an email service such as Protonmail or wherever, and contact the blog or a journalist that you trust and an editor who will not burn you to his friends in whichever public service you are speaking up against.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-78422476819847127182021-11-22T18:42:00.000+00:002021-11-22T18:42:22.485+00:00TRIBUNAL ROLE PROBE: Judge-appointed Vice-Chair of Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal asks Court of Session to block Legal regulator probe of his conduct & role in “inappropriately brought” discipline case at Institute and Faculty of Actuaries <p align="justify"><i><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Legal%20Complaints%20Commission" title="Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - Archive articles"><img align="left" height="533" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/iZPdX6MCR2B8M4CLBKTl7iG9SVtQQd5kmQAdELaQPXoT-cVn8O06VqhijKGfzYHqdSHCt-r_gSZJBOjR5ft3osL1MGLw4oMb6uES3YWEizXgZhRnvu_O5GL5jU46jY-Or_y7Prf96Q=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Tribunal Judge asks Court to block probe of his conduct.</i><b> A SIGNIFICANT</b> conflict of interest in how the legal profession investigates itself may play a role in one of three appeals to the Court of Session – after details emerged the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/"><b><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></b></a> (SLCC) – is facing legal action to block a regulatory investigation of three members of the <a href="https://www.actuaries.org.uk/" title="Institute and Faculty of Actuaries"><b><u>Institute and Faculty of Actuaries</u></b></a> (IFoA) – one of whom is Benjamin Kemp – the Vice-Chair of the <a href="http://www.ssdt.org.uk/"><b><u>Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal</u></b></a> (SSDT).</p><p align="justify">Material obtained by journalists reveal three separate appeals to the Court of Session against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s decision to investigate Mr Benjamin John Tizzard Kemp and two additional members of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. Mr Kemp is represented by Brodies LLP</p><p align="justify">The two additional IFoA members - Ms Emma Gilpin (Head of Regulation) and Mr Michael Scott (Head of Disciplinary) who also face investigation by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in the same complaint – have launched their own, separate appeals to the Court of Session which seek to overturn the SLCC's decision to commence an investigation of their professional conduct.</p><p align="justify">Details of the complaints lodged against the three Institute and Faculty of Actuaries members appear to relate to IFoA Disciplinary action which was thrown out by a Tribunal, which then awarded costs against the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries for bringing the case.</p><p align="justify">The complaints, submitted by Mr Rhodri Tomos, former Fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - relate to the bringing of a disciplinary action against Mr Tomos, from October 2019 to January 2021 after which the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel made a final determination the original disciplinary action was <b>"inappropriately brought"</b>, <b>"unconscionable" </b>and <b>"not in the public interest"</b>. </p><p align="justify">It has also emerged the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries were required to pay costs for the <b>"inappropriately brought”</b> disciplinary action.</p><p align="justify">Commenting on the case - Mr Rhodri Tomos, former fellow of the IFoA who submitted the complaints to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in relation to the conduct of Mr Kemp and the other IFOA members, said:</p><p align="justify"><b>"The IFoA Disciplinary Tribunal Panel threw out the IFoA's case against me very quickly in just a couple of hours, when the hearing was listed for 3 days.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The panel, chaired by an experienced Court Judge, criticised the disciplinary as inappropriately brought, unconscionable and not in the public interest. That's the exact opposite of what the IFoA disciplinary scheme is supposed to be there for. The panel awarded costs against IFoA in my favour.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>No member of the public had complained about me or my work. It was an internal "executive referral" from IFoA, which triggered my resignation from IFoA in Oct 2019 after working so hard since 2001 to qualify as a Fellow. I then suffered a long and stressful 16 months disciplinary process from IFoA, who used internal and external lawyers, including a QC against me, an unrepresented individual, yet they still lost.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>My complaint to SLCC about the lawyers involved is entirely reasonable based on the DTP's findings, which are final, and deserves a full investigation in the public interest. This matter is entirely self-inflicted by IFoA, who along with their oversight body the Financial Reporting Council have failed to investigate my complaints throughout. "</b></p><p align="justify">Earlier today, a potentially serious conflict of interest in the appeal by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries members has been identified by legal sources – where one of the three IFoA members – Mr Benjamin Kemp now under investigation by the SLCC – also holds the position of Vice-Chair of the <a href="http://www.ssdt.org.uk/"><b><u>Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal</u></b></a> (SSDT).</p><p align="justify">The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal is the third, and effectively the judicial tier of legal regulation in Scotland - which acts on investigations carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and hears ‘prosecutions’ of solicitors and advocates - undertaken by the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates.</p><p align="justify">The appointment of Solicitors Discipline Tribunal members by Scotland’s top judge the Lord President, currently Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) - effectively makes all Tribunal members including Mr Kemp - judicial appointees.</p><p align="justify">Commenting on court challenge, a legal source said: <b>“We have a situation developing in this appeal where the Vice Chair of the SSDT, the senior tier of legal regulation in Scotland whose members are appointed by Scotland’s top judge – is now asking the same judiciary to overturn a decision of Scotland’s statutory legal regulator to investigate complaints about his own professional conduct.”</b></p><p align="justify">The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal website confirms the role of Scotland’s top judge in appointing members of the SSDT, stating: <b>“The Tribunal has both solicitor and lay members. All are appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session – Scotland’s most senior judge. Solicitor members are nominated by the Law Society of Scotland, but may not also be members of the Council of the Law Society. Lay members are drawn from all backgrounds and walks of life, following open advertisement The principles of public appointment are followed by the Scottish Government in making recommendations to the Lord President.”</b></p><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify">The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were asked for comment and issued the following response: <b>“As you are aware, we are legally quite restricted in what we can say – under s43 of our Act we can’t comment on any complaint, with the law making it a criminal offence. This includes confirming or denying whether a specific complaint has been received. We are lobbying for this to be changed so we can be more transparent, but need to abide by the current legislation.”</b></p><p align="justify">The Judicial Office and Lord President were asked for comment on the position of Mr Kemp in this Court of Session appeal against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, given the inherent conflict of interest of Mr Kemp – effectively a judicial appointee, and Vice Chair of the SSDT - a key organisation in the regulation of solicitors, now asking the judiciary which appointed him - to overturn an investigation of the statutory body the SLCC to investigate complaints against himself.</p><p align="justify">No statement has been issued by the Judicial Office prior to publication, however any further statement or response will be added to the article.</p><p align="justify">It has not been confirmed by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries as to whether the individual lawyers or the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries itself - is funding this appeal in the Court of Session. </p><p align="justify">In response to media enquiries, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries said: <b>“The IFoA does not comment on any live proceedings.”</b></p><p align="justify">It should be noted that cost orders have been awarded against the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) for investigations previously dismissed by the Disciplinary Tribunal.</p><p align="justify">These cost orders are referred to in the 2020-2021 Annual report of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Disciplinary Board, which states:</p><p align="justify"><b>“Three cases were dismissed by the Tribunal panel without a hearing of the parties. Determinations where findings of misconduct are not made are not usually published by the Tribunal panels unless requested by the Respondent. Costs were awarded against the IFoA in respect of two of the dismissed cases. The total costs awarded against the IFoA was £69,248.73.”</b></p><p align="justify">The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Disciplinary Board cost guidance states costs are awarded when IFoA bring cases inappropriately or negligently.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-64565233829499086212021-09-09T19:25:00.002+01:002021-09-10T13:51:52.717+01:00PROSECUTION ADVOCATE: Conflicts of interest, failure to recuse & judge swapping in court - Rangers Admin malicious prosecution case illustrates why Scotland’s Prosecutors & Judiciary must be required to register, declare & publish all their interests - and publish all details of judges’ recusals from court hearings<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/01/wolffe-court-lord-advocate-james-wolffe.html" title="WOLFFE COURT: Lord Advocate James Wolffe and his judge wife at centre of £9million damages claim - Questions remain why Lady Wolffe avoided recusal during emergency judge swap on court case against her own husband"><img align="left" height="556" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/543TqeH7oO00nUBe8PKV5nKGiG11eIhJWqLZCPrVl3XjDmDMGyLk7c0TpHGVeFuTtjs8NEkG-Gq3qDjZG4TdCxvu-QdP6thiEJJx3snAP6VsH1cz0wEaORcuM37c_tKT0iL0VucG4w=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>James Wolffe - Rangers Admins prosecution was malicious. </i><b>AS</b><i> </i><b>SCOTLAND’S </b>justice system awaits proposed reforms <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2021/08/judicial-register-scottish-government.html" title="including the creation of a Register of Judges’ Interests"><b>including the creation of a Register of Judges’ Interests</b></a> – it should not be forgotten how entangled <a href="https://www.judiciary.scot/" title="Scotland’s judiciary"><b><u>Scotland’s judiciary</u></b></a> were in the organised, motivated & malicious prosecution of the Rangers Administrators - by the <a href="https://www.copfs.gov.uk/"><b><u>Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)</u></b></a> and <a href="http://www.scotland.police.uk/"><b><u>Police Scotland</u></b></a>.</p><p align="justify">So grim was the determination of Prosecutors, Police and the Judiciary itself to see this malicious prosecution through to a result - at one point in November 2017 – the Lord Advocate’s own judge wife – Lady Sarah Wolffe QC – was neatly arranged – by the judiciary – to hear the civil damages claims against her own husband in his role as the Lord Advocate, and similar damages claims against Scotland’s Chief Constable.</p><p align="justify">Back in February of this year, Scotland’s top law officer – Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC gave a statement at the Scottish Parliament on 9 February 2021 in which Mr Wolffe conceded - the prosecution of Rangers Administrators – by the Crown Office & Police Scotland – was a malicious prosecution.</p><p align="justify">James Wolffe publicly apologised to the two Administrators who were wrongly prosecuted during a fraud investigation carried out by the Crown Office and Police Scotland, in relation to the sale of Rangers Football Club.</p><p align="justify">David Whitehouse and Paul Clark acted as administrators during the sale of the football club, settled out of court with the Crown Office in December and were both awarded £10.5 million in damages while legal costs are thought to total more than £3 million – all of which will be paid from public cash.</p><p align="justify">Lord Advocate James Wolffe publicly apologised for the malicious prosecution, however – Wolffe denied anyone had acted with malice but was accused of “brushing this appalling state of affairs under the carpet” if public confidence isn’t restored through an independent inquiry.</p><p align="justify">Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark were arrested in 2014 but the Crown Office has admitted the prosecution that followed was “malicious”.</p><p align="justify">Mr Wolffe said in his statement to Holyrood that decisions made in the Crown Office probe were “indefensible in law”.</p><p align="justify">Missing from the statement to MSPs was a key fact in the order of events, in which Lord Advocate James Wolffe had earlier said nothing during court hearings in late 2017 where his judge wife – Lady Sarah Wolffe was scheduled by fellow judges to hear financial claims for damages in this case case against her own husband – Lord Advocate James Wolffe.</p><p align="justify">DOI journalists reported on events in December 2017 - where the judiciary had neatly arranged for the Lord Advocate’s judge wife to rule on the financial claims against her husband & also Scotland’s Chief Constable <b>- </b><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/12/cry-wolffe-judicial-office-hit-with-new.html" title="CRY WOLFFE: Judicial Office hit with new conflict of interest claims as Court of Session papers reveal £9 million damages claim against Chief Constable & Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC was set to be heard by the Lord Advocate’s wife - Judge Lady Wolffe"><b><u>CRY WOLFFE: Judicial Office hit with new conflict of interest claims as Court of Session papers reveal £9 million damages claim against Chief Constable & Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC was set to be heard by the Lord Advocate’s wife - Judge Lady Wolffe</u></b></a></p><p align="justify"><b>SCOTLAND’S</b> judiciary faced fresh allegations of conflict of interest after it emerged <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/former-rangers-administrator-sues-police-11527428"><b><u>a multi million pound damages claim against the Lord Advocate and Scotland’s Chief Constable</u></b></a> for wrongful arrest and financial damages – was set to be heard by a judge who is the wife of the Lord Advocate.</p><p align="justify">The NINE million pound damages claim against Scotland’s top cop and top prosecutor has been lodged by David Whitehouse – a former administrator at Rangers FC – who is seeking financial damages from Police Scotland's Philip Gormley and Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC.</p><p align="justify">A copy of the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kKv4_DznlxlbgSxwRzoYiSnmuUY9Zenn/"><b><u>Court Rolls</u></b></a> handed to the media at the time reveal <b>Lady Sarah Wolffe QC</b> – an outer house senator of the Court of Session – was scheduled to hear the case involving the claim involving the Lord Advocate - her own husband - <b>A295/16 David Whitehouse (represented by Urquharts) v Liam Murphy &c (represented by Ledingham Chambers for SGLD - Scottish Government Legal Directorate)</b> - on November 15 2017.</p><p align="justify">Liam Murphy was at the time - listed as a Crown Office Procurator Fiscal on “Specialist Casework”.</p><p align="justify">However, Lady Wolffe appears to have been removed from the hearing, with no official comment from the <a href="https://www.judiciary.scot/"><b>Judicial Office for Scotland</b></a> or <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><b><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></b></a> (SCTS).</p><p align="justify">Claims have since been made Lady Wolffe was suddenly dropped from the hearing when it ‘emerged at the last minute’ her husband – Lord Advocate James Wolffe - was involved in the case.</p><p align="justify">A report from a source claims a second Court of Session Judge - <b>Lady Wise</b> <b>QC</b> - was then scheduled to hear the case.</p><p align="justify">However, the silent replacement of Lady Wolffe with Lady Wise - has now raised serious questions as to why there are no references to any note of recusal made by Lady Wolffe – who clearly had a conflict of interest in the case given one of the core participants in the action is her own husband – the Lord Advocate.</p><p align="justify">The case then took another turn after media reports of the hearing on Wednesday 15 November reveal a third judge – <b>Lord Arthurson</b> <b>QC</b> – eventually heard the case, and has since arranged for a four day hearing for legal arguments.</p><p align="justify">Questions then arose as to why the Judicial Office avoided publishing any official recusal by Lady Sarah Wolffe QC – the wife of Lord Advocate James Wolffe - in relation to the scheduling of the case to be heard by the Lord Advocate’s.</p><p align="justify">A further report on Lord Advocate James Wolffe & his judge wife Lady Sarah Wolffe’s role in the financial damages claims case linked to the Rangers malicious prosecution - and coverage in the media can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/01/wolffe-court-lord-advocate-james-wolffe.html" title="WOLFFE COURT: Lord Advocate James Wolffe and his judge wife at centre of £9million damages claim - Questions remain why Lady Wolffe avoided recusal during emergency judge swap on court case against her own husband"><b><u>WOLFFE COURT: Lord Advocate James Wolffe and his judge wife at centre of £9million damages claim - Questions remain why Lady Wolffe avoided recusal during emergency judge swap on court case against her own husband</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">These events and others, illustrate very well why all members of Scotland’s judiciary should be required to declare and publish their interests in a Register of Judges’ Interests – which is now part of the <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2021/09/reform-justice-scottish-government.html" title="Scottish Government’s work programme for 2021 –2022"><b><u>Scottish Government’s work programme for 2021 –2022</u></b></a>.</p><p align="justify">A Register of Judges’ Interests should contain 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.</p><p align="justify">Readers can watch the full statement in relation to the malicious prosecutions of the Rangers Administrators - from the Lord Advocate James Wolffe to MSPs on 9 February 2021 here:</p><p align="center"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdlJV_o0ryI" title="Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC statement on Malicious Prosecutions of Rangers Admins 9 Feb 2021"><b><u>Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC statement on Malicious Prosecutions of Rangers Admins 9 Feb 2021</u></b></a></p><p align="center"><b><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FdlJV_o0ryI" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></b></p><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"><b>Malicious Prosecutions of Rangers FC Administrators by the Crown Office, Lord Advocate & Police Scotland – Scottish Parliament 9 February 2021</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The Deputy Presiding Officer (Lewis Macdonald)</b></p><p align="justify">The next item of business is a statement by the Lord Advocate, on malicious prosecutions. The Lord Advocate will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity—[Inaudible.] I am sorry about that sound issue, Presiding Officer.</p><p align="justify">I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement following the disposal last week of the actions that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark brought against me. Those actions concerned events that predated my appointment as Lord Advocate, but it was and is my responsibility, as the current incumbent, to account for them. The on-going proceedings that relate to the matter constrain what I can say today, but I welcome the fact that I am now free to begin the process of public and parliamentary accountability and to reiterate the commitment that the Crown has given to that process.</p><p align="justify">The prosecutions that gave rise to the cases arose from police investigations into the purchase of Rangers Football Club by Craig Whyte in 2011 and into the administration of the club and its sale to Charles Green in 2012. The investigations were large and complex. Ultimately, seven individuals were prosecuted. This statement concerns only the position of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse.</p><p align="justify">On 14 November 2014, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse were detained and brought to Glasgow. They were held in custody before appearing in court on 17 November on a petition that contained charges that related to Mr Whyte’s purchase of Rangers. That started the clock for a statutory time bar that, unless extended, required the Crown to serve an indictment in respect of the charges by 16 September 2015.</p><p align="justify">In High Court cases, after an accused has appeared on petition, the Crown undertakes a process of investigation and analysis that is called precognition. When it is completed, the precognition contains a detailed narrative of the evidence and an analysis of whether the evidence is sufficient to support criminal charges.</p><p align="justify">The precognition is submitted to Crown counsel for a decision on whether to issue an indictment. Precognition is not a statutory requirement, but it is a long-standing, routine and essential feature of Crown practice in relation to High Court cases. It provides assurance that there is a proper evidential basis for the indictment and, along with Crown counsel’s instruction, it provides a record of the basis for the decision.</p><p align="justify">This case was exceptional in its scale and complexity. By early September 2015, with the expiry of the time bar approaching, the precognition process was incomplete and essential investigations were still on-going. On 3 September, the Crown applied to the court for a nine-month extension of the time bar; the sheriff granted a three-month extension. An appeal by Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse against that extension was refused. In the meantime, on 2 and 3 September, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse appeared in court again on a second petition that contained new and separate charges that related to the second matter that the police had been investigating—the administration of Rangers and its sale to Charles Green in 2012.</p><p align="justify">On 16 September 2015, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse, with five other accused, were indicted. The charges against them derived from the November 2014 and September 2015 petitions. At that time, the precognition process in relation to the November 2014 petition was still incomplete and there was, demonstrably, no precognition in relation to the September 2015 petition, which had only just been initiated. Essential investigations were still on-going in respect of the charges that derived from the November 2014 petition, and there was evidence available that was—objectively—obviously inconsistent with the charges against these two accused that derived from the September 2015 petition.</p><p align="justify">On 2 December 2015, a second indictment was served that superseded the first. At a preliminary hearing in February 2016, following legal argument, Crown counsel withdrew certain of the charges. On 22 February, the judge dismissed the remaining charges against Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. Crown counsel advised the court that consideration would be given to a further indictment against them. A Crown Office press statement that was issued that day indicated that a fresh indictment would be brought, but that was corrected by a further statement the following day.</p><p align="justify">On 25 May 2016, the Crown advised Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse that there would be no further proceedings against them. On 3 June 2016, Crown counsel formally advised the court of that position.</p><p align="justify">In August 2016, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse initiated civil actions against me—I had been appointed on 2 June 2016—to seek damages on the grounds of malicious prosecution and breaches of articles 5 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. They also advanced claims against the chief constable of Police Scotland.</p><p align="justify">I advanced a defence that relied on established legal authority that the Lord Advocate is immune from common-law liability. That defence was upheld at first instance, but, in October 2019, the inner house of the Court of Session overturned the previous legal authority and allowed the claims to proceed.</p><p align="justify">On 20 August 2020, I admitted liability to Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. Those admissions followed the conclusion of a very substantial and lengthy investigation that was undertaken by the legal team, including external counsel, instructed on my behalf. As a result of that investigation, I concluded that the decisions to place Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse on petition in September 2015 and to indict them were indefensible in law.</p><p align="justify">I concluded that those decisions proceeded without probable cause—that is, without a proper evidential basis—in circumstances that met the legal test for malicious prosecution. That legal test can, in certain circumstances, be met even though no individual had malice, in the popular sense of a spiteful motive. My acceptance of liability in this case did not depend on any individual being malicious in that popular sense.</p><p align="justify">I cannot, at this time, disclose in detail the basis upon which liability was admitted, but, when it is free to do so, the Crown will disclose the basis for those admissions in full—including to this Parliament. What I can say is that there were, in this case, profound departures from the normal practices, including precognition, that are designed to ensure—and routinely do ensure—that any prosecution in the High Court has a proper basis.</p><p align="justify">I also admitted breaches of article 5 in respect of the detention of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse in November 2014 and September 2015, and of article 8 in respect of the incorrect press release of February 2016.</p><p align="justify">After the admissions of liability, mediations took place with both pursuers, and agreement was reached to settle their claims. Each of them has been paid £10.5 million in damages, and, to date, more than £3 million has been paid to them in aggregate by way of expenses. Those two pursuers were very high-earning professional people and the damages paid reflect a reasonable estimate of the loss that they sustained as a result of being prosecuted. I have written to the Justice Committee about the financial implications.</p><p align="justify">On 24 December 2020, I issued written apologies to each of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. They should not have been prosecuted, and, as the current Lord Advocate and head of the system of criminal prosecution, I apologised unreservedly for the fact that they had been. I reiterate that unreserved apology publicly to Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse today.</p><p align="justify">Although the case involved significant departures from standard practice, lessons have been learned and will continue to be learned. The precognition process has been reinforced, and, in 2018, I established new arrangements for the management and oversight of large and complex cases. Those arrangements are now well established and provide a substantial safeguard against anything like this happening again.</p><p align="justify">In my JUSTICE human rights day lecture in December 2016, I said this:</p><p align="justify">“a fair and independent prosecution service, taking decisions rigorously, independently and robustly in accordance with the evidence, is, I believe, essential to the freedom under the law which we enjoy as citizens of this country.”</p><p align="justify">Scottish prosecutors and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have a justified reputation for fairness, integrity and independence. The seriousness of what happened in this case should not obscure the truth that, day in and day out, Scotland’s public prosecutors and the staff who support them fulfil their responsibilities with professionalism and skill. They take hard decisions rigorously, robustly and in accordance with the evidence, and they secure the public interest in the fair, effective and robust administration of criminal justice in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">In this case, there was a serious failure in the system of prosecution. It did not live up to the standards that I expect, that the public and this Parliament are entitled to expect and that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service expects of itself.</p><p align="justify">What happened in this case should not have happened. As the Lord Advocate and head of the system of prosecution in Scotland, I tender my apology to this Parliament and to the public for the fact that it did happen and for the consequent cost to the public purse. I confirm my commitment and that of the Crown to supporting a process of inquiry into what happened in this case once related matters have concluded, and I express my determination that nothing like it should ever happen again.</p><p align="justify"><b>The Deputy Presiding Officer</b> The Lord Advocate will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.</p><p align="justify"><b>Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)</b> I remind members that I am a practising solicitor, and I thank the Lord Advocate for advance sight of his statement.</p><p align="justify">There has been an extraordinary catalogue of unexplained and profound departures from normal practices. What is “indefensible”, to use the Lord Advocate’s word, is that, given that the</p><p align="justify">“decisions proceeded without probable cause—that is, without a proper evidential basis”,</p><p align="justify">the prosecution was malicious.</p><p align="justify">Let us be absolutely clear: this was not simple human error or an obscure legal mistake. Rather, our system of prosecution has admitted that it acted with malice in its move to throw innocent men behind bars and destroy their reputations. That begs an obvious question: how many times in Scottish legal history has there been a malicious prosecution?</p><p align="justify">In any event, I note that the Crown is, crucially, committed to a process of inquiry. Can the Lord Advocate confirm that there will be a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry that demands to know why malicious prosecutions were pursued in defiance of evidence? Will it investigate the actions of the Lord Advocate, his predecessor and all agents who were involved? If not, how on earth can the Crown expect the people of Scotland to conclude anything other than that it is brushing this appalling state of affairs under the carpet?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> Given that I have come to Parliament at the first opportunity when I have been free to do so, I hope that nobody would suggest that I could properly be accused of “brushing” anything “under the carpet”. I have committed myself and the Crown to supporting a process of inquiry once related matters have been concluded. Those matters need to be resolved before the process of inquiry can proceed.</p><p align="justify">On Mr Kerr’s first point, as I observed in my statement, the legal test for malicious prosecution can be met in circumstances even when no individual has malice in the popular sense of their having a spiteful motive. I should make it clear that my acceptance of liability in this case did not depend on any individual being malicious in the popular sense. That is not for a moment to minimise the seriousness of what happened. Quite the reverse is the case; as I observed in my statement, what happened represents a very serious failure in the system of prosecution in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">I have been asked how many times there has been a malicious prosecution in Scotland. As I emphasised in my statement, a process that is known as precognition is undertaken routinely in High Court cases. That process necessarily involves careful collection, investigation and analysis of evidence. It involves a system of cross-checking and should provide significant reassurance to the public that, in our system of prosecution, cases are routinely brought on a proper basis.</p><p align="justify">As I explained in my statement, in this case, that process was incomplete when the case was indicted; essential investigations had not been completed. The normal processes that are routinely followed in every High Court case were not followed, but the public should take reassurance from what I have said that the prosecution system in Scotland is robust, fair and independent, and is one on which they can rely.</p><p align="justify"><b>Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) </b>I, too, thank the Lord Advocate for advance sight of his statement.</p><p align="justify">This case raises serious concerns. That it was thought that the Lord Advocate was immune from common-law liability would suggest that he should also have been beyond reproach. We imagine that there are, in the system, checks and balances between the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, with both of them challenging and questioning the activities and evidence in a case. That appears either not to have happened or to have gone seriously wrong in this case, with both being sued by David Whitehouse and Paul Clark.</p><p align="justify">How could that have happened? Were concerns raised, internally or externally, about the actions of both organisations at the time, especially when it came to light that there was inconsistent evidence?</p><p align="justify">The Lord Advocate said that the system has been improved, but there cannot be proper scrutiny until we know exactly what went wrong in the first place. Until that happens, how can we expect to restore confidence in the system?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> The first thing that I should say is that, at this time, there are continuing live proceedings relating to the matter, which regrettably—I do regret it—constrains what I can say.</p><p align="justify">I have committed the Crown to engaging fully with public accountability in the matter, and the Crown has committed to making more information available when it is free to do that. That includes the basis upon which liability was admitted in this case and supporting the process of inquiry when it is possible to do that. I hope that that gives some assurance to Rhoda Grant that lessons will be learned and that there will be public understanding of what happened.</p><p align="justify">Perhaps it is worth noting—I do not say this to minimise, in any sense, what happened in this case—that the court fulfilled its functions in dealing with certain charges and the Crown fulfilled its responsibilities in withdrawing charges and ultimately confirming that no prosecution would proceed. I do not say that to minimise the significance of a prosecution having been brought without proper basis. However, on those issues the checks and balances in the system fulfilled their functions.</p><p align="justify">As I explained, there is, in the Crown Office, routinely preparation of High Court cases, which involves cross-checking of cases by staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service initially, and ultimately by Crown counsel, on the basis of there being a full narrative of the evidence and analysis of that evidence. Those processes are designed to ensure that we can be confident—I am confident—that, across the system in Scotland, prosecutions are brought properly and that this case was wholly exceptional.</p><p align="justify"><b>Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) </b>Can the Lord Advocate reiterate what lessons have been learned and what improvements are being made to ensure that this will never happen again?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> The key lesson relates to the management of large and complex cases. As I said in my statement, I have instituted new procedures for internal management and oversight of the particular category of case. The arrangements involve early agreement of the investigation and prosecution strategy; early and continuous engagement with the police; a project management approach to case preparation; a system of case management panels to scrutinise case strategy and to keep under review the progress of the case, with reference to the strategy; and any issues that might emerge being addressed.</p><p align="justify">All of that aligns with a protocol that the High Court issued in 2018, with my support, in relation to the management of such cases once they are in court. That protocol, again, encourages a proactive approach to the management of such cases.</p><p align="justify"><b>Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) </b>The Lord Advocate referred to the payment of £24 million that was made to Whitehouse and Clark, but that sum might well be just the tip of the iceberg, because the report suggests that the total cost of the case could top £100 million, given that there are outstanding cases.</p><p align="justify">Will the Lord Advocate tell us whether it is correct that, in addition to those payments, Whitehouse and Clark were also given tax indemnities so that, should HM Revenue and Customs pursue them for payment of tax, that demand would be met by the Scottish Crown Office, and that the cost to the Scottish taxpayer will therefore be far higher than the £24 million that has been paid out already?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> I acknowledge the significance of the sum involved. Murdo Fraser is correct in observing that, with other cases pending, the cost to the public purse will increase and the ultimate cost is yet to be seen.</p><p align="justify">The approach that has been taken in settling cases was to make a reasonable estimate of the actual loss that individuals could demonstrate. An arrangement was entered into such that if—it is “if”—they can properly show that they have sustained additional loss of the type that Mr Fraser described, that loss will be borne.</p><p align="justify">If that happens, the Crown will account to the Justice Committee, as it did last week, for the costs in the cases.</p><p align="justify"><b>John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP) </b>Now that it has been established that the Lord Advocate does not have absolute immunity from civil liability, will the Crown be more cautious in pursuing prosecutions, and will that mean that criminals are less likely to be convicted?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> I am determined that any change in the law regarding the immunity of the Lord Advocate should not have that effect. That is one reason why I have put in place measures to strengthen the management of large and complex cases.</p><p align="justify">It is essential that there is a proper basis for prosecutorial decisions in all cases. As I explained in my statement, the process of precognition that is routinely undertaken in all High Court cases provides confidence and assurance both to prosecutors and to the public.</p><p align="justify">I have confidence in the robustness of Scotland’s prosecutors. They make difficult decisions every day, in exercising their judgment. I am determined to have in place systems that enable prosecutors to continue to take robust decisions in effective prosecution of crime.</p><p align="justify"><b>James Kelly (Glasgow) (Lab) </b>The decisions that were made in this case might predate the current Lord Advocate, but they raise serious questions about decision making and accountability within the Crown Office. Serious errors were made. The system failed, and we have been told that the cost to the public purse will be at least £24 million. What other area of the Scottish budget has had to be to be raided to fund the incompetence of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance told Parliament last week, arrangements have been made so that the cases will not affect the Crown Office’s resource budget or its operational effectiveness. The member’s question would be better directed to the finance secretary.</p><p align="justify"><b>Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD) </b>This is a true scandal. In monetary terms, it is on a scale with BiFab and the Ferguson Marine shipyard. The colossal waste of taxpayers’ money runs to tens of millions of pounds. That money could have been spent on supporting businesses during the pandemic, on educational catch-up or on investment in mental health. There might be worse news to come, given that we do not yet know the extent of Police Scotland’s exposure or of the additional cases to which the Lord Advocate referred.</p><p align="justify">Given that the overturning of the Hester v MacDonald decision means that the Lord Advocate can now be held liable for serious errors from the past, what assurance can he offer that there are no other skeletons lurking in the Crown Office closet?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> The principal assurance that I can give is the description that I have already given of the routine precognition processes that are carried out in every High Court case.</p><p align="justify">It is fair to say that this case was wholly exceptional in all sorts of ways—that is the principal answer to Liam McArthur’s question. We have a system of prosecution that has demonstrated robustness, fairness, effectiveness and integrity. This case was a serious falling below the standards that all of us expect of that system, but the very fact that those expectations are so high and that this case has occasioned the justified reaction that it has is a reflection of the high standards that our prosecutors routinely meet, day in and day out, in courts across the country.</p><p align="justify"><b>John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green) </b>I, too, thank the Lord Advocate for early sight of his statement. This was a serious failure of the system of prosecution, and public confidence in our justice system is vital. Can the Lord Advocate outline what further steps will be taken to reassure a public that might reasonably think, “Wow! If this can happen in such a high-profile case, with all that publicity, what chance do I have against the system?”</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> The first reason why the public should have reassurance is the point that I made a moment ago to Liam McArthur, that routinely—day in and day out—our prosecution system operates effectively, robustly and fairly, and it is understood and seen by the public to do so. Prosecutors take decisions that, if taken to court, are tested in the independent court and by the examination and cross-examination skill of those who represent accused persons. So, not only are there protections and reassurances to be taken from the well-justified recognition of the integrity and skill of our public prosecutors, but the public can also have confidence because of the reputation, integrity and skill of the defence bar in testing prosecutions that are brought—and, ultimately, because of our court system, in which any case that is brought to court is tried fairly and independently.</p><p align="justify"><b>James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) </b>Having previously been a precognition officer, I am surprised to see that the lack of precognition appears to have been a major failing in this case. Further to your statement, Lord Advocate, can you give some detail to help provide reassurance that the Crown is, indeed, equipped to deal with complex financial crime going forward?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> Yes, indeed. The Crown successfully prosecutes thousands of cases every year, including complex financial crime cases. For example, an accused was prosecuted last year in respect of a £12 million Ponzi scheme fraud involving 140 complainers and laundering the proceeds of the crime. He was convicted and imprisoned for 14 years. Serious financial crime cases are dealt with in accordance with the arrangements that I have described for large and complex cases. Those new arrangements, which were put in place in 2018, should give reassurance that such cases will be effectively and properly investigated and prosecuted. In the course of this Parliament, the budget allocation to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service has increased by some 42 per cent. Although that was to deal with a range of pressures on the system, part of that additional budgetary resource has gone to ensure that the new system for the management of large and complex cases can be operated as it is intended to be.</p><p align="justify"><b>Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con) </b>What happened was completely indefensible, Lord Advocate. I therefore have a simple question, to which I want an answer: was it incompetence or was it corruption?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> I have said what I can say about the circumstances. There were significant departures from the normal practices that routinely provide safeguards against what happened in this case. I have made it clear that the admission of liability in this case was not predicated on any individual having subjective malice.</p><p align="justify">I should also say that the investigation that was carried out into the prosecutorial work on the case did not report any criminal conduct to me. Had it done so, I would have taken action. However, should criminal allegations come forward, that does not preclude their being considered and, if appropriate, investigated. I am putting in place arrangements, including the instruction of external senior counsel, so that such a process can happen if that is required.</p><p align="justify"><b>Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) </b>Do the former Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, Police Scotland and the team of prosecutors who worked on the case agree with the current Lord Advocate’s decision to pay out millions of pounds of public money on the basis that the prosecution was malicious? Is the Lord Advocate’s decision making in this case up to scratch and robust?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> I have had to take the decision on the civil action that was brought against me. I took that decision following the conclusion of a substantial, lengthy and carefully considered investigation that was undertaken by the legal team, including a team of external counsel instructed on my behalf. That decision fell to me to take, and it is one for which I stand here and account to the Parliament.</p><p align="justify"><b>Bill Kidd (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) </b>Can the Lord Advocate provide reassurance to victims and witnesses that arrangements have been made so that the settlements that are made will not affect the service that the Crown Office provides?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> Yes. A moment ago, I reminded members that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance told Parliament last week that arrangements had been made so that the meeting of the settlements would not have an impact on the resource budget of the Crown Office. Indeed, the budget allocation to the Crown Office this year is significantly larger than it was last year. As ever, that, in part, reflects the commitment of the service to supporting victims and witnesses.</p><p align="justify"><b>Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab) </b>The Lord Advocate admits to a malicious prosecution but says that no one showed malice. That takes political doublespeak to a whole new level. Can the Lord Advocate answer these clear questions? Who is responsible for this expensive fiasco? Who is accountable? Where is the money coming from to pay for it? Those are clear questions. Can I have clear answers, please?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> Yes. I proceeded in addressing the case on the basis of the relevant legal tests. As I explained in my statement, the legal test for malicious prosecution—I appreciate that the wrong has that description—can, in certain circumstances, be met even though no individual had malice in the popular sense of the word. That is the basis on which I accepted liability in this case.</p><p align="justify">In terms of our responsibility, ultimately, in our constitutional arrangements, it is for the Lord Advocate, as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and the investigation of deaths, to answer for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, whether in court—as I do every day in relation to the prosecutions that are brought in my name—or here, in Parliament, as I am doing today. As the current Lord Advocate, it is my constitutional responsibility to answer to the Parliament for what happened at that time.</p><p align="justify">I have said what I can say today about the circumstances, given other pending processes. When it is free to do so, the Crown Office will disclose further information.</p><p align="justify"><b>Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) </b>The Lord Advocate has already given quite a lot of detail, but I ask him to outline what additional steps he will take to support public accountability for and understanding of such cases.</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> As I have said, as and when the Crown is free to do so, it will disclose further information about what happened in this case. In particular, it will disclose the basis for the admission of liability. I and the Crown will support a process of inquiry once all related matters have been dealt with.</p><p align="justify"><b>The Deputy Presiding Officer </b>We have a very brief final question from Graham Simpson.</p><p align="justify"><b>Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con) </b>Will there be a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry?</p><p align="justify"><b>The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe)</b> We will debate a motion in the name of Murdo Fraser on that subject tomorrow. In my statement, I have made it very clear that I and the Crown will support a process of inquiry when all other related matters have been concluded. The ultimate form of such an inquiry will be a matter for determination at the appropriate time.</p><p align="justify">Events have since moved on from the now former Lord Advocate’s statement to the Scottish Parliament in February 2021.</p><p align="justify">Later in March it was confirmed both the Lord Advocate – James Wolffe – and his deputy – Solicitor General Alison Di Rollo (maiden name Lafferty) were to resign from their respective roles at the Crown Office – due to events conceded in relation to the malicious prosecution of the Rangers Administrators.</p><p align="justify">After James Wolffe and Alison Di Rollo resigned their office, a ‘short’ recruitment process took place, which saw former Advocate Depute Dorothy Bain QC appointed as Lord Advocate to replace James Wolffe, and Ruth Charteris QC replacing Alison Di Rollo as Solicitor General.</p><p align="justify">However, material passed to journalists revealed Bain was not the first choice to replace James Wolffe.</p><p align="justify">As the recruitment round took place, a list of several well known legal figures who turned down offers of accepting the Lord Advocate role was passed to journalists.</p><p align="justify">One legal figure involved in the process - who does not wish to be identified – said he felt the Lord Advocate role was poisoned by the Rangers debacle. </p><p align="justify">The legal figure added <b>“The Crown Office is badly damaged as an institution”.</b></p><p align="justify">After Dorothy Bain’s appointment to the Lord Advocate role, issues of Ms Bain’s involvement in the Rangers case were reported by the media - resulting in claims Ms Bain held a conflict of interest in any involvement in further proceedings relating to the malicious prosecution of the Rangers Admins.</p><p align="justify">The new conflict of interest which emerged - was that Dorothy Bain had previously acted for a firm of solicitors who represented the Rangers Administrators company - Duff and Phelps.</p><p>As a result of increased media scrutiny of the new Lord Advocate’s conflicts of interest in the Rangers case – Dorothy Bain has since recused herself from further involvement in related matters – with the new Solicitor General, Ruth Charteris QC, assigned to issue instructions to the ‘independent’ legal team and senior counsel advising on the remaining Rangers claims cases.</p><p align="justify">Noting James Wolffe made no mention of matters which arose in court in relation to the judiciary’s scheduling of Lady Wolffe to hear and rule on the financial claims against her husband – Lord Advocate James Wolffe, and damages claims lodged against the Chief Constable of Police Scotland - a report on Lady Sarah Wolffe’s role in the sequence of events and her initial appointment to decide on the claim against her own husband, featured in a Sunday Mail newspaper investigation, here: </p><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/last-minute-judge-swap-rangers-11743341"><img align="left" height="443" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SozLwBM-82mfPMfS5QI644a1iX0Fqtx2aMMNYhB7TY12qtE8V_jKGQjvSl7lFN_c-dzV_RWV0PRuQKqPPAJEPQkDp1RoBK5QmON3oaQf5Jih3e1nZCIbQ2uprlIaUCgOuc2aoog9-Q" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="300" /></a><a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/last-minute-judge-swap-rangers-11743341"><b><u>Lord Advocate's judge wife was set to oversee case brought against him by former Rangers administrator</u></b></a></p><p align="justify"><b>Lady Sarah Wolffe was originally scheduled to oversee a hearing in David Whitehouse's £9m lawsuit against Lord Advocate James Wolffe.</b></p><p align="justify">By Craig McDonald 24 DEC 2017 </p><p align="justify"><b>A former Rangers administrator’s £9million lawsuit against Lord Advocate James Wolffe was given an emergency judge swap – after it emerged the case was originally handed to his wife.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>David Whitehouse, 51, is suing Wolffe, Police Scotland chief Phil Gormley and prosecutor Liam Murphy amid claims he was “unlawfully detained” during an investigation into Craig Whyte’s doomed 2011 club takeover.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Court officials had to draft in a replacement judge when they realised Wolffe’s wife Lady Sarah Wolffe was scheduled to sit on the bench for a procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last month.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The late switch from Lady Wolffe was ordered after the conflict was discovered.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Lady Morag Wise was asked to take her place, although the hearing eventually went ahead in front of Lord Paul Arthurson.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Yet another judge, Lord Neil Brailsford, was on the bench when the case was called again earlier this month. It is scheduled to go ahead next year.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The removal of Lady Wolffe is not noted in the official list of judicial recusals – where a judge declines jurisdiction – as it was reallocated before it was called in court.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>A Scottish courts spokesman said: “Lady Wolffe was assigned to hear procedural matters in a number of cases on November 15.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“One of those cases was listed on the court rolls as David Whitehouse v Liam Murphy and others.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“Subsequently, when the papers were checked by the Keeper’s office, it became apparent the Lord Advocate was the third defender and, accordingly, the case was reallocated to a different judge.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“The case was initially reallocated to Lady Wise but, having regard to the level of business and in order to avoid unnecessary delay to the parties, was ultimately dealt with by Lord Arthurson.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Whitehouse and colleague Paul Clark were arrested during the Rangers probe but charges against the pair were later dropped.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>They worked for Duff & Phelps, who were appointed as administrators of the club in February 2012. The business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc, who entered liquidation later that year, were sold to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5million.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Police launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the takeover. Whyte was cleared of fraud by a jury at the High Court in Glasgow in June.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Lawyers acting for Whitehouse claimed their client was “unlawfully detained” by detectives in November 2014. They also said that, throughout the period of detention, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect he had broken the law.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Whitehouse claims police and prosecutors didn’t follow correct legal procedure and his arrest damaged his reputation and caused him significant loss of income.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The defenders in the action, including the chief constable and Lord Advocate, claim correct legal procedure was followed and want his case to be dismissed.</b></p><p align="justify">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 :<b> </b><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><b>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</b></u></a></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com39tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-85205300320681414182021-09-08T21:13:00.002+01:002021-09-08T23:43:03.870+01:00REFORM JUSTICE: Scottish Government announce host of justice sector reforms - including register of judges’ interests, reform to regulation of lawyers & legal profession, Police complaints transparency & consultation on not-proven trial verdict<p align="justify"><i><a title="Scottish Government Work Programme 2021-2022" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NFJF16BOkNBFEpi7iN12MG3bq-YCq0jO/"><img width="390" height="564" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/m62-eTCjL2pEfubv1abQecd4YP2-gU19d0ue15uuNX2UwTD63iQvOPKc6ZY3HckOsttZ73Acl1mscDbCp0CGRGiZfmwQRBHV3ujVfpPEGn8CfrD_Yj47Asm-GEtJ5-cDYi3fWPMYhw=w1920-h1080"></a>Justice reforms announced by Scottish Govt.</i> <b>PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS</b> and key reforms to Scotland’s justice sector have been announced in the <a title="Scottish Government Work Programme 2021-2022" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NFJF16BOkNBFEpi7iN12MG3bq-YCq0jO/"><b><u>Scottish Government Work Programme 2021-2022</u></b></a> - including a register requiring all Scottish judges to declare their interests, and long awaited reforms to how Scotland’s lawyers investigate themselves.</p><p align="justify">In relation to regulation of the legal profession - the Scottish Govenrment Work Programme document states: <b>“..we will also launch a public consultation on reform of legal services regulation, expected later in 2021, to consider what changes may be required to the statutory framework to protect consumer interests and promote a flourishing legal sector.”</b></p><p align="justify">And, on the subject of transparency and accountability in Scotland’s courts – the Ten year investigation of Scotland’s judiciary by the media and a petition to require judges to register and publish all their interests - backed by Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee – has contributed to action in the form of a committment to create the judicial interests register for all members of Scotland’s judiciary.</p><p align="justify">The Work Programme document states <b>“To safeguard the independence and reputation of the judiciary, we will begin work on establishing a register of interests of its members to increase public confidence and improve transparency.”</b></p><p align="justify">Petition PE1458 was originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012. The Petition 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.</p><p align="justify">An earlier report on Petition PE 1458 and the committment to create a register of judges’ interests can be found here:<b> </b><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2021/08/judicial-register-scottish-government.html"><b><u>JUDICIAL REGISTER: Scottish Government confirm Register of Judges’ Interests will be created - after Holyrood TEN YEAR probe of judicial interests & recusals survives lobbying by legal vested interests to close public interest transparency petition</u> </b></a></p><p align="justify">The package of measures also include body worn cameras and reforms to complaints handling for Police Scotland, legislation to pardon Miners from convictions & unfair treatment suffered as a result of their participation in the 1980’s strikes, increased access to justice for court users & a re-visit of earlier proposals to reform the law of corroboration – where evidence must be verified from two independent sources.</p><p align="justify">The proposals can be found in the Scottish Government’s 2021-2022 work programme, available here: <a title="Scottish Government Work Programme 2021-2022" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NFJF16BOkNBFEpi7iN12MG3bq-YCq0jO/"><b><u>Scottish Government Work Programme 2021-2022</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">The full text of the Scottish Government’s <b>Reforming the Justice System to Make Scotland Fairer, Safer & More Equal:</b></p><p align="justify"><b><a title="Reforming the Justice System to Make Scotland Fairer, Safer & More Equal" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3aGgq_KoyH0T8I7FdkPeeJMpBUsfqJG/"><img width="290" height="428" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-U4NTSCsbdi2EErDAFbBK-a2zy6rRBt5hQXJ_xbtvnv_0-dZBNH_sku5AYL5bOC7cameaNsQXkGe_vP4GkSqQlsT5RTHgZp7QaqmWqOkN7wCdtOpKHYCNnOVF01CU1WiMsa4qxcswg=w1920-h1080"></a>“We are proud of Scotland’s justice system and our distinctive Scots law. We will build on their foundations to bring in targeted reforms aimed at making Scottish justice still stronger and better.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>During this year, we will launch a public consultation on the three verdict system and whether the not‑proven verdict should be abolished.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We will also consider reform of the corroboration rule, engaging with justice partners, opposition parties and people with direct experience of the criminal justice system to develop a shared understanding of the evolving legal position, and the implications and potential unintended consequences of corroboration reform, including in relation to sexual crimes.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The Scottish Government’s law officers, amongst other roles, act as the head of the independent prosecution service and as members of the Scottish Government. We will consult on whether the prosecution and government functions of the law officers should be separated.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We have already begun to address the backlog of court cases that accumulated during the pandemic, providing £50 million this year to help drive forward recovery. </b></p><p align="justify"><b>We will review how offending is dealt with by the summary justice process, to make access to justice as efficient and effective as possible. </b></p><p align="justify"><b>We will engage with both legal professionals and victim support organisations to review the Legal Aid system, and will introduce a Legal Aid Reform Bill in this Parliament, ensuring that the system is flexible, easy to access and meets the needs of those who use it.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>And we will also launch a public consultation on reform of legal services regulation, expected later in 2021, to consider what changes may be required to the statutory framework to protect consumer interests and promote a flourishing legal sector.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Access to the courts is an important part of upholding individual rights and the rule of law; but there are times when other non‑litigious means of resolving disputes are preferable, notably in non‑criminal proceedings. </b></p><p align="justify"><b>The Scottish Government will work with stakeholders to expand the availability of mediation and arbitration services within the civil justice system. The Scottish Government is working with stakeholders, and will consult on future changes as appropriate, to give people access to flexible, affordable and less stressful means of settling disputes, benefiting them and saving time in courts.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>To safeguard the independence and reputation of the judiciary, we will begin work on establishing a register of interests of its members to increase public confidence and improve transparency.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Scotland’s police officers work hard every day to keep their communities safe, and have shown a strong, rights‑based approach to compliance during the pandemic. We will work to build on that model of policing by consent. To better understand and service the needs of our communities, we will support Police Scotland and wider partners to improve the diversity of their workforce and to enhance the quality of data across the justice system.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We will support Police Scotland and wider partners to build on improvement work in response to Dame Elish Angiolini’s review. We intend to accept and implement the majority of Dame Elish’s findings following consultation in 2022. This will include bringing forward a Bill and Regulations to promote fairness and transparency and strengthen public confidence in our Police.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We want Scotland’s police force to benefit from and take advantage of new technologies, such as body‑worn video, but to do so in a controlled way that commands public confidence. The Independent Advisory Group on Emerging Technologies will report to Ministers in 2022, recommending changes that should be made to existing legislative frameworks and policing practices: we will respond to its findings and act to ensure there is robust scrutiny and oversight where new technology is adopted.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We will also address the disproportionate consequences and stigma suffered by many miners as a result of their participation in the 1984‑85 strike. We will bring forward a Miners’ Strike Pardon Bill, and implement the pardon as soon as practicable should it become law – restoring the good name of the miners, and bringing comfort to their friends and families, and to former mining communities.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>We will also support and resource the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry in its thorough scrutiny of the circumstances of his tragic death.”</b></p><p align="justify">With regard to the consultation later this year on how to reform regulation of legal services & solicitors – readers with experience of how complaints are handled by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Law Society of Scotland, and Faculty of Advocates – should ensure their views are made known to the consultation when it is launched by the Scottish Government.</p><p align="justify">Anyone with cases which involve questions relating to Scotland’s judiciary, the conduct of judges in court, conflicts of interest & related issues should continue to email material to this blog for further study and reporting as appropriate.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-9646344293685831652021-08-03T13:36:00.014+01:002021-08-04T11:33:27.357+01:00JUDICIAL REGISTER: Scottish Government confirm Register of Judges’ Interests will be created - after Holyrood TEN YEAR probe of judicial interests & recusals survives lobbying by legal vested interests to close public interest transparency petition <p align="justify"><i><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges" title="Petition PE 1458 - Register of Interests for Scottish Judges"><img align="left" height="473" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/MrmE9JMqoxCUFi3uem_Zi7lM8aipxLQ83nFInA1mFPGgBv-CK5p-kSREdarUBJ9qR16M2eglTuaZnmVgm7ull25_82F-hVg8o6YiZQo0V186d9m4GPa_VvBPhWa-FdxUbSVOCLi-XQ" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Scottish Govt agree to create Judicial Register.</i> <b>A PETITION</b> to create a register of judges’ interests for all members of Scotland’s judiciary - survived a stormy session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – after a failed last-minute Tory led attempt to shut down the TEN YEAR judicial probe.</p><p align="justify">The attempt to close down Petition PE 1458 was led by the now former MSP Justice Committee Convener – Adam Tomkins of the Scottish Conservatives – who launched blistering criticism on questions around judges’ interests during several hard edged statements to fellow members of the Justice Committee.</p><p align="justify">However, since these events took place on 2 March at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – the Scottish Government has since indicated they will create the register of judges’ interests as asked for in the petition - <a href="https://archive2021.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><b><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></b></a>.</p><p align="justify">Petition PE1458 was originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012. The Petition 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.</p><p align="justify">Confirmation the judicial register will now move forward, was reported in the media: <a href="https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-government-moves-forward-register-24317365" title="SNP Government moves forward with register of interest plan for judges"><b><u>SNP Government moves forward with register of interest plan for judges</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">The Daily Record article reports: <b>Now Keith Brown, who was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon to be the new Justice Secretary, has confirmed the Government is taking it forward.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>He said: “It was a manifesto commitment of the SNP to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system. “Now that the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced and take forward the work needed to achieve this manifesto commitment.”</b></p><p align="justify">The Record further reports support for the petition from MSPs and the Scottish Government: <b>SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said: “I support the commitment from the Scottish Government to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Members of the judiciary, like any other public servant in receipt of public funds, must disclose interests that could influence their decisions or give the perception of doing so”.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Introducing a register of interests for members of the judiciary will increase transparency and trust in the justice system. The Scottish Government will now begin work to engage with stakeholders to consider how best to bring forward this justice reform.”</b></p><p align="justify">An additional blog report will publish more detail around the latest events relating to the petition and the creation of a register of judges’ interests – which the Scottish Government confirmed will occur.</p><p align="justify">Back to the events of March 2021 – Adam Tomkins – the now former Justice Committee Convener after having retired as an MSP at the 2021 election - was joined in the well organised effort to shut down the judicial register debate by Annabelle Ewing – who is now the current Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, and MSP Rona Mackay – formerly of the Petitions Committee.</p><p align="justify">However, Justice Committee member John Finnie who has since stood down as an MSP launched a scathing rebuttal of the Tory Convener’s concerted effort to shut down debate on Scottish judges interests and demanded the petition be kept open. Mr Finnie was joined in support by MSPs Rhoda Grant (Scottish Labour), Liam Kerr (Conservative) Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat) & Shona Robinson (SNP).</p><p align="justify">In response to Tomkins & Ewing’s praise for judges, and their expressed agreement with the Lord President to shut the petition, John Finnie said in response: <b>“I will follow on from the convener’s comments about the separation of powers. Of course, in any liberal democracy, it is absolutely right that we have an independent justiciary. I accept that. However, we are talking about one individual the Lord President.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“I do not know that individual and I have no axe to grind one way or another, but I will paraphrase the previous exchanges with him. He said, “No, I don’t want it.” The committee decided to write to him again, and he said, “I’ve already told you that I don’t want it, and I’m telling you again that I don’t want it.” There were discussions about his coming to give evidence and even about whether it was appropriate to ask him to come to give evidence. He said, “Well, I could come and give evidence but, as I’ve told you and I’ll tell you for a third time, I don’t want it.” To be perfectly honest, that does not seem to me like a functioning liberal democracy.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“What is there to fear from disclosing the information that is being asked for? Examples of other jurisdictions have been given where that is done without a problem. Should we be surprised that a Government of whatever persuasion wants to be in accord with the Lord President and does not want to dissent from the Lord President’s position? Perhaps not.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>I am not persuaded by either of those arguments, but there is a more compelling reason why we must keep the petition open. I am supportive of the intention of the petition. As always, the devil will be in the detail, but the detail that has been shared with us is that we are being urged to commission the work that we had already decided on. It is very clearly unfinished work for the committee. We undertook to do things in relation to the petition; we have not done those. For that reason, we must pass it on to our successor committee to pick up on that work, and it will be for it to decide how to proceed thereafter. The petition should be kept open.”</b></p><p align="justify">Justice Committee members Shona Robison, Liam McArthur & Rhoda Grant also agreed to keep the petition open. </p><p align="justify">The Scottish Conservatives Liam Kerr also agreed, to keep the petition open.</p><p align="justify">A planned motion to close the petition was apparently scrapped at this point and discussions aimed at shutting down the petition - which took place outside the realms of the Justice Committee prior to the hearing - have since been made available to journalists.</p><p align="justify">Instead – The Tory Justice Committee convener Adam Tomkins managed a final spat at the TEN YEAR probe of judges interests and plans to create a register – displaying visible concern that Justice Committee members had kept the petition open</p><p align="justify">A very animated Adam Tomkins ended the terse, at times bitter hearing on the petition by stating<b> “I will close by saying that just because it is appropriate for elected members in the legislature to have a register of interests, that does not mean that it is appropriate for members of the judiciary to have a similar register of interests. The function of the separation of powers is to treat different branches of government differently, according to their institutional function.I hope that that is a fair summary albeit with a gloss from me at the end of the committee’s decision.”</b></p><p align="justify"><a href="https://archive2021.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><b><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></b></a> – 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.</p><p align="justify">Video coverage of the Justice Committee meeting of 2 March 2021 and discussions relating to the register of judicial interests petition can be viewed here:</p><p align="center"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP99sIm9yB4" title="Register of Judges Interests Petition PE 1458 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee 2 March 2021"><b>Register of Judges Interests Petition PE 1458 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee 2 March 2021</b></a></p><p align="center"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gP99sIm9yB4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></p><p align="justify"><b>Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458) Tuesday 2 March 2021</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow):</b> The second of the petitions before us is PE1458, which concerns a register of judicial interests. The petition, from Peter Cherbi, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a register of pecuniary interests of judges bill or to amend the present legislation to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and information on any hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests. I refer members to the relevant papers, which include submissions from supporters of the petition.</p><p align="justify">As with the previous petition, the committee has had PE1458 before it for a long time the petition was lodged in December 2012. The last time that the committee considered the petition, it agreed to seek further information on other potential conflicts of interest relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish judicial system and to hold a round-table session on the matter with constitutional and academic witnesses. I am afraid that the pressures of competing work have meant that we have not been able to organise a round-table event on the subject, so that remains undone.</p><p align="justify">I open the discussion to members. As with the previous petition, we need to decide whether to close the petition or to keep it open for session 6. If we take the latter course, we need to justify our decision.</p><p align="justify"><b>Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath):</b> I am mindful of the fact that I should probably have waited for my colleagues to indicate that they wished to speak first, because that might have been more appropriate, given that I am a newish member of the committee. In any event, I have read the clerk’s note and have been peripherally aware of the petition over the course of several years.</p><p align="justify">I cite a few points. First, as far as I can see, the statement of principles of judicial ethics is a comprehensive set of requirements. The idea that there is nothing in place is a fallacy. Secondly, I note that additional safeguards have been put in place during the time that the petition has been open. I cite the register of recusals and the publication of judicial expenses and overseas travel. Thirdly, and most importantly, I was struck by the letter from the Lord President and the key point about the need for the independence of the judiciary, which is not comparable to any other profession. The independence of the judiciary of the country is a fundamental tenet of our laws and our society. I agree with the Lord President on those matters, so I do not support the continuation of the petition.</p><p align="justify"><b>Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow):</b> Thank you, Annabelle. The Official Report will not show this, but I was nodding vigorously as you commented on the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary as a tenet of the separation of powers. That is the principle that should be front and centre when we consider questions such as this one.</p><p align="justify">For a register of judicial interests to be created, either the Lord President would need to set that up or Parliament would need to legislate to do so. As Annabelle Ewing has just said, the Lord President has said that he does not see the need for such a register. That is also the view of the current Scottish Government, which has said that it does not support a register.</p><p align="justify"><b>Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Scottish Conservative)</b>: For complete transparency, I make the usual declaration that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland.</p><p align="justify">I listened carefully to Annabelle Ewing and the convener, who spoke very persuasively. It is an interesting debate. I have not, as yet, heard a convincing argument against the proposal. I think that there is something in what Annabelle Ewing and the convener said, but I need to hear more. Some of the recent debates that the convener and I have been involved in give me pause for thought about the petition.</p><p align="justify">The convener prefaced his comments by saying that the committee was previously interested in obtaining more information on the issue, and that we talked about having a round-table session. I want to hear and learn more about the issue before I decide what I think about a register of interests. For that reason, I am inclined to think that we should keep the petition open with a view to me or whoever has the privilege of coming back and being on the committee looking at the issue again in the cold light of day of the new session of Parliament.</p><p align="justify"><b>Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow):</b> Annabelle Ewing has asked me to remind members that, like Liam Kerr, she is a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although, again, like Liam Kerr, she has never been not yet, at least on the bench. Thank you, Annabelle.</p><p align="justify"><b>Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)</b>: I have no such declaration to make. I agree whole-heartedly with what you said, convener, and with what Annabelle Ewing said in opening the debate. It is indisputable that steps have been taken to address at least some of the principles of the concerns that were raised in the petition.</p><p align="justify">The point where I am slightly anxious here, I refer back to Annabelle Ewing’s comments on the earlier petition about the value and benefits of consistency is that, having sisted the petition previously on the basis that the committee would hold a round-table session to solicit wider views from stakeholders, but then not having done so, it would be difficult to make an argument for closing the petition. Again, that argument seems to be for administrative neatness. We made a commitment as a committee. If, after the election, the incoming committee does not feel that it needs to be beholden to that commitment, that is a decision for it, but it would be passing strange for us to abandon, simply because of the prospect of an election, the conclusion that we reached when we considered the petition previously.</p><p align="justify">On that basis, as with the earlier petition, I am minded to suggest that we keep this one open until the next session.</p><p align="justify"><b>Deputy Convener Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden):</b> I was on the Public Petitions Committee when the petition started its journey before it came to the Justice Committee, and I am supportive of it I am on record as saying that. However, given that the Lord President and the cabinet secretary have made their views clear on it several times, at this stage, we should close it, with the knowledge that the petitioner can bring it back in the next session of Parliament if he wants to carry on with it.</p><p align="justify">I do not think that that would be inconsistent. The petition is different from the previous one, which we decided to keep open, because the circumstances are different. At this stage, my preference is to close the petition, and the petitioner can always bring it back. However, I am sympathetic to the subject.</p><p align="justify"><b>John Finnie (Scottish Green Party, Highlands & Islands):</b> I will follow on from the convener’s comments about the separation of powers. Of course, in any liberal democracy, it is absolutely right that we have an independent justiciary. I accept that. However, we are talking about one individual the Lord President.</p><p align="justify">I do not know that individual and I have no axe to grind one way or another, but I will paraphrase the previous exchanges with him. He said, “No, I don’t want it.” The committee decided to write to him again, and he said, “I’ve already told you that I don’t want it, and I’m telling you again that I don’t want it.” There were discussions about his coming to give evidence and even about whether it was appropriate to ask him to come to give evidence. He said, “Well, I could come and give evidence but, as I’ve told you and I’ll tell you for a third time, I don’t want it.” To be perfectly honest, that does not seem to me like a functioning liberal democracy.</p><p align="justify">What is there to fear from disclosing the information that is being asked for? Examples of other jurisdictions have been given where that is done without a problem. Should we be surprised that a Government of whatever persuasion wants to be in accord with the Lord President and does not want to dissent from the Lord President’s position? Perhaps not.</p><p align="justify">I am not persuaded by either of those arguments, but there is a more compelling reason why we must keep the petition open. I am supportive of the intention of the petition. As always, the devil will be in the detail, but the detail that has been shared with us is that we are being urged to commission the work that we had already decided on. It is very clearly unfinished work for the committee. We undertook to do things in relation to the petition; we have not done those. For that reason, we must pass it on to our successor committee to pick up on that work, and it will be for it to decide how to proceed thereafter. The petition should be kept open.</p><p align="justify"><b>Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East):</b> I do not have strong views on the petition. I have some sympathy with Annabelle Ewing’s comments about the additional safeguards, and I think that we all agree on the independence of the judiciary. However, I also have some sympathy with what John Finnie has said, in that we should be consistent if we feel that there is some unfinished business for our successor committee to take forward, even if that is just the holding of a round-table session and the gathering of further evidence, it might be in a better position to make a definitive call on whether there is more that should be done here.</p><p align="justify">I hope that we can reach a consensus. I would be content for the petition to be included in our legacy report as something for our successor committee to consider further.</p><p align="justify"><b>Rhoda Grant (Scottish Labour, Highlands & Islands):</b> I agree with what John Finnie said and proposed.</p><p align="justify"><b>Convener Adam Tomkins) Scottish Conservative, Glasgow:</b> I am grateful to colleagues for what has been a very helpful debate. My sense of the discussion is that members of the committee do not feel as strongly about this petition as they did about the previous one. Some modest and minor disagreement has been expressed about whether to keep the petition open or to close it. However, I think that the balance of opinion is in favour of keeping it open, if only because there is a sense of unfinished business. However unfinished the business is, though, I think that everybody who has expressed a view on the matter is clearly of the view that that business needs to be transacted subject to and in the light of the fundamentally important principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.</p><p align="justify">I think that the body of opinion is that the petition should not be closed at the moment, but that our successor committee in session 6 should be invited to consider the matter, if only to hear views and perhaps to explore a little why the Lord President is opposed or why the judiciary, who are represented by the Lord President, are opposed to the creation of such a register.</p><p align="justify">I will close by saying that just because it is appropriate for elected members in the legislature to have a register of interests, that does not mean that it is appropriate for members of the judiciary to have a similar register of interests. The function of the separation of powers is to treat different branches of government differently, according to their institutional function.</p><p align="justify">I hope that that is a fair summary albeit with a gloss from me at the end of the committee’s decision.</p><p align="justify">A reference in the Justice Committee’s Annual report for 2020 to 2021 states the following: <b>Petition PE1458 - is a petition by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.</b></p><p align="justify">The Report states the Petition, and another will be kept open for the next session of the Scottish Parliament: <b>At its meeting of 2 March 2021, the Committee considered these two petitions for the final time this session and agreed to keep both petitions open for a new committee to consider in session 6.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT JUDICIAL INTERESTS PROBE:</b></p><p align="justify">The judicial register petition - first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s<b> </b><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/01/declare-your-interests-mlords-scottish.html"><u><b>Public Petitions Committee in January 2013</b></u></a><b> – </b>calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests.</p><p align="justify">A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held<b> </b><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><u><b>at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014</b></u></a><b> -</b> ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.</p><p align="justify">The lengthy Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests has generated<b> </b><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/11/judicial-register-evidence-lodged-by.html"><u><b>over sixty two submissions of evidence</b></u></a><b>, at least </b><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Petitions%20Committee"><u><b>twenty one Committee hearings</b></u></a><b>, </b><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/02/scotlands-top-judge-private-meeting-to.html"><u><b>a private meeting</b></u></a><b> and </b><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><u><b>fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate</b></u></a><b> </b>and has since been taken over by Holyrood’s Justice Committee after a recommendation to take the issue forward from the Public Petitions Committee in March 2018.</p><p align="justify">A full report containing video footage of every hearing, speech, and evidence sessions at the Scottish Parliament on Petition PE1458 can be found here:<b> </b><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/12/all-lord-presidents-interests-scottish.html"><u><b>Scottish Parliament debates, speeches & evidence sessions on widely supported judicial transparency petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland's judiciary</b></u></a><b>.</b></p><p align="justify">The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee has consistently supported calls for a judicial interests register over multiple hearings – where MSPs have spoken out on Scottish judges involvement in the Gulf States, reported here:<b> </b><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/06/judicial-register-justice-committee-to.html"><u><b>JUDICIAL REGISTER: Justice Committee to hear evidence from ex-Judicial Investigator, top judge on judicial interests register, MSP says Scottish judges should not be involved with Gulf States implicated in unlawful wars, mistreatment of women's rights</b></u></a></p><p align="justify">A report on the Justice Committee’s consideration of the Judicial Interests Register Petition in May 2019 – where MSPs backed the petition - can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/05/judicial-register-justice-committee.html"><b><u>JUDICIAL REGISTER: Justice Committee investigate approach to judges’ interests in other countries – MSPs say ‘Recusals register not comprehensive enough’ ‘Openness & transparency do not contradict independence of the judiciary’</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">A report on the Justice Committee’s consideration of the Judicial Interests Register Petition in February 2019 – where evidence in relation to Scottish judges swearing dual judicial oaths and working for Human Rights abusing Gulf States dictatorships - can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/02/judicial-register-msps-urged-to-take.html"><u><b>JUDICIAL REGISTER - MSPs urged to take forward SEVEN year petition to create a Register of Judges’ Interests as Holyrood Justice Committee handed evidence of Scottish Judges serving in Gulf states regimes known to abuse Human Rights</b></u></a></p><p align="justify"><b>UNCONVINCING TOP SCOTS JUDGES WHO REFUSED TO BE TRANSPARENT:</b></p><p align="justify">Scotland’s most recent two top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for Scotland’s judiciary</p><p align="justify">Former Lord President Brian Gill, and current Lord President Lord Carloway consistently argued the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by judges negate any requirement for further transparency in the judiciary.</p><p align="justify">However, both the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee – who investigated the judicial interests petition for six years, and the Justice Committee – who have considered the petition since 2018, found the judiciary’s arguments against transparency to be “unconvincing”.</p><p align="justify">Video footage and a full report on <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><b><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></b></a> giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament in November 2015 can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/judge-another-day-sparks-fly-as-top.html"><b><u>JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth & interests - Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill’s evidence as “passive aggression”</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">Video footage and a full report on <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><b><u>Lord Carloway</u></b></a> (Colin Sutherland) giving widely criticised evidence to the Scottish Parliament in July 2017 can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/06/register-to-judge-lord-carloway.html"><b><u>REGISTER TO JUDGE: Lord Carloway criticised after he blasts Parliament probe on judicial transparency - Top judge says register of judges’ interests should only be created if judiciary discover scandal or corruption within their own ranks</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">Earlier reports of how the Justice Committee handled Petition PE1458, and evidence which emerged in relation to the Judicial Office and Court Service instructing Justices of the Peace and judges to falsely not record recusals, can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/injustice-of-peace-judge-admits.html"><b><u>INJUSTICE OF THE PEACE: Judge admits Scottish Courts concealed conflict of interest recusals - Justices of the Peace were told by Court staff any cases where JP judges decided to step down from court hearings - would NOT be recorded in official register of judicial recusals</u></b></a></p><p align="justify"><b>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 : </b><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><b>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</b></u></a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com167tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-8625807231469933582021-05-19T18:04:00.003+01:002021-05-19T18:04:41.479+01:00LAW, & LAWYERS: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal FIVE cases of sexual offence allegations against lawyers & advocates – clients & courts go uninformed, regulator ‘does not record’ crimes, or consistently record if criminal complaints are made to Police Scotland or Crown Office<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/154IXYpXvGjsDJyd_cMspbygbDD7re_Ko/" title="SLCC COPFS PoliceScotland FOI responses related to criminal cases solicitors advocates"><img align="left" height="514" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/vx4-DotCrmZ0NTiYnPfShFhFRh-lBwrlaY0JM0fl3cff5KcRosc5K0HKUL1940h3vsbXc2kJw_tbk8yoLNeb2XfR_Z7hWxgERLJ1sMa9p65sk5izIYFRY3J5coER4P9BLLmHJ8h7OA=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Legal regulator reveals sexual offence cases.</i> <b>SCOTLAND’S</b> ‘independent’ legal services regulator – the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/"><b><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></b></a> (SLCC) - has revealed it received at least five cases containing allegations of a sexual nature against members of the legal profession since 2017.</p><p align="justify">In response to a media investigation of allegations of serious sexual assault and related offences alleged to be committed by solicitors & advocates – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission disclosed the information in response to a series of Freedom of Information requests for relevant data from 2017 to 2021.</p><p align="justify">In one of three FOI responses, the legal regulator revealed: “<b>Five cases containing an allegation of a sexual nature have been made to the SLCC within the time period specified”</b></p><p align="justify">However, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission went on to state their response came with a caveat - in that the regulator’s search may not have captured all allegations of a sexual offence nature made against solicitors & advocates</p><p align="justify">The SLCC’s Information Officer stated: <b>“I would reiterate that the SLCC cannot determine what criminal behaviour is and therefore this figure relates to allegations of a sexual nature and we make no comment on whether they would amount to a crime. These figures are subject to a caveat that the SLCC does not record if a crime has been committed or alleged in a recordable format, therefore the above represents a search within the summary of complaint and may not capture all allegations made.”</b></p><p align="justify">The SLCC further confirmed four cases were referred to the relevant professional bodies for investigation by the SLCC.</p><p align="justify">However – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission went on to admit the regulator does not hold a record of reporting any matters directly to Police Scotland or the Crown Office.</p><p align="justify">The SLCC stated: <b>“The SLCC does not consistently record if a complaint has also been made to Police Scotland or the Crown Office, however it may be referred to by the complainer at any point. It is entirely for the complainer if they decide to inform the SLCC that they have reported the matter to any other agencies. In respect of the cases identified above, the SlCc was made aware that two of the cases were reported to another agency.”</b></p><p align="justify">The SLCC were asked for information in the following questions using Freedom of Information legislation to obtain responses:</p><p align="justify">1. allegations of, complaints of - and evidence provided to the SLCC of; sexual offences including alleged rape, abuse and assault - committed by solicitors and Advocates/QCs</p><p align="justify">and information contained in;</p><p align="justify">2. How many such cases have been reported to the SLCC since January 2017 to the date of this FOI request</p><p align="justify">3. How many such cases have included evidence material handed to the SLCC since January 2017 to the date of this FOI request</p><p align="justify">4. How many of these cases resulted in the SLCC reporting matters to - Police Scotland and Crown Office and Faculty of Advocates & Law Society of Scotland</p><p align="justify">How many of these cases were the SLCC aware or had been made aware these cases had also been reported to - Police Scotland and/or Crown Office, and the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland</p><p align="justify"><b><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/154IXYpXvGjsDJyd_cMspbygbDD7re_Ko/" title="SLCC COPFS PoliceScotland FOI responses re criminal cases solicitors advocates"><img align="left" height="381" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VjGFtAA8uIW-n9YY-U8gcYW5moAHFtIUG8Xm6m2ko0L67FhQEldnLfDz-ACfJe4xuq195T1rTPhzQmU-5zp5EoMTm_1iii7kIUubUzwiV2zsGs6oLonLZFtSxtd6JEhNHM1MePJ7eg=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="280" /></a>The SLCC Response:</b></p><p align="justify"><b>I confirm that the SLCC holds some of the information that you have requested and I have responded to each point in turn below. The SLCC endeavours to release as much information as possible. However, it has decided that some of the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the exemption(s) found in section(s) 25 (1) of FOISA. I have explained below the reasons for the application of the exemption(s).</b></p><p align="justify"><b>1. The SLCC procedure for dealing with allegations of a criminal nature are contained within the Policy and Procedure for the SLCC Complaints Process, s 3. 4. 28. I have included a link</b><a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/about-us/rules-policies-and-publications/policies/"><b> here</b></a><b>. The SLCC and RPOs are unable to consider an allegation of crime as such as outlined in the Manual, however we can consider if specific actions have breached the professional standards. If a member of the public is of the opinion that a criminal act has occurred, SLCC staff will advise them to contact the Police in the first instance.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>2. Five cases containing an allegation of a sexual nature have been made to the SLCC within the time period specified. I would reiterate that the SLCC cannot determine what criminal behaviour is and therefore this figure relates to allegations of a sexual nature and we make no comment on whether they would amount to a crime. These figures are subject to a caveat that the SLCC does not record if a crime has been committed or alleged in a recordable format, therefore the above represents a search within the summary of complaint and may not capture all allegations made.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>3. The SLCC is not able to state what would constitute evidence of a crime as it is not a criminal reporting agency. All complaints to the SLCC to be properly made must be submitted on a complaint form outlining what the complaint is and a complainer may provide whatever supporting evidence they feel appropriate. The SLCC is unable to answer this point for the above reason as we do not hold this information. As the SLCC holds no information in relation to the scope of your request, and in line with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, I am issuing you with a Section 17 (1) (b) Notice stating that the information is not held.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>4. Four cases were referred to the relevant professional bodies for investigation by the SLCC. Please note the SLCC does not hold a record of reporting any matters directly to Police Scotland or the Crown Office.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>5. The SLCC is the gateway for all legal complaints. The SLCC does not consistently record if a complaint has also been made to Police Scotland or the Crown Office, however it may be referred to by the complainer at any point. It is entirely for the complainer if they decide to inform the SLCC that they have reported the matter to any other agencies. In respect of the cases identified above, the SlCc was made aware that two of the cases were reported to another agency.</b></p><p align="justify">A second FOI request to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission sought information in response to the following questions:</p><p align="justify">1. I would like to make a Freedom of Information request for information contained in; the SLCC's procedures for how to deal with allegations of, complaints of - and evidence provided to the SLCC of; acts of a criminal nature which can be prosecuted under criminal law - committed by solicitors and Advocates/QCs and information contained in;</p><p align="justify">2. How many such cases have been reported to the SLCC since January 2017 to the date of this FOI request</p><p align="justify">3. How many such cases have included evidence material handed to the SLCC since January 2017 to the date of this FOI request</p><p align="justify">4. How many of these cases resulted in the SLCC reporting matters to - Police Scotland and Crown Office and Faculty of Advocates & Law Society of Scotland</p><p align="justify">5. How many of these cases were the SLCC aware or had been made aware these cases had also been reported to - Police Scotland and/or Crown Office, and the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland</p><p align="justify"><b>The SLCC Response</b></p><p align="justify"><b>I confirm that the SLCC holds some of the information that you have requested. The SLCC endeavours to release as much information as possible. However, it has decided that some of the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the exemption(s) found in section 25 (1) of FOISA. I have explained below the reasons for the application of the exemption(s).</b></p><p align="justify"><b>1. The SLCC procedure for dealing with allegations of a criminal nature are contained within the Policy and Procedure for the SLCC Complaints Process, s 3. 4. 28. I have included a link</b><a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/about-us/rules-policies-and-publications/policies/"><b> here</b></a><b>. The SLCC and RPOs are unable to consider an allegation of crime as such as outlined in the Manual, however we can consider if specific actions have breached the professional standards. If a member of the public is of the opinion that a criminal act has occurred, SLCC staff will advise them to contact the Police in the first instance.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>2. The SLCC cannot determine what criminal acts are, however I have identified 12 cases where the complainer has made reference to crimes allegedly being committed by practitioners. The SLCC can only look at complaints in terms of the Rules and Standards applicable to solicitors and advocates in Scotland and we do not consistently record where a crime has occurred or been alleged in a searchable manner. These figures are subject to a caveat that the SLCC does not record if a crime has been committed or alleged in a recordable format, therefore the above represents a search within the summary of complaint and may not capture all allegations made.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>3. The SLCC is not able to state what would constitute evidence of a crime as it is not a criminal reporting agency. All complaints to the SLCC to be properly made must be submitted on a complaint form outlining what the complaint is. The SLCC is unable answer this point for the above reason as we do not hold this information. As the SLCC holds no information in relation to the scope of your request, and in line with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, I am issuing you with a Section 17 (1) (b) Notice stating that the information is not held.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>4. With the caveat of point 2, 5 of the 12 cases were referred to the relevant professional bodies for investigation by the SLCC. Please note the SLCC does not hold a record of reporting any matters directly to Police Scotland or the Crown Office. As the SLCC holds no information in relation to the scope of your request, and in line with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, I am issuing you with a Section 17 (1) (b) Notice stating that the information is not held.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>5. The SLCC is the gateway for all legal complaints and therefore it is not possible to make a complaint directly to the Law Society of Scotland to the Faculty of Advocates.The SLCC does not consistently record if a complaint has also been made to Police Scotland or the Crown Office, however it may be referred to by the complainer at any point. It is entirely for the complainer if they decide to inform the SLCC that they have reported the matter to any other agencies.</b></p><p align="justify">Given the nature of several cases where serious allegations of sexuual offences committed by members of the legal profession have been reported to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and material has been provided to regulators to support such allegations – clients, and members of the public may have cause for concern - given the SLCC appears to operate a deliberate policy of failing to record such incidents or notify Police Scotland and the Crown Office.</p><p align="justify">Information which has been provided to regulators in relation to allegations of sexual offences committed by lawyers and advocates - is currently being investigated by journalists as part of a wide ranging probe of how the legal profession in Scotland deal with offences of a sexual nature committed by solicitors and advocates.</p><p align="justify">From documents and material handed to the media - which currently cannot be published for legal reasons – there are strong indications both solicitors and advocates have remained in practice, and continued to represent clients in civil hearings, and criminal trials and criminal appeals – while their clients, and accused persons - remained oblivious and uninformed as to to the nature of serious criminal allegations made against their legal representatives.</p><p align="justify">And, it appears from scrutiny of the material – which is also in the possession of MSPs – the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and the Faculty of Advocates – have all sat on cases where allegations of a specific nature of rape, and other serious sexual assault – alleged to have been committed by named individuals within the Scottish legal profession – have been reported by clients, and victims.</p><p align="justify">In some cases currently being investigated, it can be revealed allegations reported to legal regulators – alleging serious sexual offences committed by named legal practitioners, and potential sexual misconduct committed over lengthy periods of time relating to lawyers working in the courts, and also those working for the prosecution service - have provided credible testimony where legal representatives have broken legal professional privilege in discussing cases related to clients, and accused – and have in writing – actively sought to undermine criminal trials and appeals by breaking confidentiality rules on multiple occasions.</p><p align="justify">The <a href="https://www.judiciary.scot/" title="Judicial Office for Scotland"><b>Judicial Office for Scotland</b></a> were asked for comment on how the courts and judges should deal with legal representatives facing criminal allegations and investigations while the accused legal representative continues to represent clients, and appear in cases in court.</p><p align="justify">The media enquiry to the Judicial Office, submitted on 6 April 2021 is as follows:</p><p align="justify"><b>Can the Judicial Office, Lord President, and Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service provide detail on what your procedures are for dealing with cases where you have been informed or become aware of: criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) have been made against QCs, Advocates & solicitors who are representing clients in current court cases, criminal trials and appeals.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>and can the Judicial Office, Lord President, and Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service comment on what steps you take to inform & notify:</b></p><p align="justify"><b>current cases, criminal trials, appeals, presiding judges, clients & their legal representatives:</b></p><p align="justify"><b>that allegations of criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) against QCs, Advocates & solicitors have been notified to the Judicial Office, Lord President, and Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Additionally When allegations of criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) are made to, or notified to the Judicial Office, and Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service by any or all of the following -</b></p><p align="justify"><b>legal regulators such as the Faculty of Advocates, SLCC & Law Society of Scotland,PoliceScotland,Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service, a victim who has reported such allegations against QCs, Advocates, solicitors or law firms</b></p><p align="justify"><b>What steps are then taken by the Judicial Office, Lord President and Scottish Courts & Tribunals service to ensure;</b></p><p align="justify"><b>the allegations, Police investigations and any potential criminal charges do not impact on, or impede:</b></p><p align="justify"><b>current cases, criminal trials & appeals currently represented by or involving the QC, Advocate or solicitor who is/are subject of criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) ?</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Does the Judicial Office, Lord President, and Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service require an Advocate or QC or solicitor who is subject to criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) to notify: </b></p><p align="justify"><b>current clients, the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Service,Crown Office,Advocate's chambers, law firm, the Judicial Office, and Lord President,The Faculty of Advocates,Scottish Legal Complaints Commission,Law Society of Scotland,and any presiding judges in current cases or criminal trials - that they are subject to a report of allegations of a criminal nature (including allegations of serious sexual offences) ?</b></p><p align="justify">As of date of publication, no response has been received from the Judicial Office in relation to the above media enquiry.</p><p align="justify">A Freedom of Information request to <a href="http://www.scotland.police.uk" title="Police Scotland"><b>Police Scotland</b></a> for information in relation to allegations of sexual offences committed by members of Scotland’s legal profession - resulted in a blanket refusal to disclose any information – on the grounds of cost of recovery of such information.</p><p align="justify">Police Scotland were asked for information in relation to:</p><p align="justify">allegations of, complaints of - and evidence provided to Police Scotland of;</p><p align="justify">sexual offences including alleged rape, abuse and assault - committed by solicitors and Advocates/QCs</p><p align="justify">and information contained in the following (from January 2017 to the date of this FOI request);</p><p align="justify">How many such cases have been reported since January 2017 to the date of this FOI request</p><p align="justify">How many such cases have included evidence material handed to Police Scotland since January 2017 to the date of this FOI request</p><p align="justify">How many of these cases resulted in Police Scotland reporting matters to - Crown Office and legal regulators Faculty of Advocates & Law Society of Scotland</p><p align="justify">How many of these cases were Police Scotland aware or had been made aware - cases reported to Police Scotland had also been reported to - the Crown Office directly, and reported by complainants to the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland</p><p align="justify"><b>Police Scotland response:</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Having considered your request in terms of the Act, I regret to inform you that I am unable to provide you with the information you have requested, as it would prove too costly to do so within the context of the fee regulations.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>As you may be aware the current cost threshold is £600 and I estimate that it would cost well in excess of this amount to process your request.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>As such, and in terms of Section 16(4) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 where Section 12(1) of the Act (Excessive Cost of Compliance) has been applied, this represents a refusal notice for the information sought.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>By way of explanation, it is not mandatory to record an individual’s occupation. I can further advise you that even when an occupation is recorded the only way to access this information is via each crime report. There are no relevant markers which allow the automatic retrieval of this level of information. As such this is an exercise which I estimate would far exceed the cost limit set out in the Fees Regulations.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>You may be interested in our published crime statistics, which you can access via the following link: </b><a href="https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/our-performance"><b>https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/our-performance</b></a></p><p align="justify">A media enquiry was also sent to the <a href="https://www.copfs.gov.uk/" title="Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)"><b>Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)</b></a> on 29 March 2021 seeking a response</p><p align="justify">However, Andrew Coyle, Communications Manger for the Crown Office replied, stating <b>“As per previous discussions with the Media Relations team, I'm passing your enquiry on to our Freedom of Information team for a response.”</b></p><p align="justify">COPFS intentionally converted the media enquiry into Freedom of Information request – with the goal of delaying a response for as long as possible.</p><p align="justify">The media enquiry to the Crown Office read as follows:</p><p align="justify">1. Can the Crown Office provide detail on your procedures for dealing with criminal complaints involving allegations of serious sexual offences against members of Scotland's legal profession</p><p align="justify">2. And, what procedures exist (including procedures for averting conflict of interest) for investigating allegations of, or criminal complaints of serious sexual offences against members of Scotland's legal profession (including Advocates & solicitors) who have previously worked at the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service in any role including Advocate Depute</p><p align="justify">3. and can the Crown Office offer comment on how COPFS handle cases of, & allegations of criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) against Advocates and QCs who have previously worked for COPFS and represented COPFS in court.</p><p align="justify">4. If the Lord Advocate and Crown Office become aware an Advocate or QC (and also an Advocate or QC who currently works for, or has previously worked for the Crown Office in any capacity) has become the subject of criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences)</p><p align="justify">Is the Crown Office & Lord Advocate obliged, or required to notify: the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Service, the Judicial Office, and Lord President,The Faculty of Advocates, Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</p><p align="justify">H Hart of the Crown Office Information and Response Unit replied on query 1 only – stating the following:</p><p align="justify"><b>There is a general requirement that where an accused or potential accused is a member of the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) staff the case must be reported to the office of the Deputy Crown Agent for Serious Casework (DCA SC). The case will be referred to Crown Counsel for instructions. If an allegation relates to a serving Advocate Depute, then external counsel can be appointed to oversee the investigation.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Where police report a case in which a Justice, Sheriff or other officer of the court is involved as an accused or is implicated in unlawful activities, then a report is required to be made to the DCA SC. Decisions around case marking do not require to be referred to Crown Counsel, although there are occasions where Crown Counsel’s Instructions (CCIs) are sought if the case is deemed to merit it. Factors that would be considered would include the seriousness of the alleged offending.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>When a solicitor or trainee solicitor is reported to the Procurator Fiscal for criminal conduct, the DCA SCG will report the case to the Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland. Decisions around case marking do not need to be referred to Crown Counsel, although, again, there are occasions where CCIs are sought if the case is deemed to merit it. Factors that would be considered would include the seriousness of the alleged offending.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>If COPFS receives a case in which an Advocate is an accused, following receipt of CCIs, the DCA SCG would write to the Dean of Faculty to make them aware. Similarly, information could be shared with the Judicial Office and/or Lord President if the accused under investigation is a serving member of the judiciary.</b></p><p align="justify">Media enquiries to the Faculty of Advocates on the specific nature of how the Faculty handle complaints and allegations relating to serious sexual offences involving advocates and QCs, resulted in the Faculty providing a link to their own procedures.</p><p align="justify">The <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><b><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></b></a> were asked the following questions for media comment:</p><p align="justify">Can the Faculty of Advocates provide detail on what your procedures are for dealing with criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) against your members and can the Faculty of Advocates comment on how you handle cases of, & allegations of criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) against your members</p><p align="justify">Additionally When allegations of a criminal complaints (including allegations of serious sexual offences) are made to, or notified to the Faculty of Advocates by - legal regulators such as the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland,Police Scotland,Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service, or a victim who has reported such allegations against your members</p><p align="justify">Does the Faculty notify the Advocate or QC who is the subject of the allegations?, and what steps are then taken by the Faculty?</p><p align="justify">Also, if there are allegations of serious sexual offences made against members of the Faculty of Advocates -</p><p align="justify">Is the Advocate or QC who is subject to the allegations allowed to continue practising in cases related to sexual offences, and/or any other criminal cases?</p><p align="justify">Is the Advocate or QC who is subject to the allegations obliged to notify their clients that they are subject to a report of allegations of a criminal nature (including allegations of serious sexual offences) ?</p><p align="justify">Is the Advocate or QC who is subject to allegations of a criminal nature (including allegations of serious sexual offences) obliged, or required to notify: the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Service, Crown Office, the Judicial Office, and Lord President, Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Law Society of Scotland - that they are subject to a report of allegations of a criminal nature (including allegations of serious sexual offences)?</p><p align="justify">Fay McIsaac, Communications Officer for the Faculty of Advocates responded by email with the following short statement:</p><p align="justify"><b>“The procedure for lodging a complaint against an advocate and how we handle any complaint is outlined on our website here: </b><a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/making-a-complaint/how-to-make-a-complaint"><b>http://www.advocates.org.uk/making-a-complaint/how-to-make-a-complaint</b></a><b>”</b></p><p align="justify">Efforts to investigate the blanket silence by legal regulators, Police Scotland, Crown Office and the Judicial Office on cases involving allegations of a serious sexual nature and other allegations of serious criminal conduct committed by members of Scotland’s legal profession - has not hampered the ongoing media probe, which continues to review new material related to allegations of criminal offences against solicitors, advocates and QCs.</p><p align="justify">All responses to Freedom of Information requests from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service, and Police Scotland can be read here: <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/154IXYpXvGjsDJyd_cMspbygbDD7re_Ko/" title="SLCC COPFS PoliceScotland FOI responses related to criminal cases solicitors advocates"><b>SLCC COPFS PoliceScotland FOI responses related to criminal cases solicitors advocates</b></a></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-433864057956411942021-03-08T20:25:00.006+00:002023-07-03T12:30:37.464+01:00FIRST INTERESTS: Judge recommended for judicial role by Nicola Sturgeon - found First Minister committed three counts of professional misconduct - in Law Society probe of Ms Sturgeon's failure to provide legal service protections for domestic violence victim<p align="justify"><i><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/05/interests-intervene-first-minister.html" title="INTERESTS INTERVENE: First Minister joins top judge in bid to block register of judicial interests as MSPs consider recalling Legal Affairs Minister over dodgy evidence & private meeting with Lord Gill"><img align="left" height="600" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6Kk7IeYviItvvfFJvcz614WnNPMmNOo0kbHTn60dVC15B9tXqyMUp0iJGQ0DxXHrTjery0VoavOIkhC0rV13Eh0pOhajhC1B4ruzavHz8R5R2M5EDz1rkD_nFbMF9HqVLHxhmjnFNA=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="400" /></a>First Minister recommended judge role for lawyer - who found her guilty of misconduct.</i> <b>AN INVESTIGATION</b> has established Scotland’s First Minister – Nicola Sturgeon – was found to have committed <b>THREE</b> counts of professional misconduct by a solicitor she later recommended for the position of a Sheriff within Scotland’s powerful judiciary - currently led by Lord President - Lord Carloway.</p><p align="justify">The findings of professional misconduct by Sheriff Pasportnikov against the First Minister - were the result of a complaint lodged by a client to the law firm where Nicola Sturgeon worked at the time – Bell & Craig solicitors.</p><p align="justify">The complaint against Nicola Sturgeon involved the currently serving First Minister’s failure to provide adequate legal services to a victim of domestic violence.</p><p align="justify">And, the issues in relation to Ms Sturgeon’s failure to provide adequate legal services only came to light after Ms Sturgeon suddenly left the law firm = and the client was forced to go to another solicitor – who it was reported - discovered legal aid forms had not been sent to the Scottish Legal Aid Board – despite assurances the legal aid application had been submitted.</p><p align="justify">In response to the complaint – the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><b><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></b></a> appointed a case manager – a solicitor, and now Sheriff - Olga Pasportnikov - to investigate.</p><p align="justify">In a five-page report, dated Dec 1998, Olga Pasportnikov said: “The complaint in this case has been identified as professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor.” </p><p align="justify">Pasportnikov identified three counts ‘of professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor’.</p><p align="justify">They were: failing to raise interdict, misleading client about legal aid application & failing to properly consider her financial circumstances </p><p align="justify">Among ‘circumstances which have been ascertained during the course of the enquiry’ were the legal aid form had been completed and signed by the client and the client’s employers but not sent.</p><p align="justify">Despite the findings of Sheriff Pasportnikov, and her identification of multiple serious issues where she concluded Ms Sturgeon’s failure to provide competent legal services qualified as professional misconduct - the Law Society of Scotland concluded there should be no further action and Nicola Sturgeon left the legal profession.</p><p align="justify">It is important to note - the Law Society of Scotland cleared Nicola Sturgeon even after their case manager Ms Pasportnikov identified various breaches of professional misconduct by Nicola Sturgeon – and that Ms Sturgeon – who then 'stood down’ from the legal profession – to contest a seat for the Scottish National Party – then entered politics without an on the record finding of professional misconduct by the Law Society of Scotland.</p><p align="justify">Records show from announcements in the legal profession’s press, and Scottish Government news postings - <b>Announced on 31 July 2015 - Olga Pasportnikov was appointed by the Queen following a report to the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon - by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.</b></p><p align="justify">Ms Pasportnikov, a University of Dundee graduate, was admitted as a solicitor in 1991. She worked mainly in private practice before joining the Law Society of Scotland in 1998. She has been with the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service since 2003, and is also current convener of the Fife Young Carers Management Committee.</p><p align="justify">The First Minister has statutory responsibility for making recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen and is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making her recommendation.</p><p align="justify">The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland is an ‘independent’ advisory public body with the role of recommending individuals for appointment to judicial offices within the Board’s remit including judge of the Court of Session, chair of the Scottish Land Court, sheriff principal, sheriff, and summary sheriff.</p><p align="justify"><b>It has since come to light this story was filed with a Scottish newspaper for publication in June 2018 – after several other newspapers refused to publish the story.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>According to now deleted tweets from a former journalist which have now been widely published online – a story on the complaint regarding Nicola Sturgeon’s failure to provide adequate legal services to a victim of domestic violence, and the identification of several counts of professional misconduct against Ms Sturgeon by currently serving Sheriff Olga Pasportnikov - had support from one editor to be published – until a ‘Political editor’ at the same newspaper voted the story down.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The deleted tweet goes on to allege that some weeks later, the same newspaper which did not publish the story on Nicola Sturgeon - was leaked details of the harassment complaints against Alex Salmond and the investigation by<b> <a href="http://www.scotland.police.uk/"><b><u>Police Scotland</u></b></a> - which subsequently led to Mr Salmond being charged with 14 offences, including two counts of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault, and one of breach of the peace. </b></b></p><p align="justify"><b>Mr Salmond appeared in court on 21 November 2019 and entered a plea of "not guilty".</b></p><p align="justify"><b>At the subsequent trial, Mr Salmond was cleared by a jury trial - heard by Scotland's Lord Justice Clerk - Lady Dorrian.</b></p><p align="justify">The information came to light after Justice Committee Convener<b> Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative)</b> & former <b>Scottish Government Legal Affairs Minister Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party)</b> made a motivated and concerted effort to close down the same Judicial Interests Register petition which Nicola Sturgeon has opposed and sought to close - throughout her term as First Minister.</p><p align="justify">The Justice Committee hearing of 2 March 2021 can be viewed here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP99sIm9yB4" title="Register of Judges Interests Petition PE 1458 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee 2 March 2021"><b><u>Register of Judges Interests Petition PE 1458 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee 2 March 2021</u></b></a></p><p align="justify"><b>This is the same Judicial Interests Register petition the First Minister has tried to undermine and block since Ms Sturgeon became First Minister.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>If a Register of Judges’ Interests did become a requirement – Sheriff Pasportnikov who found Nicola Sturgeon guilty of professional misconduct may be forced to list that fact and other details of her service to the Law Society of Scotland.</b></p><p align="justify">On Wednesday 3 March 2021 - the Judicial Office for Scotland were asked the following questions:</p><p align="justify"><b>A currently serving Sheriff - Olga Pasportnikov - conducted an investigation of complaints lodged about Scotland's current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon while she was a solicitor at a law firm identified as Bell & Craig</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Ms Pasportnikov was, as the Judicial Office will be aware - a case manager for the Law Society of Scotland from September 1998 to March 2003</b></p><p align="justify"><b>In a five-page report released in December 1998, Olga Pasportnikov said: "The complaint in this case has been identified as professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor."</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Olga Pasportnikov found Ms Sturgeon guilty of 3 identifyable counts of professional misconduct:</b></p><p align="justify"><b>They were:
failing to raise interdict as instructed,
misleading client about legal aid application,
failing to properly consider the client's financial circumstances</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Events then saw the Law Society clear Ms Sturgeon, who quickly left the legal profession.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Noting Ms Pasportnikov currently declares her time at the Law Society of Scotland on her Linkedin page as a "case manager" - along with other career attributes including a term at the Crown Office as a Procurator Fiscal Depute, and her current role as a serving Sheriff </b></p><p align="justify"><b>- does Sheriff Pasportnikov have any comment onthe following questions: </b></p><p align="justify"><b>why she does not list her role of investigating complaints against solicitors?</b></p><p align="justify"><b>why she found Ms Sturgeon guilty of 3 identifyable issues of professional misconduct?</b></p><p align="justify"><b>why no regulatory punishment took place upon Sheriff Pasportnikov's findings?</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Does the Judicial Office have any comment on the above events and any comment on the impact of a currently serving Sheriff with a long history as a solicitor, prosecutor and now a judge - having found Scotland's current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon guilty of three counts of professional misconduct to which no sanction was ever applied by legal regulators and never declared in any register of interests?</b></p><p align="justify">On Friday 5 March 2021 - the Judicial Office for Scotland (JOFS) issued a statement to the media.</p><p align="justify">The Judicial Office claimed Sheriff Pasportnikov had forgotten she had investigated a complaint case involving the current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon,</p><p align="justify">A spokesperson for the Judicial Office said:</p><p align="justify"><b>“The Sheriff was one of a number of case managers working on the Law Society for Scotland’s Client Relations Team from 1998 – 2003. Her role was limited to that of gathering and categorising information as a first step in a much longer process. She did not produce any reports or make any findings. Covering a volume of work, she would not remember specific names in routine cases, including where a solicitor was cleared entirely.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“In Scotland, sheriffs are appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the First Minister, who makes their recommendation on the basis of a report by the </b><a href="https://www.judicialappointments.scot/"><b>Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland (JABS).</b></a><b> The First Minister has statutory responsibility for making recommendations to Her Majesty and is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making their recommendation.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“JABS is an independent advisory public body with the role of recommending individuals for appointment to judicial offices within the Board’s remit including judge of the Court of Session, chair of the Scottish Land Court, sheriff principal, sheriff, and summary sheriff.”</b></p><p align="justify">A response to the Judicial Office statement was submitted - querying the JOFS claim, and confirming - that material now in the public domain - does confirm Sheriff Pasportnikov did in-fact – investigatge a complaint against Nicola Sturgeon and that Sheriff Pasportnikov identified several breaches of professional misconduct by Ms Sturgeon.</p><p align="justify"><b>No reply to the additional query has been received, nor has the Judicial Office disputed the terms of questions & information supplied to JOFS staff.</b></p><p align="justify">It would be difficult to believe a case relevant to the current First Minister was forgotten about by the investigating reporter - Sheriff Pasportnikov - as there is obviously only one Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland - the current First Minister.</p><p align="justify">Earlier today, a legal expert assessed the material now in the public domain and deleted tweets from a former journalist which names a Scottish newspaper and a ‘spiked’ story on Ms Sturgeon.</p><p align="justify">The legal expert said he hoped the <a href="https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/111052.aspx" title="Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints"><b>Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints</b></a> would now scrutinise the information available and ask further questions of the First Minister.</p><p align="justify">He said: <b>“In view of suggestions on social media platforms - a former journalist held this information for a number of years, and approached several newspapers seemingly without success - people may reasonably expect questions to be asked of why this story has not come to light until now and the method of travel to the media.”</b></p><p align="justify">He added: <b>“Was there motive in withholding this story involving Scotland’s First Minister, either by a newspaper, a political party or a journalist? I am curious to find out. However, I am also curious as to why no one with the information offered the material in evidence to the long running Scottish Parliament investigation of issues involving Alex Salmond.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“Given the First Minister responded to questions on what appear to be references to the investigation of Ms Sturgeon and a newspaper deal - MSPs should ask rigorous questions of anyone involved in this matter given the situation we face where information now exists alleging the Sheriff complaint probe of Scotland’s First Minister was allegedly swapped for a story on harassment complaints and a Police investigation of Alex Salmond in the summer of 2018”</b></p><p align="justify">In discussions late this afternoon – others have come forward to confirm they were aware of this story for some time, but were unable to obtain any answers from Ms Sturgeon on these events.</p><p align="justify"><b>JUDICIAL INTERESTS REGISTER - would have required declaration of Sheriff’s role in FM Complaint:</b></p><p align="justify">It has been previously reported Nicola Sturgeon personally intervened to block the Judicial Register petition - during a long running investigation by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee</p><p align="justify">The surprise intervention by the First Minister in the bid to bring transparency to Scotland’s secretive judges came to light after a failed attempt by her then Legal Affairs Minister – Paul Wheelhouse – to overturn the petition with claims that ‘gangsters’ could misuse information in a judges register.</p><p align="justify">In the letter – dated 30 March 2015 - Nicola Sturgeon also revealed Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse had a secret meeting in February 2015 with Lord Gill to discuss the petition and the Judiciary & Scottish Government’s concerted opposition to creating the Judicial Register.</p><p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7amZOMGRucHlRdDQ"><img align="left" height="305" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-MyVYDwr-itM/VVCXj8JQBDI/AAAAAAAABqM/kI8shqyNzQE/s400/First%2520Minister%2520letter%2520re%2520PE1458%2520and%2520others.jpg" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="220" /></a>Writing in the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7amZOMGRucHlRdDQ"><b><u>letter to John Pentland MSP</u></b></a>, Convener of the Public Petitions Committee, the First Minister said: <b>“This petition calls on the Scottish Government to create a Register of Interests for the Judiciary. The Scottish Government considers that such a register of judicial interests is not necessary and that the existing safeguards - the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the system for complaints against the judiciary - are sufficient. These safeguards, together with the register of judicial recusals, are sufficient to protect individuals from judicial bias.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Further to the evidence that the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Mr Wheelhouse, gave to the Committee on 9 December 2014, he discussed this petition when he met the Lord President in February. The Minister acknowledged the Lord President's concerns about the introduction of a register of judicial interests. The breadth of such a register would make it virtually unworkable. It would need to cover not only financial interests, but also memberships of groups and associations and familial and social relationships. Even so, such a register might not capture relevant issues that could arise.” </b></p><p align="justify"><b>“The position of the judiciary is different from that of MSPs and others who hold public office. The judiciary cannot publicly defend themselves. The Lord President has cautioned that such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. In addition, there is currently no evidence that judges who should have recused themselves from cases have not done so.”</b></p><p align="justify">The Sunday Herald newspaper reported on First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s intervention on behalf of the judiciary and her opposition to the judicial transparency proposal:</p><p align="justify"><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/f3ad65YjYjep3ugeMBTp3CfMiD_aSYBeIqz0YCVs990?feat=embedwebsite"><img align="left" height="161" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rKWqcwM_OQY/VWCEUCwwe8I/AAAAAAAAACU/IeRxqFBwJmM/s400/First%252520Minister%252520rejects%252520calls%252520for%252520a%252520register%252520of%252520interests%252520for%252520judges%252520-%252520Sunday%252520Herald%25252010%252520May%2525202015.jpg" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="300" /></a><a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/first-minister-rejects-call-for-register-of-judges-interests.125549499"><b><u>First Minister rejects call for register of judges' interests</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">Paul Hutcheon Investigations Editor Sunday 10 May 2015</p><p align="justify"><b>NICOLA Sturgeon has rejected calls for judges to declare details of their finances in a register of interest. The First Minister said the proposal, lodged by justice campaigner Peter Cherbi, was "not necessary" and claimed existing rules were "sufficient".</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee is in the middle of a long-term probe into whether judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace should be brought into line with other senior public sector figures.<br />MSPs, MPs, councillors and board members of public bodies are all required to register their outside financial interests.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>A petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament in 2012 called for members of the judiciary to declare their "pecuniary" interests, which would include shareholdings, directorships and membership of external bodies.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Judicial officer holders can recuse - or remove - themselves if a conflict of interest arises during a case, but nothing more is required.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The plan was met with hostility by the country's top judge, Lord Gill, who repeatedly snubbed calls by the committee to give oral evidence. He relied on written testimony to blast a proposal he said could compromise judges' privacy by encouraging "aggressive media or hostile individuals".</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Lord Gill concluded: "The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary."</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The issue has now reached the desk of the First Minister, who has backed Lord Gill.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>In a letter to John Pentland MSP, the Committee convener, she supported the status quo: "The Scottish Government considers that such a register of judicial interests is not necessary and that the existing safeguards - the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the system for complaints against the judiciary - are sufficient.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>"These safeguards, together with the register of judicial recusals, are sufficient to protect individuals from judicial bias."</b></p><p align="justify"><b>She also repeated Lord Gill's fear about "aggressive media" and noted: "The position of the judiciary is different from that of MSPs and others who hold public office. The judiciary cannot publicly defend themselves."</b></p><p align="justify"><b>The First Minister also revealed that Paul Wheelhouse, her Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, met Lord Gill in December to discuss the petition.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>In his evidence to the Committee, Wheelhouse said he feared a register could leave judges open to "threats or intimidation", adding that colleagues at an environment quango had already been threatened by organised criminals. However, emails between the Government and Scottish Environment Protection Agency revealed no link to organised crime.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Cherbi said: "I am surprised Nicola Sturgeon supports a judicial ban on transparency just because judges have been asked to declare their substantial interests. "We are always told if you have got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. What are the judges hiding and what do they fear? "There cannot be one set of rules for judges and another for everyone else. A register of interests will enhance public trust in the justice system, not detract from it."</b></p><p align="justify"><b>A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The Scottish Government considers that a specific register of interests is not needed. Existing safeguards, including the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Interests and the system of complaints against the judiciary, are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland."</b></p><p align="justify">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 :<b> </b><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><b>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</b></u></a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com56tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-42437692963654451962020-12-28T16:00:00.008+00:002020-12-28T19:39:58.278+00:00LOOKING AFTER LAWYERS: Scotland’s THIRD attempt in 20 YEARS at reforming complaints against lawyers is doomed to fail at the hands of vested interests - but there is a Scottish Government consultation you can all participate in - for purposes of PR & distraction politics<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/02/look-after-lawyers-law-society.html" title="LOOK AFTER THE LAWYERS: Law Society proposals to pro-lawyer legal review seek to reclaim control of regulation & complaints, appoint ‘window dressing’ ombudsman & criminalise ‘misuse’ of the term “lawyer”"><img align="left" height="424" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/lH5Fd_O2yd_jVzX9nxyblMjcrP987Rr9uNA0RGJZoZU6dvyXkJjcDkYVwWk1DNVLgoCvZebZgJEImG9h2ySg4U4Z1qe29XJPZDsNkCz83KHglrrfQRUD48X61KqulIijGHJCJnrUwA=w1920-h1080" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Clients, their lawyers, & complaints reform.</i> <b>IN THE</b> past <b>TWENTY</b> years since the Scottish Parliament came into being, there have been two earlier attempts at creating a transparent, independent body to investigate complaints against the legal profession.</p><p align="justify">As many readers will be well aware, both previous attempts at reforming self regulation of lawyers in Scotland failed miserably - after two Justice Committee probes of how the legal profession regulates itself. </p><p align="justify">It was inevitable, that the combined vested interests of Scotland’s legal profession – the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><b><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></b></a>, <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><b><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></b></a>, along with all their sub-groups, backed up by the judiciary - lobbied to remain in charge of looking after their own. </p><p align="justify">And, Scotland’s legal profession did exactly that – looked after their own.</p><p align="justify">Headline after headline, investigation after investigation, and even when BBC Scotland deigned to come along in 2014 with “Lawyers Behaving Badly” - albeit using fantastical cases resembling dubious, ever altering cave paintings carved in fossilised stone from the Jurassic age to put their point across - about dodgy legal regulators looking after their own rogue lawyers – nothing changed.</p><p align="justify">Yes, it is true – the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/"><b><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></b></a> (SLCC) came along in 2008 – as a response to an ‘extensive’ probe by the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee in 2006 of complaints against lawyers and how the Law Society of Scotland ‘handled’ clients & consumers who complained against the legal profession - to the point of destruction.</p><p align="justify">However, twelve years on from the creation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, anyone with a serious & geniune complaint who has used it, knows the SLCC as more of a Cayman Islands front company for lawyers to look after their own, rather than the allegedly ‘independent’ SLCC was created and put in place by civil servants who had little clue or knowledge what they were actually doing.</p><p align="justify">Sadly, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission spent the last twelve years mirroring the work previously done by the Law Society of Scotland where lawyers were protected time & again, while clients were often targeted by the legal profession after complaints had been submitted to the ‘independent’ SLCC.</p><p align="justify">In any case, there is now a third attempt at reforming complaints against lawyers, and you can participate in it.</p><p align="justify">On 23 December 2020, the Scottish Government <a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/complaints-against-lawyers-legal-firms-scotland-consultation/" title="published the latest consultation on reforming complaints about the legal profession"><b>published the latest consultation on reforming complaints about the legal profession</b></a> - along with a questionnaire for those who like that sort of thing to fill out, and send back in the forlorn hope your views and experiences will be taken into account.</p><p align="justify">You can download the Scottish Government consultation documents here: <a href="https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/consultation-paper/2020/12/complaints-against-lawyers-legal-firms-scotland-consultation/documents/scottish-government-consultation-amendments-legal-complaints/scottish-government-consultation-amendments-legal-complaints/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-government-consultation-amendments-legal-complaints.pdf"><b>Scottish Government Consultation: Amendments to Legal Complaints</b></a> (pdf) and here <a href="https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/consultation-paper/2020/12/complaints-against-lawyers-legal-firms-scotland-consultation/documents/respondent-information-form-questionnaire/respondent-information-form-questionnaire/govscot%3Adocument/respondent-information-form-questionnaire.docx"><b>Respondent Information Form and Questionnaire</b></a> (docx)</p><p align="justify">The details are as follows:</p><p align="justify">Complaints against lawyers and legal firms in Scotland: consultation</p><p align="justify">Published: 23 Dec 2020</p><p align="justify">This consultation sets out proposals and seeks views on potential improvements to the legal complaints system, within the current legislative framework of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.</p><p align="justify">The handling of complaints is one of the most important parts of any regulatory system. It is crucial that users of legal services have access to an efficient, effective and fair process for dealing with their complaint. Equally, legal professionals rely on a complaints system which is efficient, effective and can resolve complaints in an impartial manner.</p><p align="justify">There is a compelling case for the consideration of amendments to the current regulatory framework for dealing with complaints that would seek to improve the way in which the legal services complaints system operates.</p><p align="justify">The objectives behind these proposals</p><p align="justify">This Consultation seeks views on whether these proposals would meet the objectives of:</p><p align="justify">1. Reducing the overall time taken to deal with complaints.</p><p align="justify">2. Achieving greater proportionality in the complaints system, allowing the SLCC to identify earlier in the process which issues are more likely to require investigation.</p><p align="justify">3. Reducing the cost of the complaints system.</p><p align="justify">4. Continuing to ensure an independent and fair system.</p><p align="justify">5. Providing greater flexibility in the system.</p><p align="justify">The changes proposed in this paper seek to build on previous changes made in 2014<a href="$" name="_ftnref1_8597">[1]</a> and are based on 10 years’ working knowledge of the current legislation and the experience of the current system.</p><p align="justify">The current proposals in this Consultation on which views are sought, and which are intended to have a cumulative effect in meeting the objectives, fall into three categories:</p><p align="justify">1. Changes to the process of complaint categorisation;</p><p align="justify">2. Changes to the process of complaint investigation, reporting, determination and conclusion of cases; and</p><p align="justify">3. Changes to the rules for fee rebates.</p><p align="justify">The proposed changes listed at 1 and 3 can be viewed as standalone amendments but those listed at 2 should be viewed as a package of amendments in order to gain the maximum impact from the changes.</p><p align="justify">The proposals - a summary </p><p align="justify">The aim of the proposals detailed below is to explore options to create a more flexible and proportionate complaints system, that will be more efficient yet just as effective, if not more so. Views on whether these proposals address stated frustrations of those who have been involved in the complaints system, who often perceive it to be time consuming and overly complex, are also sought in response to this consultation.</p><p align="justify">Why is this important?</p><p align="justify">Those who make or are subject to complaints in respect of legal services have indicated that they would wish for a speedy, robust and proportionate response to each complaint. While all complaints are equally important, there is a recognition that not all complaints are the same. Those who manage the complaints process, as well as many of those who have experienced it, have stated that they consider the current statutory framework insufficiently flexible to enable the process to be adapted to the specific subject of the complaint in each individual case.</p><p align="justify">While a one-size-fits-all-approach provides consistency in the application of the complaints process, there is an argument that this does not always lead to an efficient system, with the result in the current system that the end of the complaints process can often be some time away from the time of the original incident that led to the complaint. This can be unsatisfactory for all of those involved in the process. These proposals are intended to reduce this time period and improve efficiency while continuing to maintain a robust and fair system.</p><p align="justify">Costs</p><p align="justify">The cost of the legal services complaints process administered by the SLCC is met by way of levies on the legal profession. These take the form of an annual general levy paid by all legal services providers<a href="$-0" name="_ftnref1_7790">[1]</a> as well as a separate complaints levy<a href="$-1" name="_ftnref2_7790">[2]</a> which is payable only by those legal professionals who are subject to a complaint which is upheld.</p><p align="justify">Should the proposals set out in this Consultation be taken forward then they will likely take time to be fully implemented. There is also likely to be a cost implication for implementation. Depending on the range of amendments ultimately decided to be taken forward, implementation in year one is likely to have associated costs in terms of changing rules, process and IT systems. These costs will be borne by the SLCC and it is not presently expected that these will require an increase in funding to either of the above levies. However, in the first full year of operation, and likely after set-up costs are offset, the proposed changes in this Consultation could lead to longer term savings.</p><p align="justify">A. About this Consultation</p><p align="justify">The objective of this consultation paper is to offer an opportunity for targeted views to be gathered on the technicalities of making specific changes to the legal complaints system in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">The main proposals relate to possible changes to the categorisation of complaints to introduce hybrid-issue complaints as well as changes to the processes of assessment, investigation, reporting, determination and conclusion of complaints. Possible changes to the rules on fee rebates are also proposed.</p><p align="justify">Responding to this consultation</p><p align="justify"><b>The Scottish Government are inviting responses to this consultation by 20 February 2021.</b></p><p align="justify">Please respond to this consultation using the Scottish Government’s consultation hub, Citizen Space <a href="http://consult.gov.scot/">(<b>http://consult.gov.scot</b>)</a>. Access and respond to this consultation online at <b><a href="https://consult.gov.scot/iustice/amendments-to-legal-complaints/">https://consult.gov.scot/iustice/amendments-to-legal-complaints/</a></b>. You can save and return to your responses while the consultation is still open. Please ensure that consultation responses are submitted before the closing date of 20 February 2021.</p><p align="justify">If you are unable to respond using our consultation hub, please complete the Respondent Information Form to:</p><p align="justify">Access to Justice Unit Scottish Government Justice Directorate St Andrew’s House Edinburgh EH13DG</p><p align="justify">Or by email to:<b><a href="mailto:LegalServicesRegulationReform@gov.scot"> LegalServicesRegulationReform@gov.scot</a></b></p><p align="justify">An earlier report on the Esther Roberton review, and how it began, is here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/02/look-after-lawyers-law-society.html"><b>LOOK AFTER THE LAWYERS: Law Society proposals to pro-lawyer legal review seek to reclaim control of regulation & complaints, appoint ‘window dressing’ ombudsman & criminalise ‘misuse’ of the term “lawyer”</b></a></p><p align="justify"><br /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com146tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-53251903965631315142020-10-01T16:29:00.007+01:002020-10-01T16:35:29.002+01:00BANKRUPTCY PROBE: Creditors & law firms in judicial conflict case linked to top judge - were excluded from sequestration by Trustee handed role by law firm linked to bust £400M Heather Capital Hedge Fund & Court of Session illegal fee deal judgement<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/06/fire-sale-aib-face-sequestration-probe.html" title="FIRE SALE: AIB face sequestration probe as files reveal Trustee was paid £20K by vulture fund to sell home & firebombed farm five days after targeted attack on couple at centre of land case linked to top Scots judges, an ex-Sheriff, an asbestos dumping building company & law firm Levy and Mcrae"><img align="left" height="495" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1Od6Q_kCdO4P-CTjjaoA1IkRJ0MhBc5IVB1I-bVWISV-FSMMaqzTDfK7kc5sm-_r9-upGN3AR0XA-JWBw3Wju7J1EdWDJLm_24xpCtdxMmGEvxD-PnmGzMrF14dncV0y8yrLAyptgg" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>QC branded Levy & Mcrae 'untrustworthy'</i> <i>in £6m case.</i> <b>A LAW FIRM </b>branded "untrustworthy" by a senior QC, and which once stood accused of transferring millions linked to the collapsed £400m Heather Capital Hedge Fund - is now at the centre of a case linked to judicial conflicts of interest, and the resolution of two remaining issues in a controversial sequestration linked to Scotland’s top judge.</p><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><b><u>Levy & Mcrae</u></b></a> - the Glasgow based law firm who were recently found to have constructed an illegal fee agreement along with Advocate Jonathan Brown - in a case involving A&E Investments & businessman Robert Kidd - are now accused of appointing a trustee - <b></b><a href="https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/our-people/ken-pattullo"><b><u>Kenneth Pattullo</u></b></a> of insolvancy practitioners <a href="http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com"><b><u>Begbies Traynor</u></b></a> - who hindered and excluded creditors attempts to secure consideration of legitimate debts including legal fees & legal funding of Mr Nolan’s case.</p><p align="justify">Files now handed to the ongoing media investigation - reveal that two remaining issues of the long running Nolan v Advance case - relate to the deliberate exclusion of creditors in the sequestrations of Mr Nolan and his partner - after their £6m action against Advance Construction - heard by Lord Woolman in the Court of Session - scored a victory on principle - but lost out on legal expenses.</p><p align="justify">The documents - released by the Accountant in Bankruptcy - reveal creditors - including solicitors who provided legal services, and the providers of significant legal funding which enabled Mr Nolan to go into the Court of Session and secure the win against Advance Construction - still await a consideration of sums due to them from the sequestrations.</p><p align="justify">However, further enquiries and responses from the Accountant in Bankruptcy now indicate the Trustee Kenneth Pattullo - who was directly appointed by Levy and Mcrae at Hamilton Sheriff Court in the sequestrations of both Mr Nolan and his partner - did not take account of either of the significant debts – which comprise most of Mr Nolan’s legal fees and legal expenses.</p><p align="justify">Instead – records show that Mr Pattullo and others at Begbies Traynor – did not reply to enquiries from legitimate creditors and solicitors - and focused on selling off a portfolio of properties including substantial plots of land in Wishaw, and a valuable farm - to pay Mr Pattullo’s own fees, and an offshore vulture fund known as Promontoria – which bought additional debt incurred by Mr Nolan and his partner from the secured lender – The Clydesdale Bank.</p><p align="justify">In a response to a request for review - Alex Reid of the AIB commented <b>"Representation has been received highlighting that neither Mr Nolan nor his solicitor [redacted] received notification of any meeting of creditors. In accordance with Section 21A of the Act the trustee must give notice to every creditor known to him, at the time, whether or not they intend to hold a creditor meeting..."</b></p><p align="justify">However, it can be revealed the AIB have previously been presented with copies of confidential emails from law firms to Mr Pattullo’s office - showing multiple requests by lawyers to contact Begbies Traynor to establish communication and a consideration of positions regarding legal fees, and legal funding provided to Mr Nolan for his court case.</p><p align="justify">The new evidence raises questions of why Begbies Traynor did not acknowledge creditors attempts to communicate with the Trustee while there are multiple references within the released files to legal fees geneerated by Levy & Mcrae for their client - Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.</p><p align="justify">The files also slow some Edinburgh based law firms who did act on behalf of Mr Nolan were included in the sequestration - while other law firms, creditors and providers of legal funding do not appear.</p><p align="justify">With over 1000 documents released by the AIB currently being studied - it can now be reported that the two remaining creditors have now secured significant backing to present their case for consideration of debts and repayment to the Accountant in Bankruptcy – who are expected to remain involved in this process for some time.</p><p align="justify">Within the sequestration files released by the Accountant in Bankruptcy, legal fees for Advance Construction appear to amount to around £212K – which is in the form of legal fees the company are alleged to have paid Levy & Mcrae, and Gavin Walker & Roddy Dunlop QC.</p><p align="justify">However – legal sources close to the case have raised questions over the ‘small’ sum of £212K - given the length of the case and lawyers who represented Advance - such as Peter Watson, Jamie Robb and Ewen Campbell, with the addition of Gavin Walker QC and Roddy Dunlop - the current Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.</p><p align="justify">To compare – the legal fees of around £212K used by Advance Construction to sequestrate both Mr Nolan and his partner are much less than Mr Nolan's legal costs – which are estimated at up to £500,000.</p><p align="justify">Mr Nolan’s legal fees including include hiring of construction site plant & equipment, use of multiple law firms including Biggart Baillie, Tods Murray, and <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Campbell%20QC"><b><u>John Campbell QC</u></b></a>, advocate Craig Murray, solicitor Gavin McPhail and additional inspection and survey reports on contaminated material which culminated in Advance Construction being forced to admit in court they had dumped the contaminated material illegally on Mr Nolan’s land.</p><p align="justify">And, while it is a matter of record the pursuer - Mr Nolan - won his action against Advance Construction in the Court of Session - his own QC - John Campbell - inexplicably withdrew his own client's claim for legal expenses - which would have seen most or all of the legal fees and legal funding paid by the defenders had Mr Campbell returned to court for the expenses hearing.</p><p align="justify">A law accountant who has studied the case is of the view that had Mr Nolan’s counsel - John Campbell QC made the usual court claim for legal expenses against Advance Construction – Lord Woolman or any judge hearing the exepnses claim would have granted much of Mr Nolan’s legal expenses along with his victory in the case against the defenders – Advance Construction.</p><p align="justify">However, Mr Campbell did not follow through with instructions to appear at an expenses hearing and lodge a full claim for Mr Nolan’s legal expenses.</p><p align="justify">Mr Campbell has not offered any explanation for his refusal to lodge an expenses claim for his client’s winning case, and instead was found to have withdrew much of the claim without any instruction to do so.</p><p align="justify">A full report on how John Campbell QC reduced his own client’s financial claim almost to zero and without any instruction or consultation - can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/05/cashback-qc-legal-regulators-files.html"><b><u>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</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">A further investigation of John Campbell’s involvement in the case revealed the senior QC signed a no-win-no-fee agreement with his client Mr Nolan – then went back on it’s terms after Campbell refused to appear for the expenses hearing and the case had concluded.</p><p align="justify">A full investigation of Campbell’s fee scam and the Faculty of Advocates role in concealing undeclared cash payments to Campbell is reported in further detail here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/04/cash-advocate-9k-consultations-75k.html"><b><u>CASH ADVOCATE: £9K consultations & £75K meetings - Edinburgh Quaich Project Charity QC Boss scammed clients on no-win-no-fee deal - Faculty of Advocates files reveal extent of Advocates cash-for-fees HMRC tax dodge scam</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">Ironically, during discussions with his clients - John Campbell himself described Levy and Mcrae as "untrustworthy" and </p><p align="justify">An earlier investigation revealed Trustee Kenneth Pattullo of Begbies Traynor was directly appointed by Levy and Mcrae at Hamilton Sheriff Court in the sequestrations of both Mr Nolan and his partner.</p><p align="justify">Documents previously published revealed Levy & Mcrae altered the appointment of the AIB in the sequestration of Mr Nolan’s partner to that of their own preferred choice – Mr Pattullo.</p><p align="justify">Now – fresh questions over the conduct of the Accountant in Bankruptcy have now been raised after documents revealed Levy & Mcrae requested the AIB become Trustee in the sequestration of Mr Nolan – in Jamuary 2015.</p><p align="justify">The letter and petition, published here: <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y3ratAge9jBgbK7NdV3ut3C8yPtmjk8L/" title="Petition to appoint AIB January 2015 Jamie Robb Levy Mcrae"><b>Petition to appoint AIB January 2015 Jamie Robb Levy Mcrae</b></a> reveals Jamie Robb of Levy & Mcrae asked the AIB to assume the position of Trustee in their sequestration of Mr Nolan in January 2015.</p><p align="justify">Records then show Levy & Mcrae went on to appoint Mr Pattullo in the same unusual manner in Mr Nolan’s sequestration – and the AIB did nothing in either case – despite having the power to intervene and call a meeting of all interested parties including debtors & creditors alike to find a way forward after the court’s alteration of an appointment where the court did not appear have the power to act.</p><p align="justify">A previous report published material which questioned the court’s improper use of powers to switch out Trustees in the sequestration of Mr Nolan and his partner from the Accoutant in Bankrutpcy to Mr Pattullo, here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/06/fire-sale-aib-face-sequestration-probe.html"><b><u>FIRE SALE: AIB face sequestration probe as files reveal Trustee was paid £20K by vulture fund to sell home & firebombed farm five days after targeted attack on couple at centre of land case linked to top Scots judges, an ex-Sheriff, an asbestos dumping building company & law firm Levy and Mcrae</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">And, an earlier investigation revealed Scotland’s top judge – <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><b><u>Lord Carloway</u></b></a> (Colin Sutherland) – deliberately concealed his own links to this case while he faced questions in the Scottish Parliament from MSP Alex Neil and members of the Public Petitions Committee, here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><b><u>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</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 is the same<b> </b>case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary – notably where <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><b><u>Lord Malcolm</u></b></a> (Colin Campbell QC) failed to disclose on multiple occasions - the fact Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campell - represented the defenders in the same court.</p><p align="justify">The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail here:<b> </b><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/03/conflict-of-interest-papers-lodged-at.html"><b><u>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</u></b></a>.</p><p align="justify"><b>LAW FIRM AT CENTRE OF ILLEGAL FEES & CONFLICT OF INTEREST CASE:</b></p><p align="justify">Earlier this year, Levy & Mcrae - the same law firm who masterminded the Advance Construction case in the Court of Session, and the resulting sequestrations of the pursuers in a case now linked to Scotland's top judge Lord Carloway - were found by Lord Doherty to have constructed an illegal fee agreement after a ruling by Lord Doherty.</p><p align="justify">Levy & McRae had billed their former client - businessman Robert Kidd the seven-figure sum after representing him in a successful damages claim against another firm of solicitors.</p><p align="justify">The £19 million settlement figure was paid to Levy & Mcrae - after the firm deducted it's legal fees which included £3million of “success fees” for winning the case.</p><p align="justify">Mr Kidd then launched a legal action against Levy & McRae, claiming it should not have charged him the success fees on top of its legal fees.</p><p align="justify">The case was heard by Lord Doherty - who later ruled the fees were “illegal and unenforceable”,</p><p align="justify">The judge said the fees breached a legal principle designed to prevent conflict of interest when a lawyer has a financial stake in the amount a client gets in compensation.</p><p align="justify">The £6million sum included a basic fee to Levy & McRae of £2.1million plus a success fee of £1.89million while advocate Jonathan Brown was paid £1.1million plus a success fee of £990,000.</p><p align="justify">Lord Doherty said: <b>“The substance of what was agreed was that the defenders’ (Levy & McRae and Jonathan Brown) remuneration would increase in proportion to the sum recovered.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“That gave them a clear pecuniary interest – a stake – in the amount recovered.</b></p><p align="justify"><b>“In my view, that pecuniary interest created a conflict of interest which gave rise to an unacceptable risk that the proper administration of justice might be obstructed.”</b></p><p align="justify">Levy and Mcrae have lodged an appeal against the decision by Lord Doherty.</p><p align="justify">The full judgment from Lord Donerty is here: <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lew1BKEt6DXiWez20Hsyr7ygDVgjzQf9/" title="A&E Investments Robert Kidd v Levy & Mcrae and Jonathan Brown - Lord Doherty 2020csoh14"><b>A&E Investments Robert Kidd v Levy & Mcrae and Jonathan Brown - Lord Doherty 2020csoh14</b></a></p><p align="justify">And more a recent report in the Sunday Post <a href="https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/top-advocate-found-guilty-of-unsatisfactory-professional-conduct-after-charging-client-extra-fee-of-almost-1-million/"><b>Top advocate found guilty of “unsatisfactory professional conduct” after charging client extra fee of almost £1 million</b></a> reports the Advocate Jonathan Brown was found guilty of “unsatisfactory professional conduct” after charging his client - Robert Kidd an extra fee of almost £1 million for representing him in a successful £20m damages action against another firm of solicitors.</p><p align="justify">The case arose after Mr Kidd hired lawyers, including Mr Brown, to sue his former solicitors over the sale of his oil firm ITS. Mr Kidd said Mr Brown had failed to tell their QC Andrew Smith details of the arrangement which brought his total bill to £2m.</p><p align="justify">The Sunday Post further reported that the Faculty of Advocates Disciplinary Committee has since made a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct against Mr Brown, ruling that he should have informed Andrew Smith QC that he had an arrangement with Mr Kidd by which his fee increased according to the amount recovered from the opponent, and how the amount on which the success fee was measured should be calculated.</p><p align="justify">Mr Kidd’s spokesman Jim Diamond told the Sunday Post: <b>“We’re very happy with the decision of unsatisfactory professional misconduct. We want the success fee repaid in full plus interest at 8%. We will also be seeking repayment of our legal fees in this matter which could amount to more than £100,000.”</b></p><p align="justify"><b>Levy & Mcrae - Court papers reveal their part in Heather Capital hedge fund writ</b></p><p align="justify">Detailed documents submitted to the Court of Session as part of a now abandoned writ against Levy & Mcrae and their former partner Peter Watson - revealed the following acts attributed to Levy & Mcrae and Heather Capital:</p><p align="justify"><b>[21] In the Levy Mcrae case: </b></p><ul><li><p align="justify"><b>On 4 January 2007, Heather Capital transferred £19 million to its client account with Levy & Mcrae (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>On 24 January 2007, Heather Capital transferred £9.412 million to its client account with Levy & Mcrae (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>The money was intended to be loaned to a first level SPV Westernbrook Properties Ltd (WBP) for onward lending to second level SPVs (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>On 9 January 2007, Levy & Mcrae transferred £19 million to a Panamanian company (Niblick) owned and controlled by Mr Levene:the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>By a memorandum dated 17 March 2007, Heather Capital’s auditors KPMG “identified a number of concerns relating to the documentation provided in respect of these loans”.Further work and information was required (Condescendence 5, page 13 of Levy & Mcrae reclaiming print). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>On 29 March 2007, Levy & Mcrae transferred £9.142 million to Hassans, solicitors, Gibraltar, under the reference “Rosecliff Limited” (a company controlled by Mr King):the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>In April to June 2007, amounts equivalent to the loans thought to have been made to WBP (including accrued interest) were “repaid” to HC via Cannons, solicitors, Glasgow.The directors were unable to ascertain the source of these repayments (Lord Doherty paragraph [7]). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>Approaches made by Heather Capital to Mr Volpe and Triay & Triay, a firm of solicitors in Gibraltar, were met with a total lack of co-operation (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>At a board meeting on 6 September 2007, “KPMG could not approve HC’s accounts … Santo Volpe had executed certain loans to SPV companies where non‑standard procedures had been followed which meant that inadequate security had been given for some loans … Gregory King stated that the loans to the SPVs had been repaid in full in May 2007” (Condescendence 5, page 13 of Levy & Mcrae reclaiming print). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>By email to a non‑executive director of HC (Mr Bourbon) dated 7 September 2007, Mr McGarry of KPMG referred to the previous day’s board meeting, and expressed concerns about the situation.He asked for further information, namely “all possible evidence regarding the movement of monies out of Heather Capital into these SPVs and onwards to whatever purpose the funds were applied – ie, sight of bank statements, payment/remittance instructions, certified extracts from solicitors clients’ money accounts etc”.(It should be noted that, contrary to HC’s averment in Condescendence 5 at page 13C‑D of Levy & Mcrae reclaiming print, the email did not restrict the inquiries requested to “explaining what information was required <i>from Santo Volpe</i>”:the request was much broader.) </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>In October 2007 the non‑executive directors of HC met with the Isle of Man Financial Services Commission (FSC) to discuss “the issues” (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]).A director also disclosed the suspicious activity and Mr Volpe’s obstruction to the Isle of Man Financial Crime Unit (FCU), who said they would investigate (Condescendence 5 page 14 of LM reclaiming print).The auditors KPMG carried out an additional full scope audit. </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>By letter dated 18 October 2007, FSC wrote to the directors of HC setting out further information which they required.</b></p></li></ul><ul><li><p align="justify"><b>By letter dated 26 November 2007 Mr King advised the HC board that “some sort of fraud had been deliberately introduced with invalid land registry details on a number of the loans”.He stated that he had applied pressure to Mr Volpe and Mr Cannon, whereupon there had been “full repayment of the loans with relevant interest” which meant that “investors were secure”. </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>On 17 December 2007, KPMG signed the accounts and added a completion note using language such as “The risk of fraud increased to high as a result of the documentation issues surrounding the SPVs, where some form of fraud appeared to have been attempted”.In their audit report opinion, they stated “We have been unable to verify where funds advanced to the SPVs were invested.In addition, we were supplied with false documentation in relation to the SPVs which appears to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead us.Given these loans were repaid in the period, we consider that the effect of this is not so material and pervasive that we are unable to form an opinion on the financial statements [opting instead for express qualifications that loan and security documentation could not be validated] … There is uncertainty as to where the monies lent to the [SPVs] were then subsequently invested … Investigations continue to determine what party (or parties) were involved in and were accountable for these events, and whether any action should be taken against them …” (Lord Doherty paragraph [9]). </b></p></li><li><p align="justify"><b>By letter to HC dated 4 January 2008, KPMG gave serious warnings about their inability to validate loan and security documentation, and lack of evidence as to the purpose for which the money advanced to SPVs was applied.In their words:</b></p></li></ul><p align="justify"><b>“ … Our report is designed to … avoid weaknesses that <i>could lead to material loss or misstatement. </i>However, it is your obligation to take the actions needed to remedy those weaknesses and should you fail to do so we shall not be held responsible <i>if loss or misstatement occurs as a result … </i>[Having explained the disappearance of the funds and the apparent repayments, on which legal advice had been received, KPMG warned] … these matters are extremely serious … an attempted fraud appears to have been perpetrated … We would recommend that the Board continue their investigation into this matter and formally document their decision as to whether or not to inform the criminal justice authorities …”</b></p><p align="justify">A full copy of a court opinion detailing these and other claims with regards to a further case against Burness Paull LLB - which coincidently also collapsed earlier last year - can be viewed here: <a href="http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/court-of-session-allows-proof-against.html"><b><u>Court of Session allows proof against Levy & Mcrae and Burness Paull LLP in Heather Capital case as liquidators attempt to recover cash from collapsed £280m hedge fund</u></b></a><b>.</b></p><p align="justify"><b><b></b></b></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-60797089426958825522020-08-26T20:20:00.000+01:002020-08-26T20:20:20.486+01:00COURT ON AUDIO, M’LORD: Clients should be given SAME DAY access to Court of Session audio recordings - as ongoing probe reveals QC’s admissions in case linked to Lord Malcolm, Lord Carloway & concealed judicial conflicts of interest<p align="justify"><i><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/04/cash-advocate-9k-consultations-75k.html" title="CASH ADVOCATE: £9K consultations & £75K meetings - Edinburgh Quaich Project Charity QC Boss scammed clients on no-win-no-fee deal - Faculty of Advocates files reveal extent of Advocates cash-for-fees HMRC tax dodge scam"><img align="left" height="539" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bhjJlj-c7FQ83JgiSmi4tPM5YLezLbgCBgQavaaXgaXCZmQeKkFTMFpKTx7zWL16JBaSHIsJ808qwzIGnNsEwZ3PQreyE5mgUoLFrF0Q0tunVO6Avb8FLK_tP_QRWegfnZwqO1M-6Q=w2400" style="display: inline; float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" width="390" /></a>Court recordings should be available same day to clients.</i> <b>AN ONGOING</b> media investigation into hearings in Scotland’s top court – the Court of Session – has received evidence which casts doubt on the integrity of witnesses and counsel’s actions – which could be remedied if unedited digital audio recordings were required to be provided to clients involved in cases – upon<b> the conclusion of a hearing</b>.</p><p align="justify">Audio recordings of hearings in a £6million land case Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd provided by a court source – and a study of their content have led to calls for clients who already pay tens of thousands of pounds for their claims to be hard by the Court of Session - to be given unrestricted access to audio records of proceedings in court – without obstruction or prohibitive cost being used to block access to proceedings in their case.</p><p align="justify">In the case which features in the released audio - extraordinary exchanges between counsel, witnesses and the judge – Lord Woolman - can be clearly heard and further exchanges were counsel take an unrealistic, if combative approach with local planning officials in attempts to conceal or contradict legislation relating to the dumping of toxic, hazardous waste from the court.</p><p align="justify">In the cassette tapes of the Court of Session hearings – obtained by journalists from court sources – the audio recordings of interactions between witnesses, John Campbell QC, and the current Dean of the Faculty of Advocates – Roddy Dunlop QC – has since led to a separate investigation which has discovered one of the chief witnesses in Nolan v Advance held compromising interests linked to the defenders – which were concealed from the court and the judge – Lord Woolman.</p><p align="justify">In one exchange, Dunlop questions a North Lanarkshire Council planning officer – Mr Fraser Miller – on the conditions and legislation which are required for the removal of hazardous material including asbestos. From the recordings and what happened in court, it becomes clear the planning officer says planning permission would be required to remove the asbestos from the site, and the same permission would be required fo the asbestos to be dumped on the site.</p><p align="justify">As the case proceeds over a number of days in August 2013 before Lord Woolman - Dunlop’s client – Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd – are ultimately forced to admit to Lord Woolman they were responsible for illegally dumping the toxic material on Mr Nolan’s property.</p><p align="justify">The audio tapes of the Nolan v Advance hearings go on to reveal many discrepancies between the accounts of what John Campbell QC said to his own client, and what actually transpired in court – including the as yet unexplained reasons why Campbell QC removed much of his own client’s financial claims – and critically the claim for legal expenses – without receiving any instruction to do so.</p><p align="justify">While it is important to note this case was initially won by Mr Nolan - the pursuer – the failure of counsel to return to court for legal expenses against the defender led to financial loss & disaster after counsel for the pursuer turned on his own client by inexplicably stripping out much of the financial claim – an act which Lord Woolman said he had never seen in such a case.</p><p align="justify">A full report on how John Campbell QC reduced his own client’s financial claim almost to zero and without any instruction or consultation - can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/05/cashback-qc-legal-regulators-files.html"><b><u>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</u></b></a></p><p align="justify">Readers may be familiar with Nolan v Advance - one of the most extraordinary cases in recent times - which has since led to the discovery of carefully concealed interests of Court of Session judge <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><b><u>Lord Malcolm</u></b></a> (Colin Campbell QC) and Scotland’s current top judge – <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><b><u>Lord Carloway</u></b></a> (Colin Sutherland).</p><p align="justify">During a consultation between journalists currently engaged in the probe and court sources, further issues in the Nolan v Advance case have now come to light including a source which identified a comment between counsel to the effect of an unreferenced instruction with some degree of motivation - which states “you have got to four o’clock to get this sorted”.</p><p align="justify">And now – further audio recordings have been provided to journalists which lay down in crystal clear terms an extraordinary attitude on payment of fees on the part of the pursuer’s legal team – which included John Campbell QC, advocate Craig Murray and solicitor Gregor McPhail.</p><p align="justify">The legal team for Mr Nolan had previously signed up to a no win no fee agreement – which Campbell admits to in the recordings.</p><p align="justify">However, and without hesitation Campbell then appears to turn against the fee deal and demands his team all be paid – this coming after further material and already published emails revealed John Campbell demanded, and insisted on collecting in person – cash sums of up to five thousand pounds at a time from his client Mr Nolan.</p><p align="justify">In one exchange – Campbell QC says <b>“As fond as I am of you, none of us are doing this for love and neither is Craig [Murray]”</b></p><p align="justify">Campbell is then challenged over his already agreed position of working on the case via a no win no fee deal</p><p align="justify">John Campbell agrees he was working on a no win no fee deal but then replies:<b> “That is correct, hmmm but we just have to see whether that actually holds up because hmm you know…”</b></p><p align="justify">A number of further recordings are now being studied where it is acknowledged by counsel Lord Woolman states he is concerned about counsel’s lack of provision to the judge of evidence given by certain witnesses for the pursuer, Mr Nolan.</p><p align="justify">In an additional audio provided to journalists, John Campbell QC - who now heads the Edinburgh based Quaich Project – clearly admits responsibility for key failures in his presentation of evidence to the court.</p><p align="justify">Journalists and technical experts are now considering the content of the court recordings for futher publication and potential inclusion in reports to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee of events in the Nolan v Advance case which identify a pattern of deliberate and concealed conflicts of interest by judges in the Court of Session.</p><p align="justify">And - in another court case where recordings have also come to light, it is also very clear what happens in court is very loosely transcribed to parties when there are requests by court participants for transcripts – some costing clients tens of thousands of pounds over hearing after hearing.</p><p align="justify">In a further case presented to the media team looking into Court of Session audio recordings - a court source has come forward with claims that a transcribing firm who were given court recordings as part of an order for transcripts - were told in a phone call to go easy on certain dates across hearings in one major case - and pay less emphasis to one side’s counsel in their provision of a final transcript ordered by the other side’s legal team.</p><p align="justify">A legal insider who has been given access to some of the audio material handed over to journalists now believes clients should be given unfettered access to recordings of their cases in court.</p><p align="justify">He said: <b>“Clients pay a lot of money for their legal representatives to take a case through to the Court of Session and should be provided with audio recordings of each day’s proceedings at the end of that day”</b></p><p align="justify">He added: <b>“The equipment to record court hearings has been installed for some time, and this should be properly used to ensure clients on both sides of the court have access to these recordings, without any attempt by court staff or the sitting judge to use unsatisfactory excuses or prohibitive costs as a reason for withholding audio access to those who are paying for the hearings.”</b></p><p align="justify">Currently, clients can request a copy of recordings from the Court of Session to be transcribed by an external private company, however – seldom if ever do the actual audio recordings pass into the hands of clients or either side’s legal team.</p><p align="justify">Clients must pay for the transcribing of the court recordings in what can run into bills of tens of thousands of pounds, however – there are notes of many cases where court staff, and the judge have blocked a client’s request to obtain transcripts of proceedings – and even when the court has agreed to transcription in some cases – clients and legal teams have identified multiple omissions in transcripts which suggest a motivated approach was taken to omit particular evidence from print.</p><p align="justify">For the media, a different approach to recording and broadcasting from the Court of Session & High Court of Justiciary currently exists in the following format:</p><p align="justify"><b>Protocol on Recording and Broadcasting of Proceedings in the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session, and the Use of Live Text
Based Communications from Court</b></p><p align="justify">
Broadcast:
Except where the context otherwise requires, for the purposes of the Protocol,
"broadcast" means the transmission to members of the public of a video and/or audio
recording; or live streaming. For the purposes of the Protocol, a recording refers to a video
and/or audio recording. Broadcast may be for live streaming, news broadcast or
documentary production. Individual sections within the Protocol identify the extent to
which broadcasting may be permitted for a particular type of case.<br />
</p><p align="justify">Guiding Principle:
The guiding principle is that broadcast of court proceedings is in the interests of
open justice and for the information and education of the public.</p><p align="justify">
Judicial Control:
Subject to the guiding principle, whether a hearing should be recorded must remain
under judicial control. The court may rule that, in any given case, recording a hearing would
not be in the interests of justice.</p><p align="justify">
Fair and Accurate Reporting:
A report or presentation of proceedings that includes a broadcast of a hearing must
be fair and accurate, having regard to the overall content of the report or presentation and
the context in which the broadcast is presented. It must not be used for: the purposes of a
party political broadcast; advertisement or promotion (except where such advertisement or
promotion relates to a report or presentation that includes the broadcast); light
entertainment; comedy or satirical purposes.</p><p align="justify">
For the purposes of the Protocol, a media party means a journalist registered with the
Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS), or a party who can provide sufficient,
appropriate evidence of relevant journalistic or documentary work. Any media party
wishing to record a hearing is required to submit an application using one of the prescribed forms</p><p align="justify">
Applications must be submitted to Judicial Communications for consideration by the
Broadcast Working Group well in advance of the date of commencement of proceedings. On
receipt of an application, the Broadcast Working Group must notify the presiding/chairing
judge and ask him, or her, to provide to the Broadcast Working Group any comment or
response which he, or she, may have on the application within an agreed time. Once the
Broadcast Working Group has considered any such comment or response, it must make a
recommendation to the Lord Justice General (or Lord Justice Clerk) as to whether the application ought to be approved. The final decision lies with the Lord Justice General or, in
the absence of the Lord Justice General, with the Lord Justice Clerk. Approval may permit
recording to take place in accordance with sections 2 to 5, or in accordance with any
additional conditions as may be specified.</p><p align="justify">A decision on the application must be intimated to the media party within an agreed
time. In the event of an application being refused, in whole or part, written reasons must be
provided by the Broadcast Working Group.</p><p align="justify">
In the event of an application being refused, in whole or part, the media party may
submit an amended application taking into account the reasons for refusal.</p><p align="justify">
If permission to record is granted, the Broadcast Working Group must appoint an
SCTS staff member as a liaison officer. That officer is the point of contact between the media
party and the court for all purposes connected with the recording.</p><p align="justify">
If permission to record proceedings is granted, the presiding/chairing judge retains
responsibility for ensuring that: the grant of permission remains appropriate; the recording
is carried out on the terms approved by the Broadcast Working Group; and the recording is
carried out in a way which does not disrupt court business. If, at any stage in the
proceedings, the judge forms the view that to proceed with the recording would constitute a
threat to the administration of justice, or that such a risk is present, or that the media party
has breached the Protocol or any condition imposed, the presiding/chairing judge may
withdraw the permission. If the presiding/chairing judge is considering withdrawing
permission, an opportunity should be afforded to the media party to make representations
to the judge before a final decision is reached.</p><p align="justify">Despite the progress of technology in the world outside of Scotland’s creaky Victorian courts and justice system, recording and broadcasting of what goes on in Scotland’s courts has not yet had the full impact on increasing transparency and accountability in the justice system which the same application of audio and video technology have had in courts in other jurisdictions.</p><p align="justify">Currently, the media must rely on a ‘judge-led’ review chaired by Lady Dorrian – who was appointed to chair it by Lord Brian Gill, Scotland’s former Lord President and Lord Justice General who famously liked to go after the media and block access to courts and documents during his short three year term as Lord President in which he continually held the media, and transparency in disdain.</p><p align="justify">Report of the Review of Policy on Recording and Broadcasting of Proceedings in Court, and Use of Live Text-Based Communications</p><p align="justify"><b>A judge-led group which was appointed by the Lord President to review the current policy on the recording and broadcasting of proceedings and the use of live text-based communications from Scottish courts has published its report.</b></p><p align="justify">The review group, chaired by Lady Dorrian, has made a series of recommendations following a public consultation exercise, to which 17 individuals and organisations responded. </p><p align="justify">The review, which examined the existing practice in Scotland and other jurisdictions, was carried out in the context of a complete acceptance of the importance of the principle of open justice, recognising however that any steps taken in support of this principle must not pose any risk to the administration of justice. </p><p align="justify">In summary, the report recommends the following: </p><ul><li><div align="justify">Filming of civil and criminal appeals, and legal debates in civil first instance proceedings, such as judicial review or procedure roll hearings, should be allowed for live transmission. Subsequent news broadcasting and documentary film-making should be allowed subject to clear and comprehensive guidelines.<i> </i></div></li><li><div align="justify">The court should allow criminal trials to be filmed for documentary purposes in certain circumstances, subject to the safeguards referred to in the report. Cases involving children, sexual offences and vulnerable witnesses should not be filmed. </div></li><li><div align="justify">No live transmission or filming for subsequent news broadcast should be allowed for criminal first instance business or for civil proceedings involving witnesses. </div></li><li><div align="justify">For subsequent news broadcasts, the delivery of sentencing remarks of the judge should be permissible, with filming focused only on the sentencing judge. </div></li><li><div align="justify">Filming of criminal trials for live transmission should not be allowed. <i> </i></div></li><li><div align="justify">In civil cases at first instance, filming for documentary purposes only should be allowed, but should exclude certain groups such as family cases and those involving asylum seekers. </div></li><li><div align="justify">A structured approach to considering applications to film. </div></li><li><div align="justify">All filming should be subject to robust, clear and comprehensive guidelines. </div></li><li><div align="justify">Journalists who register in advance with the Scottish Court Service should be permitted the use of live text-based communications such as Twitter from court, subject to guidelines which will be issued in due course. </div></li></ul><p align="justify">The Lord President, Lord Gill said: <i>“</i>I am grateful to Lady Dorrian and her group for having carried out this exercise so thoroughly. These well-considered recommendations have the support of the judges. I accept all of the recommendations. They are entirely appropriate in the contemporary world. My office will now prepare guidance on the implementation of Lady Dorrian’s report.” </p><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify">On 18 October 2012, the Lord President, Lord Gill, appointed a judicially led media review group, whose remit was to review policy on the recording and broadcasting of proceedings in court. This was later extended to include consideration of the use of live, text-based communications (LTBC) from court. </p><p align="justify">Guidance on the conditions under which cameras could be allowed in court was previously contained in a practice note issued by Lord President Hope in 1992. These conditions were revised by Lord President Hamilton in 2012. The revised conditions allowed filming to take place without the consent of all parties involved. The production company and broadcaster had to provide an undertaking to the presiding judge that the final broadcast would not identify those who had not consented to the filming. </p><p align="justify">The passage of time since guidance was issued, together with the development of social media, the use of instant text-based communication and the broadcasting of proceedings before the UK Supreme Court have all contributed towards a need to review this matter. When filming for documentary purposes has taken place in Scotland, the guidelines have had to be complemented by detailed negotiations as to the precise terms in each case. In appointing this review group, the Lord President considered that a more structured approach was desirable, not least in the interests of consistency. </p><p align="justify">The review was chaired by Lady Dorrian. The other members were: Lord Bracadale, Lord Woolman, Sheriff Principal Stephen, and Sheriff Drummond. The group was supported by: Christopher Nicholson, Deputy Legal Secretary to the Lord President; Elizabeth Cutting, Head of Judicial Communications; Steven D’Arcy, Head of Strategy and Governance, Judicial Office for Scotland. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-74347824979210002632020-07-17T13:42:00.000+01:002020-07-17T13:42:28.510+01:00ADVANCE, QC: From Big Invoice to Cash Register – New Dean of Faculty of Advocates stood silent in court while Lord Malcolm concealed his son was on same legal team representing asbestos dumping construction company who lost case - then used law firm linked to top judge to hunt down couple for legal fees<p align="justify"><em><a title="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" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><img width="400" height="348" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6OYLAmKYui9CFFOqF6EL8UXt6g2FWJr1iEtAcadW1orS6nf14V9IS9so3STM46JqlEfF0C-bMjWhiLk927gGJsYU3xM4zE1e90Hr9xjSEH-sqKmwSsfp9hb9Vy2JT1W2xa_5mJZ98A=w2400"></a>Lord Carloway & Lord Malcolm welcome new Dean R.Dunlop</em> <strong>TO WATCH</strong> and listen to members of the <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> who strut around Scotland’s courts as if they have a starring role in a grand pantomime or musical overseen by a figure dressed in fiery red and white robes – you may be forgiven for thinking you just entered the world of fantasy and cosplay.</p><p align="justify">However - what you are actually witnessing is Scotland’s ‘Victorian’ justice system – where lies spoken in court by a figure in a black gown & wig can become an accepted ‘truth’, prosecutors can intimidate defence counsel by adding the dead to witness lists, deals can be done in-chambers to avoid the press & public in open court, and evidence can be lost down the back of a filing cabinet.</p><p align="justify">And, if you are looking for shameless, outright dishonesty - try the time where Scotland’s top prosecutor James Wolffe QC – himself a former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - was being sued in the Rangers admin case of wrongful arrest.</p><p align="justify">The stakes in that case were so high that Scotland’s ‘world leading’ courts system then neatly engineered a scenario so that Sarah Wolffe QC – the wife of that same top prosecutor James Wolffe QC – could hear and rule on the £9 million claim against her husband and Scotland’s Chief Constable.</p><p align="justify">You all know the story – A real howler: <a title="WOLFFE COURT: Lord Advocate James Wolffe and his judge wife at centre of £9million damages claim - Questions remain why Lady Wolffe avoided recusal during emergency judge swap on court case against her own husband" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/01/wolffe-court-lord-advocate-james-wolffe.html"><strong><u>WOLFFE COURT: Lord Advocate James Wolffe and his judge wife at centre of £9million damages claim - Questions remain why Lady Wolffe avoided recusal during emergency judge swap on court case against her own husband</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">It gets better: ‘World famous’ (really, not) Scots QCs taking millions in publicly funded legal aid - can literally dream up an entirely false line of defence (commonly known as a lie) - for their child murdering clients and get away with trolling it out to a sceptical judge, jury and entire court room - and then bill the Scottish Legal Aid Board (Taxpayer) for their time spent doing so.</p><p align="justify">Going further up the tree - Scotland’s top prosecutor - the Lord Advocate – on an instruction to cover up for top cops with shady pasts – can ram-raid a Tribunal hearing and intimidate Tribunal judges into blocking claims of corruption and evidence tampering in the most senior ranks of <a href="http://www.scotland.police.uk/"><strong><u>Police Scotland</u></strong></a> - from becoming public.</p><p align="justify">Want to see examples of what most in the real world call corruption and money laundering? – try case after case where Advocates and QCs quietly demand with menaces – sums of cash in envelopes from their criminal or civil case clients. The ‘whisper’ goes like this - Pay up – or the desired court outcome will not be achieved. </p><p align="justify">And, don’t forget the ranks of slick, overcharging QCs who represent newspapers and the media – you know the type – all smooth talking on telly in between demanding appearance fees for doing so, hair gel to deflect from the botox injections, slick suits, a brown envelope on the way to the court, and a seat on a local rugby club along with a property grabbing, grubby, dishonest local high street solicitor who happens to sit on several Tribunals where he and his brethren live out their squalid existence extorting millions more from taxpayers.</p><p align="justify">Yet, for those in the know - behind the backs of their very own fee paying media clients, the same QCs with media scorecards find a quiet corner in the Court of Session to contact a colleague to get a message to opposing counsel on what and what not to say – to prolong the case for fees, or do the dirty on the case before them, for a favour on another.</p><p align="justify">You do for us today, we do for you tomorrow. And, tell you what mate – there is an opening in the Faculty for the son of that judge - even though he only worked as a trainee lawyer for a few weeks.</p><p align="justify">But of course, these same legal legends in their own minds jealously guard their profession and self-created reputations – even on social media – where a critical article - or realistic tweet on the legal world can draw the ire of a grubby QC who actually lives on defending the worst filth in society and makes the taxpayer pay him staggering amounts of legal aid millions for doing so.</p><p align="justify">If anyone dares to question these weird legal people with double lives and multiple personas who market themselves as more valuable to society than doctors and nurses – in their legalistic, legal aid funded view of the world - that critic, person, politician or even a journalist - is not fit to live.</p><p align="justify">It’s all good though – as they say – because when such public exchanges take place – inevitably someone in an office comes forward with a bundle of papers to show the same high and mighty advocate or QC was actually knocked back by the Legal Aid Board for submitting false claims for public cash – so let’s call that attempted fraud, for the purposes of reality.</p><p align="justify">To complete the picture of what is in actuality - the Faculty of Fantasy – remember those envelopes full of cash - collected in person by a ‘leading light’ or ‘top’ Advocate or QC - of the same Faculty of Advocates whose members are money laundering and tax dodging all the way to the bank.</p><p align="justify">Take it from people who write of reality in the justice system - when you enter the eerie world of Scotland’s legal mafia and fall prey to that business known as the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service – you are witnessing a cash grabbing, case fiddling, double dealing world of avarice and greed, rather than the work of robbed figures who would have you believe they are the saviours of humanity, or anyone’s Human Rights.</p><p align="justify">Clients - mean nothing. Cash collecting and Big Invoice are king. Take them to task and they will see you suffer. And, they do exactly that.</p><p align="justify">The last Dean of the Faculty of Advocates – Gordon Jackson QC – stood down on 30 June after being filmed talking about the Alex Salmond trial in a train.</p><p align="justify"><strong></strong>The <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/alex-salmond-was-a-bully-and-a-sex-pest-his-own-qc-says-on-train-jfgbkr857"><strong><u>video footage published by the Sunday Times</u></strong></a> revealed remarks Mr Jackson made about his client Alex Salmond - and his accusers.</p><p align="justify">In a statement <a href="https://twitter.com/FacultyScot/status/1246100356548919299"><strong><u>published by the Faculty of Advocates on their Twitter feed</u></strong></a>, Mr Jackson said in April: <strong>“I have intimated my decision to resign as dean of the Faculty of Advocates, with effect from 30 June, at the latest.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“It would not, however, be appropriate for me to remain as Dean at a time when the Faculty was considering disciplinary proceedings regarding my conduct.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“Accordingly, if, before that date, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission remits the recent complaint for consideration by the Faculty’s Complaints Committee, I will stand down as Dean immediately. I do not intend to make any further comment.”</strong><p align="justify">Since that announcement in April, Gordon Jackson has been less conspicuous on twitter - with much of the Faculty’s usual posturing on all things, law, legal and ‘other’ taken up by Roddy Dunlop QC – who was handed Jackson’s job in a lower than usual fanfare of the Court of waffling Session earlier this week.</p><p align="justify">Albeit Dunlop only gained the position by default – he was the only candidate to put forward his name for the role - after Gordon Jackson ended his own run as dean in a blaze of careless comments in a train, filmed for posterity.</p><p align="justify">Dunlop – who - earlier this year gained the position of Vice Dean after Angela Grahame resigned her role – was welcomed in as Dean of the Faculty by <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> (Colin Sutherland), <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a> (Colin Campbell QC) and Lord Woolman.</p><p align="justify">However - the three judges who welcomed Mr Dunlop into the poisoned position of dean – have their own story to tell.</p><p align="justify">Two of those judges – Carloway & Malcolm - concealed conflicts of interest to a case which Dunlop lost, but was then used to go after the people who won it for the legal fees generated by Dunlop and his colleagues – including Lord Malcolm’s son. This case is currently at the heart of an ongoing media investigation and ticks all the right boxes for dishonesty, greed and conflict of interest.</p><p align="justify">The probe has so far linked Dunlop’s client (Advance Construction Scotland Ltd) to an ex-sheriff Peter Watson who resigned from the judiciary after he was suspended to protect public confidence in the judiciary</p><p align="justify">Then, there was the law firm – Levy and MCrae - who escaped a £28m writ over a £400m collapsed hedge fund.</p><p align="justify">The judge – Lord Malcolm - who concealed the fact his own son was linked to the same case he heard eight times</p><p align="justify">And, Scotland’s top judge himself – Lord Carloway – who concealed from MSPs that the law firm where his son worked was employed by Dunlop’s client to go after, and seize the properties of the party who actually won the case which Dunlop lost – courtesy of a ruling by the third judge – Lord Woolman.</p><p align="justify">Only in Scotland’s justice system will you ever find such a gang loaded with conflict of interests who use their seemingly unquestionable status in society to welcome another to their safe-house.</p><p align="justify">The investigation which reported on Lord Malcolm’s failure to declare serious conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/03/conflict-of-interest-papers-lodged-at.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">When Lord Malcolm’s son bailed out of the court case – but only after the secret his own father was hearing the same case in the same court - came to light – <a href="https://www.axiomadvocates.com/advocates/profile/ewen-campbell"><strong>Ewen Campbell</strong></a><u></u> ended up in the same Advocate stables as the new Dean of Faculty - <a href="https://www.axiomadvocates.com/advocates/profile/roddy-dunlop-qc"><strong><u>Roderick William Dunlop QC of Axiom Advocates</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Nicely done - as some may say.</p><p align="justify">A recent development in the ongoing media probe of this case saw publication of a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oTcLdvGWZdAQzIZvxtJzfanNROuaOll/"><strong><u>witness statement from Advocate Ewen Campbell</u></strong></a> – Lord Malcolm’s son – which directly contradicts evidence given by Lord Carloway - to the Public Petitions Committee and MSP Alex Neil in a hearing on 29 June 2017.</p><p align="justify">A further development saw a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n0qKhQXjUjJumpf_rdg6qvWXDQXOUrcD/"><strong><u>court-sourced witness statement</u></strong></a> of solicitor and ex-Sheriff Peter Black Watson to the Court of Session – which confirmed Watson employed the son of <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>in the case to represent the client – <a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><strong><u>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>– which ended up being heard by Lord Malcolm - who concealed his link to his son during multiple court hearings.<p align="justify">Lord Carloway’s son - Alexander Sutherland - then bailed out of a law firm linked to the same case heard by Lord Malcolm – after the Judicial Office were asked for comment on why his father – Scotland’s current top judge concealed this conflict of interest from evidence in the Scottish Parliament.</p><p align="justify">Carloway’s son – Alexander Sutherland then spectacularly ended up in the Faculty of Advocates - after only a few months working as a trainee solicitor.</p><p align="justify">Everything happens for a reason, right?</p><p align="justify">An earlier investigation revealed Lord Carloway failed to declare his son was linked to the same case: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">A full report on the publication of evidence contradicting Lord Carloway’s testimony at the Scottish Parliament can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/dishonesty-lord-files-reveal-lord.html"><strong><u>DISHONESTY, LORD: Files reveal Lord Carloway misled Holyrood Committee on involvement of judges’ relative in Court of Session claim – witness statement exposes direct role of Ewen Campbell in £6M land case heard by his father - judge & privy councillor Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Another turn of luck in the ongoing investigation of the Nolan v Advance case – was the discovery of methods employed by QCs and Advocates to get round signed up fee agreements – by demanding substantial sums in cash payments – which the QC or Advocate then insists on collecting in person from their clients.</p><p align="justify">But – trawling the court files and fee notes took on an even darker tone when evidence emerged that the Faculty of Advocates itself were attempting to issue fee note credits to cover undeclared payments of cash collected by QCs – when the Faculty feared discovery, and the worrying prospect of an investigation by UK tax authorities.</p><p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ziJPqWoUC8CUIx3LyJyO42YIE_UzgvjB/"><img width="290" height="430" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/av7OtUB-ZGYQcro6wNVH7mMEAaK-FpGMnVXCP9izHDg1Qdc5jUhLdApJRGSQeWsk4SLa2JATcsPGfvCl-ZL-2-oCuvmuIYvj4E0AE6u1bWjLCb0GCDEeBv2b0lyvu8lLQqw348BbUg=w2400"></a>In one such document - a study of a statement from Faculty Services Ltd in the Nolan v Advance – noted references to ‘undated’ sums, and credit notes for payments which were in fact – never made.</p><p align="justify">In one credit note from Faculty Services Ltd - the sum of £5000 - without any date reference is stated as paid.<p align="justify">However, a solicitor dealing directly with the case <strong>DENIED</strong> the undated £5,000 amount had been paid to Faculty Services Ltd - and a review of the accounts confirm NO such payment was ever made.<p align="justify">The undated £5K credit note listed in the documents – and other unexplained entries - appear to have been created by Faculty Services Ltd with a deliberate intention to conceal tens of thousands of pounds in undeclared cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.<p align="justify">The fee statements & accounts from Faculty Services Ltd now raise serious questions of how far up the involvement of figures in the Faculty of Advocates in this case stretches - after an earlier investigation established Campbell was pocketing large payments he personally insisted on collecting in cash filled envelopes from his clients in £5,000 bundles.<p align="justify">Written evidence recovered from files held by legal regulators revealed Campbell himself sent emails to his clients - demanding large payments in cash to pay himself and junior counsel Craig Murray.<p align="justify">A full report on Craig Murray’s involvement in the case, and his role in writing two versions of evidence to legal regulators can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/04/advocate-probe-how-legal-regulators.html"><strong><u>ADVOCATE PROBE: How legal regulators covered up for top QC - Files show Scots Advocate now working as Barrister in London – authored two versions of SAME letter for Faculty probe of cash scandal QC who failed clients in £6M Court of Session case</u></strong></a><p align="justify">An <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-WJO6pBnlFORUdFd3dtU21jZzg/"><strong><u>email from John Campbell to his clients</u></strong></a><u></u> revealed Campbell demanded £5,000 in cash - while he was on the way to a meeting at Airdrie Sheriff Court followed by a dinner with the Law Society of Scotland. <p align="justify">The email from Campbell states: <b>“A little better information about timing. I am due in Airdrie at 4.30. The meeting is in the Sheriff Court, which closes at 6.30. The Law Society is taking me and a colleague for dinner, but I have no idea where. There isn't a huge number of restaurants in Airdrie, but we'll find somewhere. This means I won't be at Bonkle Road until about 8. Is that OK?”</b><p align="justify"><b>“I have asked JC [John Carruthers] for a breakdown of the £5000. I will explain to you how a spec case works. I have checked; both John and I are willing to take on a spec case for Donal, but only if he signs up to it. There will be two conditions; one is that you keep the Edinburgh agent fed and watered, and the second is the size of the uplift at the end of the day, as I explained to you.”</b><p align="justify">A <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/04/cashback-qc-investigation-reveals.html"><strong><u>Sunday Mail investigation</u></strong></a> into the case established John Campbell sent multiple emails to clients – in some cases, demanding cash <b>“in any form except beads” </b>to pay for legal services.<p align="justify">An additional <u><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-WJO6pBnlFOeDMyNGVyYXk2dE0/"><strong>email from John Campbell QC to his client</strong></a></u> stated: “<b>I'm writing to confirm that we agreed at our meeting on Friday that we will meet in Dalkeith on TUESDAY morning, when you will give me £5000 towards the fees of your legal team” … “Please let me know if it's OK to meet at the Mulsanne Garage, which is at 137 High Street, and what time would suit you?”</b><p align="justify">If you were wondering why Mr Dunlop’s name keeps cropping up in Nolan v Advance – well – it was Roddy Dunlop’s legal fees – and others - which prompted Levy and Mcrae & Begbies Traynor to use Lord Carloway’s son’s law firm to evict the pursuer out of his house to pay for it all.</p><p align="justify">You can read all about what happened next, here: <a title="FIRE SALE: AIB face sequestration probe as files reveal Trustee was paid £20K by vulture fund to sell home & firebombed farm five days after targeted attack on couple at centre of land case linked to top Scots judges, an ex-Sheriff, an asbestos dumping building company & law firm Levy and Mcrae" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/06/fire-sale-aib-face-sequestration-probe.html"><strong><u>FIRE SALE: AIB face sequestration probe as files reveal Trustee was paid £20K by vulture fund to sell home & firebombed farm five days after targeted attack on couple at centre of land case linked to top Scots judges, an ex-Sheriff, an asbestos dumping building company & law firm Levy and Mcrae</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">If you want to know why Lord Carloway decided to keep quiet about his own link to this case, read more here: <a title="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" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify"><strong>THE GANG’S ALL HERE: New Dean welcomed by judges who concealed conflicts of interest in same case</strong></p><p align="justify">
THE newly-elected Dean of Faculty, Roddy Dunlop, QC, has been introduced formally to the Court of Session in a short ceremony.</p><p align="justify">Mr Dunlop was presented to the Lord President, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lords Malcolm and Woolman, in the First Division courtroom.</p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway said it was not only his duty but his particular pleasure to congratulate Mr Dunlop on the high honour conferred on him by the Faculty.</p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway said: <strong>“It is an honour which is amply justified by your professional attainments and your personal character,” added the Lord President.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“It is a mark of my own age that I can not only say ‘kent his faither’ – whom I am pleased to see is present today – but even ‘kent his grandfaither’, whom I remember as an agent practising in Glasgow High Court.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“These are difficult times for the Court, the Bar, the wider profession and the public. We have learned a lot in the past four months, and will learn even more over the next four. There are many issues which need to be resolved if the courts are to continue to deliver justice for the people of Scotland. They will require discussion and careful consideration, but at the end of the day difficult decisions about the future will have to be made.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The Court is confident that you will maintain the high traditions of the office of Dean. I can assure you that any representations which you make to the Court on behalf of the Faculty will always receive our closest attention.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Mr Dunlop was the sole nomination to succeed Gordon Jackson, QC, who stepped down after four years in office.</p><p align="justify">Mr Dunlop said:<strong> “It is a huge honour to have been appointed Dean of Faculty. This high office extends back to the very origins of the College of Justice in the 16th Century. It has been held by many of the foremost legal minds in Scottish history, and I am humbled, and a little awed, to find myself in their company.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“I take office at an extremely challenging time for Faculty, and for the legal profession as a whole. I will endeavour to meet these challenges in a way that respects the efforts of those who have gone before me.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Admitted to Faculty in 1998, Mr Dunlop took Silk in 2010. He has a broad-based, mainly civil practice, but with a keen interest in media law, he has been regularly instructed in the criminal courts in contempt matters.</p><p align="justify">Mr Dunlop served as Treasurer of Faculty from April 2017 until February this year when he was elected as Vice-Dean of Faculty. An election for a new Vice-Dean will follow.</p><p align="justify">Further material sourced from the Court of Session, including digital evidence & recordings from Neal transcribing machines in relation to proceedings in court where Dunlop and his opposite number John Campbell QC ‘sparred’ during hearings of Nolan v Advance - will be published in further articles.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com112tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-85664606528387245072020-06-15T12:53:00.000+01:002020-06-15T12:57:47.791+01:00FIRE SALE: AIB face sequestration probe as files reveal Trustee was paid £20K by vulture fund to sell home & firebombed farm five days after targeted attack on couple at centre of land case linked to top Scots judges, an ex-Sheriff, an asbestos dumping building company & law firm Levy and Mcrae<p align="justify"><em><a title="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" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><img width="390" height="520" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5NyHDShfIj-dB8nDq8ykjt2QAGFUwToSFCwBE5nlx9m7M7Hch9JJPklt_Q7OvfmwhI96r4vnzny_ydQgzZyQS4IkA1kisQNBLE2dNqFFaIbcRlqfYCArC8DTHKADJeJ4vDf8axtM0A=w2400"></a>Richard Dennis, Kenneth Pattullo face probe. </em><strong>AN </strong><a title="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" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><strong><u>ONGOING probe</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>of a case linked to Scotland’s top judge <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> – has revealed a Trustee acting in a sequestration of a couple who won a court action - relied on his appointment on the basis of a typo in a court document - to go on to strip the couple of all their assets.</p><p align="justify">And - files now reveal <strong></strong><a href="https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/our-people/ken-pattullo"><strong><u>Kenneth Pattullo</u></strong></a> was paid £20,000 by offshore vulture fund Promontoria - to sell off a firebombed farm and home belonging to a couple who initially won the Court of Session case then lost out when their counsel – <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Campbell%20QC"><strong><u>John Campbell QC</u></strong></a> deliberately removed most of their claim after Lord Woolman said Mr Nolan had a case against the building company – <a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><u><strong>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</strong></u></a><strong> </strong>.</p><p align="justify">In documents now disclosed to journalists, Nicola Donnelly – a senior manager at <a href="http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com"><strong><u>Begbies Traynor</u></strong></a> in Glasgow – admitted in an email to the couple that Promontoria – a vulture fund which bought loans & mortgages from banks including the Clydesdale – paid Trustee Kenneth Pattullo £20,000 - to sell properties belonging to Melanie Collins, and Donal Nolan - which were once valued in the millions – for the sum of £655K.</p><p align="justify">Records from the very unusual sequestrations of both Ms Collins & Mr Nolan - show their properties were seized by Mr Pattullo of Begbies Traynor on behalf of Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd – after the building company lost a Court of Session action raised by Mr Nolan in which Advance Construction admitted dumping toxic waste on land owned by the retired National Hunt jockey.</p><p align="justify">However, after Begbies Traynor had retained the properties on their books for four years – during which time the Clydesdale Bank sold their interest in the properties to Promontoria - the titles suddenly changed hands only a few days after PoliceScotland were called in to investigate a targeted firebombing of Mr Nolan’s farm – which saw four horses die after being torched with petrol by unknown persons.</p><p align="justify">The couple say <a href="http://www.scotland.police.uk/"><strong><u>Police Scotland</u></strong></a> believe the targeted arson attack is connected to events related to the court case and the ‘extremely motivated’ bankruptcy which then followed.</p><p align="justify">Records of land titles obtained from Registers of Scotland reveal Morningside Farm – the target of the firebombing – was sold by Kenneth Pattullo to an Andrew Kenneth Hill of Carluke, Lanarkshire on 22 May 2019 for a purchase price of £380,000 - some five days after the targeted arson attack.</p><p align="justify">Meanwhile the home of the couple – a house with land - in Newmains, Wishaw, was sold by Mr Pattullo to a “SIPS Homes Scotland Ltd” on 20 May 2019 with a purchase price listed as £255,000</p><p align="justify">Companies House reports that <a title="SIPS Homes Scotland Ltd was created on 4 March 2019" href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC623052"><strong>SIPS Homes Scotland Ltd was created on 4 March 2019</strong></a> with a registered office at Crossway, Donibistle Industrial Estate, Dalgety Bay, Fife, United Kingdom, KY11 9JE – and has three directors – Mark William Dalziel, Caroline Ann Hynds and Patrick Leaonard Hynds. </p><p align="justify">A section of land at Branchal, Wishaw – belonging to the retired jockey was sold by Mr Pattullo to the same “SIPS Homes Scotland Ltd” for £20,000 on 4 June 2019.</p><p align="justify">Begbies Traynor were asked to confirm if Mr Pattullo was in charge of the properties as Trustee - during the events of the targeted arson attack, but they refused to comment.</p><p align="justify">Susan Reid of Harrogate based Appeal PR – who claim to handle all Public Relations for Begbies Traynor in Scotland stated:<strong> “Sorry to be unhelpful, but unfortunately Begbies Traynor is unable to give any information about personal insolvency cases. However, the information is a matter of public record, so you should be able to find it from official sources.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The sequestrations of both Mr Nolan and his partner – Melanie Collins – after they had effectively won the Court of Session claim against Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd – came about after John Campbell QC stripped out most of their financial claims for damage & legal expeses – after Court of Session judge Lord Woolman told the couple they had a case against the building company for loss of the use of the use of their property.</p><p align="justify">A full report on how John Campbell QC reduced his own client’s financial claim almost to zero and without any instruction or consultation - can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/05/cashback-qc-legal-regulators-files.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Commenting on Campbell’s move – the judge said he had never seen this happen in a case previously – and a probe of events has established John Campbell had not sought permission or consultation with his client to strip out the financial damages and legal expenses claims.</p><p align="justify">Mr Nolan and his partner Ms Collins were then targeted by Advance’s lawyers <a href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><strong><u>Levy & Mcrae</u></strong></a> – who then turned around Advance’s loss in court – and the building company’s admission of dumping toxic waste on Mr Nolan’s land – to go after the couple for hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal expenses.</p><p align="justify">Levy and Mcrae then petitioned the court for sequestration of Ms Collins on 30 March 2015 – and Mr James Robb (now at Brechin Tindall Oatts solicitors) sought sequestration of Ms Collins and the appointment of the Accountant in Bankruptcy as Trustee in her estate.</p><p align="justify">The interlocutor from Hamilton Sheriff court dated 30 March 2015 reads as follows:</p><p align="justify"><strong><a title="Melanie Collins sequestration - Hamilton Sheriff Court - 30 March 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EVEXs7cBiyhORX8-HY-grzRnWGAXV16X/"><img width="290" height="407" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/C1DjiwxALiS96hocTTh26SPOKf5OynOBj7uQNO-TOH89E8vo8mMMR77q1OrDshUaMrEOW5o-bXuNxkFPRsaqH5BHv0zu2Iq4F8pjc_0kusuxY5wtpg0o3u4jE8mB_ZCjsB1sKhW-3Q=w2400"></a>The sheriff, having heard parties' solicitors, on the opposed motion of the Petitioner, having
considered the foregoing petition, together with the productions, and being satisfied that the
petition has been presented in accordance with the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, and that:
* proper citation has been made to the debtor
* the requirements of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 relating to apparent insolvency have been fulfilled.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Sequestrates the estate now belonging or which shall hereafter belong to the debtor Ms Melanie Collins before the date of the debtor's discharge and Declares the same to belong to the debtor's creditors for the purposes of the said Act;
Finds the respondent liable to the petitioner in the expenses as taxed, Allows an accountant thereof to be given in and Remits same, when lodged, to the auditor of court to tax and to report;
and Appoints Accountant in Bankruptcy, 1 Pennyburn Road,Kilwinning KA136SA
to be trustee; the whole estate of said Ms Melanie Collins at 07 January 2015 is vested in and now belongs to said trustee, for the benefit of the said debtors creditors</strong></p><p align="justify">According to financial experts, the appointment of the AIB as trustee in a sequestration is a normal move – and leads to the AIB handing the case to one of their agents – which in this case – was given to auditors KPMG.</p><p align="justify">However, after KPMG took on the sequestration, and began their work – lawyers acting for Advance approached Sheriff T Millar of Hamilton Sheriff Court – and claimed there had been a typo (administrative error) in their original petition appointing the Accountant in Bankruptcy as Trustee for Ms Collins.</p><p align="justify">In a closed hearing at Hamilton Sheriff Court on 2 April 2015 - Levy and Mcrae asked Sheriff Millar to swap out the AIB & auditors KPMG for their own preferred Trustee – Kenneth Pattullo of Begbies Traynor.</p><p align="justify">The interlocutor for the hearing before Sheriff Millar reads as follows:</p><p align="justify"><strong><a title="Melanie Collins sequestration - Hamilton Sheriff Court 14 April 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ky87gbe1tQc_U4rRVU8WqAJpL1ubhfdL/"><img width="290" height="427" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/f3e2KlqZuzvnqbnMbQfi2BYpzF9Nn_qazigPeDQOW7XaGX1RvXUx-TcvopbaMs-25EYXtdPPNLVx7DqZPsDqylA4eUB8MzRmsK7hmokNNxgGy9tJ5-GrdpwaS1QQnsoeOgmvShMsDA=w2400"></a>The Sheriff, having seen and considered the letter of 2nd April 2015 from Levy and McRae Solicitors and it having been noted that an administrative error has been made on the interlocutor of 30th March 2015 in that the Accountant in Bankruptcy was appointed as trustee in error; Allows amendment of said interlocutor by appointing Kenneth Pattulo of Begbies Traynor (CentralLLP), FinlayHouse,10-14 West Nile Street, Glasgow, G12PP as Trustee in the Sequestration of Melanie Collins in place of the Accountant in Bankruptcy</strong></p><p align="justify">However – according to both financial and legal experts – there was no error whatsoever in the original application to appoint the Accountant in Bankruptcy in the sequestration of Mr Nolan’s partner – Ms Collins.</p><p align="justify">And – a legal expert has said the court did not actually have the power to amend an error in a petition, rather the court could only ammend an error if the Sheriff had erred in his original decision to appoint the Accountant in Bankruptcy – which is standard practice in sequestrations,</p><p align="justify">When asked for more information on what happened in this case, and why Levy and Mcrae were able to force s Sheriff to swap the Accountant in Bankruptcy as Trustee for their own choice of Trustee – Mr Pattullo - Hamilton Sheriff Court have consistently refused to provide substantive explanations to these events and a number of addition, unusual rulings related to the sequestration of Ms Collins.</p><p align="justify">Now, Ms Collins has been told she should approach the court to recall her sequestration, on the basis the court had no power to alter the original Trustee – the Accountant in Bankruptcy – to that of Levy and Mcrae’s preference – Mr Pattullo.</p><p align="justify">However, in what has now become a battle to secure legal representation to recall the sequestration - multiple law firms have initially worked on the case, confirmed the events at Hamilton Sheriff Court are in error and should be addressed – but later the same law firms have mysteriously withdrawn from acting for Ms Collins after receiving ‘briefings’ or ‘communications’ from those with a vested interest in the case – including Begbies Traynor - the Trustees appointed by Levy and Mcrae.</p><p align="justify">In the latest attempt to recall the sequestration, Ms Collins approached solicitor Alan Cox of law firm Barton and Hendry in Cumbernauld.</p><p align="justify">Notes of a meeting between Mr Cox and Ms Collins reveal the solicitor took on the work, and wrote to Begbies Traynor.</p><p align="justify">However, in an email – dated 15 August 2019 – from Nicola Donnelly – a senior insolvency manager at Begbies Traynor to solicitor Alan Cox of Barton and Hendry – Ms Donnelly told Alan Cox in no uncertain terms that no matter who his clients approached for help – including elected politicians - there would be no change in how events would unfold – which have since led to the sale of all the couple’s properties. </p><p align="justify">In the email to Alan Cox, Nicola Donnelly states:<strong> “I would comment that your clients have instructed previous solicitors [as you are aware] and made complaints to the AiB and their MSP previously as they dispute the validity of the sequestrations. The position obviously will remain the same irrespective of how many different organisations are contacted to act on their behalf.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Nicola Donnelly also added in her email to Mr Cox:<strong> “Eviction actions and forced asset sales are steps taken by a trustee as a last resort. Unfortunately, your clients continued lack of cooperation resulted in the trustee having no other option other than to initiate eviction actions.”</strong></p><p align="justify">However, an ongoing media investigation has now established the eviction actions referred to by Nicola Donnelly – were undertaken by Addleshaw Goddard - a law firm where Alexander Sutherland - the son of Scotland’s top judge – Lord Carloway was based – but Carloway – real name Colin Sutherland – concealed this conflict of interest in his evidence to the Public Petitions Committee during which he faced questions from Mr Nolan’s MSP – Alex Neil.</p><p align="justify">After solicitor Alan Cox was contacted by Begbies Traynor - like all other solicitors engaged by the couple to attempt a recall sequestration - Mr Cox later said he could no longer assist in the case.</p><p align="justify">It should be noted, after Ms Collins was sequestrated in April 2015 – her partner - Mr Nolan – was then targeted by Levy and Mcrae on behalf of Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd in an action at Hamilton Sheriff Court on 1 September 2015.</p><p align="justify">In the action to sequestrate Mr Nolan – Levy and Mcrae hired Mr Gavin Walker QC – currently of Axiom Advocates – to attend Hamilton Sheriff Court with instructions to seek the appointment of Mr Pattullo to seize the assets of Mr Nolan – despite the fact he had won the Court of Session claim against Advance Construction for dumping toxic waste on his land.</p><p align="justify">The couple are now seeking new legal representatives to take on their request to recall the sequestration of Ms Collins, and the Accountant in Bankruptcy has been asked to launch an independent investigation of events in the sequestrations of Ms Collins and her partner, Mr Nolan.</p><p align="justify">The following questions on this case were put to the <a href="http://www.aib.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Accountant in Bankruptcy</u></strong></a> (AIB) and it’s boss – Richard Dennis:</p><p align="justify">Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on these targeted incidents of a criminal nature on Ms Collins & Mr Nolan and their farm - which led to the death of four horses and the couple being placed in a state of alarm and fear for their life?</p><p align="justify">Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on the transfer of the titles and sale of the Morningside Farm property, and the fact these titles changed hands to persons of interest - during or only after the targeted fire attack?</p><p align="justify">Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on the sale of this land and the main home & land at Bonkle to SIPS Homes (Scotland) Ltd, and how this sale came about?<br></p><p align="justify">Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on why Mr Pattullo and Begbies Traynor have not interacted with the couple and their legal agents on various and numerous occasions?<p align="justify">Does the Accountant in Bankruptcy have any comment on the transactions in relation to the securities held by the Clydesdale Bank - during the sequestration of Mr Nolan & Ms Collins, and when the security was transferred during the sequestration from Clydesdale to Promontoria?<p align="justify">Can you clarify what are the AIB & Mr Dennis' responsibilities and liabilities - regarding the actions of trustees, agents administering sequestrations, companies & individuals employed by, and acting on their behalf.<p align="justify">Cam you also clarify what are the AIB & Mr Dennis' responsibilities and liabilities regarding any investigation process into the activities of trustees acting in sequestrations.<p align="justify">Can the AIB confirm if Mr Kenneth Pattullo and Begbies Traynor were the trustee in the sequestration of Mr Donal Nolan, and also the sequestration of his partner Ms Melanie Collins - during the dates of 17/18 May 2019 - these dates correspond to targeted fire attacks (currently under investigation by Police Scotland) which were made on Mr Nolan's farm at Morningside, Wishaw. <p align="justify">Richard Dennis – the Accountant in Bankruptcy - has refused to issue any comment on the above questions put to his office.</p><p align="justify"><strong>CASE BROKE ALL JUDICIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES:</strong><p align="justify">Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 is the same<strong> </strong>case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary – notably where <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a> (Colin Campbell QC) failed to disclose on multiple occasions - the fact Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campell - represented the defenders in the same court.<p align="justify">Since the sequestration of Mr Nolan and his partner took place after the conclusion of their court case - the couple have been the victim - of what some view as revenge for daring to take on a company with public contracts who illegally dumped hazardous waste on their land, where this same company was and is represented by law firms directly linked to senior figures in Scotland’s judiciary.<p align="justify">Mr Nolan and his partner have been evicted from their own home, lost their farm and land.<p align="justify">And - <a href="https://news.stv.tv/west-central/1437928-three-horses-killed-in-targeted-fire-attack-at-farm"><strong><u>a deliberate, targeted fire attack on Mr Nolan's stables at a farm in 2019 which resulted in the death of several horses</u></strong></a> – is still under investigation by Police Scotland.<p align="justify">Sources believe the deliberate arson attack on the couple’s Morningside Farm which featured in <a href="https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/tragic-horses-die-horror-blaze-16176750"><strong><u>news reports of the tragic discovery of burned bodies of dead horses</u></strong></a> – is linked to the couple’s sequestration and setbacks in court. <p align="justify">The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/03/conflict-of-interest-papers-lodged-at.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a>.<p align="justify">It is also worth noting the Nolan v Advance (Scotland) Ltd case drew in a series of sheriffs and judges – from not easily explained hearings at Hamilton Sheriff Court involving Sheriff Millar, Peter Watson & Levy & Mcrae – and Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campbell – to Court of Session judges including <strong>Lord Brodie</strong>, <strong>Lord Menzies</strong>, <strong>Lord Woolman</strong>, <strong>Lord Bracadale</strong> (and a concealed recusal) and <strong>Lord Hodge</strong> – who later prevented the case being appealed to the UK Supreme Court without declaring he had already ruled on the case while in Edinburgh on multiple occasions.<p align="justify">A recent development in the ongoing media probe of this case saw publication of a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oTcLdvGWZdAQzIZvxtJzfanNROuaOll/"><strong><u>witness statement from Advocate Ewen Campbell</u></strong></a> – Lord Malcolm’s son – which directly contradicts evidence given by Lord Carloway - to the Public Petitions Committee and MSP Alex Neil in a hearing on 29 June 2017.<p align="justify">A further development saw a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n0qKhQXjUjJumpf_rdg6qvWXDQXOUrcD/"><strong><u>court-sourced witness statement</u></strong></a> of solicitor and ex-Sheriff Peter Black Watson to the Court of Session – which confirmed Watson employed the son of <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>in the case to represent the client – <a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><strong><u>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>– which ended up being heard by Lord Malcolm - who concealed his link to his son during multiple court hearings.<p align="justify">During the evidence session - Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil on the Court of Session case - where judge & Privy Councillor <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a> (real name Colin Campbell QC) – heard a land contamination case - up to EIGHT TIMES while his own son represented the defenders - <strong></strong><a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><u><strong>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</strong></u></a> in the same court room.<p align="justify">In response to questions from the MSP, Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) furiously claimed that Lord Malcolm’s son DID NOT have any<strong> “active involvement with the case whatsoever.”</strong><p align="justify">However – the witness statement dated May 2013 - signed by Ewen Campbell – covering the time Campbell worked for Glasgow law firm <a href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><strong><u>Levy & Mcrae</u></strong></a> – 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. <p align="justify">A full report on the publication of evidence contradicting Lord Carloway’s testimony at the Scottish Parliament can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/dishonesty-lord-files-reveal-lord.html"><strong><u>DISHONESTY, LORD: Files reveal Lord Carloway misled Holyrood Committee on involvement of judges’ relative in Court of Session claim – witness statement exposes direct role of Ewen Campbell in £6M land case heard by his father - judge & privy councillor Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Further material sourced from the Court of Session, including digital evidence in relation to the ongoing media probe of Nolan v Advance - will be published in upcoming articles.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-17141771087339281762020-06-06T17:46:00.000+01:002020-06-06T19:23:00.701+01:00ADVANCE, SHERIFF: Lord Carloway’s evidence to Holyrood faces probe – Statement of ex- sheriff suspended for Heather Capital writ confirms Lord Malcolm's son worked on Court of Session judicial conflict of interest case linked to top judge<p align="justify"><em><a title="DISHONESTY, LORD: Files reveal Lord Carloway misled Holyrood Committee on involvement of judges’ relative in Court of Session claim – witness statement exposes direct role of Ewen Campbell in £6M land case heard by his father - judge & privy councillor Lord Malcolm" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/dishonesty-lord-files-reveal-lord.html"><img width="390" height="521" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/BsNf_sSTXP6l0eE9518KVY56Hb-W01QnDQGEHq3NC6a9BFczqP7hI1sors-jg3yInx5z9ViP9T4EVwdIQr94YtjvV1pwD3cU61ECVOH_08O0rGpDogHV2-WrU3iMrOJ7bK5T2CNKNQ=w2400"></a>Ex-Sheriff Watson statement confirms judges’ son on conflict case.</em> <strong>COURT PAPERS</strong> obtained in an <strong></strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><strong><u>ongoing probe of claims made by Scotland’s top judge at Holyrood</u></strong></a> – now reveal <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Peter%20Watson"><strong><u>Peter Watson</u></strong></a> – a judicial colleague of <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> - ran the case for a construction company at the centre of a land contamination scandal linked to Court of Session judges who concealed conflicts of interest in court.</p><p align="justify">The <a title="Peter Watson Witness evidence Nolan V Advance Construction" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n0qKhQXjUjJumpf_rdg6qvWXDQXOUrcD/"><strong><u>court-sourced witness statement</u></strong></a> of solicitor and ex-Sheriff Peter Black Watson to the Court of Session - confirms Watson employed the son of <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>in the case to represent the client – <a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><strong><u>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>– which ended up being heard by Lord Malcolm - who concealed his link to his son during multiple court hearings.</p><p align="justify">The new material is a further blow to Lord Carloway – who demanded MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee accept his version of events in that there was no active involvement of Lord Malcolm’s son in the case whatsoever – a claim also contradiced by a witness statement from Lord Malcolm’s son<strong>: </strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oTcLdvGWZdAQzIZvxtJzfanNROuaOll/"><strong>Ewen Campbell - Witness Statement - Nolan v Advance Construction</strong></a></p><p align="justify">In the opening lines of Watson’s witness statement - ex Sheriff Peter Watson states: <strong>“I have been instructed by Advance Construction (Scotland) Limited (“Advance”) in relation to Mr Nolan’s action against the company. I have been running this case and acting on behalf of Advance since. I was approached by Advance in relation to defending an action raised against them by the Pursuer in this case Mr.Donal Nolan and accepted those instructions.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Critical to the ongoing probe of Lord Carloway – Watson goes on to confirm he asked Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campbell – to work alongside him in representing Advance Construction.</p><p align="justify">Watson states: <strong>”Throughout these proceedings, I have been assisted by Mr. Ewen Malcolm Campbell and latterly, Mr. James Anthony Robb. During their involvement, both Mr Campbell and Mr Robb were also enrolled solicitors employed by the firm.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Curiously, at no point in Mr Watson’s witness statement to the Court of Session does he refer to himself as a Sheriff and member of Scotland’s judiciary. Instead, Mr Watson refers to himself as<strong> “Professor Peter Black Watson”</strong>.</p><p align="justify">However, the admission by Watson that he employed Lord Malcolm’s son on a case in which Lord Carloway claimed Ewen Campbell had no active involvement - raises more questions of the Lord President’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee at a crucial hearing during their six year probe of judicial interests and the creation of a register of judges’ declarations of interests<strong>.</strong></p><p align="justify"><a title="Peter Watson Witness evidence Nolan V Advance Construction" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n0qKhQXjUjJumpf_rdg6qvWXDQXOUrcD/"><strong><img width="300" height="433" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/GZg71TQDlxeqdEtR1Ec1mKzTPAicnR_Wx1nCGHJDXe6z5pUmpybPhIRcQVqMYTtttgfxdI3cOsWgnhL1uihHOTAc3A5hRx6DIl2BQR3m8FzUpkBAHZKe0xs_EOEPQx_wbVtOjIQt-A=w2400"></strong></a>At the time of the case – Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 – Peter Watson was a Sheriff on the judicial bench alongside Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) – and Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC).</p><p align="justify">Working alongside Peter Watson on the same case was<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.axiomadvocates.com/advocates/profile/roddy-dunlop-qc"><strong>Roderick William Dunlop QC of Axiom Advocates</strong></a><strong>, </strong>and <a href="https://www.axiomadvocates.com/advocates/profile/ewen-campbell"><strong>Ewen Campbell of Axiom Advocates</strong></a><strong> </strong>– who was employed by Levy and Mcrae during the events of Nolan v Advance.</p><p align="justify">Lord Malcolm’s son later left Levy and Mcrae to join the current Vice Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Roddy Dunlop QC in Axiom Advocates.</p><p align="justify">Watson was later <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html"><strong><u>suspended for a record three years plus over his links to a £28M writ</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>involving the £400M<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Heather%20Capital"><strong><u>Heather Capital Hedge Fund</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>collapse in an order issued by former Lord President Brian Gill in February 2015</p><p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">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:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/05/cashback-qc-legal-regulators-files.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a><p align="justify">In an earlier article - DOJ revealed Lord Carloway had made false and misleading claims to the Public Petitions Committee and a guest MSP – Alex Neil – during a hearing where Lord Justice General Lord Carloway – as he prefers to be known – demanded an end to calls for judicial transparency. The report is featured here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/dishonesty-lord-files-reveal-lord.html"><strong><u>DISHONESTY, LORD: Files reveal Lord Carloway misled Holyrood Committee on involvement of judges’ relative in Court of Session claim – witness statement exposes direct role of Ewen Campbell in £6M land case heard by his father - judge & privy councillor Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">During the evidence session - Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil on the Court of Session case - where judge & Privy Councillor<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong>Lord Malcolm</strong></a> (real name Colin Campbell QC) – heard a land contamination case - up to EIGHT TIMES while his own son represented the defenders - <a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><strong><u>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</u></strong></a> in the same court room.</p><p align="justify">In response to questions from the MSP, Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) furiously claimed that Lord Malcolm’s son DID NOT have any<strong> “active involvement with the case whatsoever.”</strong><p align="justify">However – a witness statement dated May 2013 - signed by Ewen Campbell – covering the time Campbell worked for Glasgow law firm <a href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><strong>Levy and Mcrae</strong></a><strong> –</strong> 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. <p align="justify">During the hearing, Alex Neil - MSP for Airdrie & Shotts - asked Lord Carloway: <strong>“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.”</strong><p align="justify">Mr Neil said there were concerns the reputation of the judiciary should be protected and added: <strong>“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.”</strong><p align="justify">In response – a clearly flustered Lord Carloway claimed no such events had taken place.<p align="justify">Carloway took a strong line against the questions, and replied to the MSP stating: <strong>“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.”</strong><p align="justify">However - on page one of the released witness statement of Ewen Campbell – Mr Campbell confirms he did work for the defenders – Advance Construction.<p align="justify">Ewen Campbell states: <strong>“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”).”</strong><p align="justify">Ewen Campbell goes on to admit he worked on the case for nearly a year: <strong>“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.”</strong><p align="justify">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<strong>: </strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oTcLdvGWZdAQzIZvxtJzfanNROuaOll/"><strong>Ewen Campbell - Witness Statement - Nolan v Advance Construction</strong></a></p><p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oTcLdvGWZdAQzIZvxtJzfanNROuaOll/"><strong><img width="300" height="429" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/F0OHa_uezxEivJRlFG7bPUf-mOQvFEW4t79HrSGpgruLSUqMuD6JcLsmFYDnZ34xIcrKkPzIqr_Dy-EUU9o5gyPMrbpsqdXy0RO58wDupzbjXXt5kWMxFU4FyERhxvPAQOrwv0gOig=w2400"></strong></a>Within the statement, Lord Malcolm’s son – who Carloway told MSPs had no involvement in the case - goes on at length to document numerous on-site visits he undertook at the behest of Carloway’s then judicial colleague – ex Sheriff Peter Watson, and on behalf of the client – Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.</p><p align="justify">In just one example, Ewen Campbell states: <strong>“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 Sc 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.”</strong><p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">Despite Lord Carloway’s abrupt statement that Lord Malcolm’s son did not have <strong>“any active involvement with the case whatsoever”</strong> - 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.<p align="justify">Ewen Campbell states: <strong>“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.”</strong><p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">Campbell also admits to accepting additional instructions to work on the case in which Carloway claimed he played no active role in.<p align="justify">Ewen Campbell further stated:<strong> “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.”</strong><p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">The video footage and transcript of Alex Neil’s questions to Lord Carloway can be found here:<p align="center"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze-QGgaEQ_0"><strong>Alex Neil questions to Lord Carloway Register of Judges interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017</strong></a><p align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ze-QGgaEQ_0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"></iframe></p><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP):</strong> 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.<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway,</strong> 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?<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> 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.<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> 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?<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> 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.<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> 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.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> 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—<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> Have you investigated it?<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> I am aware of the background to it.<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> No, but have you investigated it?<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> I have read the papers that it involves.<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> 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.<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> I am sorry, but I am not aware of letters to me by those particular persons.<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> Your office—<p align="justify"><strong>The Convener:</strong> Alex, let us be careful that we do not get into anything specific on that.<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> Yes—absolutely. My point is about how Lord Carloway can reach that conclusion if he has not heard the other side.<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> 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.<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> No—we have to register what close relatives do.<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> 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.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify"><strong>The Convener:</strong> Last question, please, Mr Neil.<p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong> 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.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway:</strong> 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.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify"><strong>The Convener:</strong> 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.<p align="justify"><strong>ADVANCE SHERIFF AT COURT: Ex-Sheriff Peter Watson resigned from judicial bench in 2018</strong><p align="justify">Peter Black Watson a former partner in Glasgow based law firm Levy and Mcrae – who was named in a £28million writ linked to the collapse of bust hedge fund Heather Capital – resigned his commission as a part time Sheriff on 10 October 2018.<p align="justify">The information was released by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in response to a Freedom of Information request in 2019 –<strong> </strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UkhID09Gxx0GBVZLiBgwgqp9Vg2D7MqN/"><strong><u>SCTS - Sheriff Watson resignation</u></strong></a><p align="justify">The SCTS stated: <strong>“I can advise that Mr Peter Watson resigned his commission as a part-time sheriff on 10 October 2018. Mr Watson did not hear any cases between the lifting of the suspension on 12 July 2018 and his resignation. Mr Watson has not submitted any claims for expenses, nor attended any events, nor carried out any judicial functions, since the suspension was lifted.”</strong><p align="justify">Watson’s resignation came less than three months after <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>had lifted Mr Watson’s record suspension from judicial office of over three years – imposted by<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong>Lord Brian Gill</strong></a><strong> </strong>in February 2015<p align="justify">Mr Watson was suspended from the<strong> </strong><a href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/"><strong><u>Judiciary of Scotland</u></strong></a><strong> </strong>on February 16, 2015 - after the then Lord President, <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill">Lord Brian Gill</a>, was informed by a journalist of the claims in the case against Levy and McRae, and specifically against Watson, over Heather Capital’s collapse in 2010.<p align="justify">The move came after allegations surfaced in a £28million writ naming part time Sheriff Peter Black Watson - and his former law firm Levy and Mcrae, and a number of individuals under investigation in connection with the collapsed Heather Capital hedge fund.<p align="justify">In response to queries from the media in February 2015 on the contents of the writ - the Judicial Office subsequently issued a statement confirming Lord Brian Gill had suspended Sheriff Peter Black Watson (61) on 16 February 2015.<p align="justify">The suspension came after Gill demanded sight of the writ.<p align="justify">Responding to the Lord President’s request, Watson then offered to step aside temporarily – while the litigation concluded - however a Judicial Office spokesperson said<strong> “The Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.”</strong><p align="justify">A<strong> </strong><a href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1390/Statement-from-the-Judicial-Office-for-Scotland-on-the-suspension-of-part-time-sheriff-Peter-Watson"><strong>statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland</strong></a><strong> </strong>read as follows:<strong> Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“On Friday 13 February the Judicial Office was made aware of the existence of a summons containing certain allegations against a number of individuals including part-time sheriff Peter Watson. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Lord President’s Private Office immediately contacted Mr Watson and he offered not to sit as a part-time sheriff on a voluntary basis, pending the outcome of those proceedings. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>Mr Watson e-mailed a copy of the summons to the Lord President’s Private Office on Saturday 14 February. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>On Monday 16 February the Lord President considered the matter. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>Having been shown the summons, the Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>Mr Watson was therefore duly suspended from office on Monday 16 February 2015.”</strong><p align="justify">A fulll report on Mr Watson’s suspension from the judiciary in 2015 can be found here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a><p align="justify">In 2018, after matters relating to the Heather Capital writ came to a conclusion, it fell to Scotland’s current top judge – Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) to consider the ongoing suspension of Watson – reported in further detail here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2018/03/capital-nudge-scotlands-top-judge-lord.html"><strong><u>CAPITAL NUDGE: Scotland's top judge Lord Carloway to consider status of de-benched Sheriff Peter Watson - suspended for a record THREE YEARS over £28million writ linked to collapsed £400m hedge fund Heather Capital</u></strong></a><p align="justify">Later in July 2018. a statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland on the continuing suspension of part-time sheriff Peter Watson stated:<p align="justify">Following the extra judicial settlement of the Heather Capital action in which part-time sheriff Peter Watson was named as one of the defenders, the Lord President has lifted the suspension imposed upon him in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. Sheriff Watson will resume part-time judicial duties with effect from 12 July 2018.<p align="justify">Sheriff Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.<p align="justify">Watson’s former law firm - Levy & McRae, was one of several companies being sued by Heather's liquidator, Ernst & Young, after the fund's collapse in 2010. <p align="justify">Watson was also a director of a company called Mathon Ltd - a key part of the Heather empire.<p align="justify">The collapsed hedge fund Heather Capital – run by lawyer Gregory King was the subject of a Police Scotland investigation and a FIVE YEAR probe by the Crown Office.<p align="justify">The Crown Office later admitted there would be no prosecutions in the cases of the four individuals - lawyers Gregory King & Andrew Sobolewski, accountant Andrew Millar and property expert Scott Carmichael – who were charged by Police Scotland in connection with a Police investigation of events relating to the collapse of Heather Capital.<p align="justify">Peter Watson now has his own law business, PBW Law.<p align="justify">Watson, and his former law firm named in the Heather Capital writ - Levy and Mcrae – also represent the Scottish Police Federation.<p align="justify">Responding to queries from reporters, a spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: <strong>“The action, in which suspended part time Sheriff Peter Watson was among the defenders, has settled. An interlocutor to that effect has been issued. The Lord President will consider what, if any, steps now require to be taken.”</strong><p align="justify">Watson subsequently resigned from the judicial bench.<p align="justify">Despite EY’s withdrawal of the £28million claim against Levy and Mcrae & Peter Watson, detailed claims in the Court of Session revealed the following:<p align="justify">[21] In the Levy Mcrae case: <ul><li><p align="justify">On 4 January 2007, HC transferred £19 million to its client account with LM (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]). </p><li><p align="justify">On 24 January 2007, HC transferred £9.412 million to its client account with LM (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]). </p><li><p align="justify">The money was intended to be loaned to a first level SPV Westernbrook Properties Ltd (WBP) for onward lending to second level SPVs (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]). </p><li><p align="justify">On 9 January 2007, LM transferred £19 million to a Panamanian company (Niblick) owned and controlled by Mr Levene:the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print). </p><li><p align="justify">By a memorandum dated 17 March 2007, HC’s auditors KPMG “identified a number of concerns relating to the documentation provided in respect of these loans”.Further work and information was required (Condescendence 5, page 13 of LM reclaiming print). </p><li><p align="justify">On 29 March 2007, LM transferred £9.142 million to Hassans, solicitors, Gibraltar, under the reference “Rosecliff Limited” (a company controlled by Mr King):the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print). </p><li><p align="justify">In April to June 2007, amounts equivalent to the loans thought to have been made to WBP (including accrued interest) were “repaid” to HC via Cannons, solicitors, Glasgow.The directors were unable to ascertain the source of these repayments (Lord Doherty paragraph [7]). </p><li><p align="justify">Approaches made by HC to Mr Volpe and Triay & Triay, a firm of solicitors in Gibraltar, were met with a total lack of co-operation (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]). </p><li><p align="justify">At a board meeting on 6 September 2007, “KPMG could not approve HC’s accounts … Santo Volpe had executed certain loans to SPV companies where non‑standard procedures had been followed which meant that inadequate security had been given for some loans … Gregory King stated that the loans to the SPVs had been repaid in full in May 2007” (Condescendence 5, page 13 of LM reclaiming print). </p><li><p align="justify">By email to a non‑executive director of HC (Mr Bourbon) dated 7 September 2007, Mr McGarry of KPMG referred to the previous day’s board meeting, and expressed concerns about the situation.He asked for further information, namely “all possible evidence regarding the movement of monies out of Heather Capital into these SPVs and onwards to whatever purpose the funds were applied – ie, sight of bank statements, payment/remittance instructions, certified extracts from solicitors clients’ money accounts etc”.(It should be noted that, contrary to HC’s averment in Condescendence 5 at page 13C‑D of LM reclaiming print, the email did not restrict the inquiries requested to “explaining what information was required <i>from Santo Volpe</i>”:the request was much broader.) </p><li><p align="justify">In October 2007 the non‑executive directors of HC met with the Isle of Man Financial Services Commission (FSC) to discuss “the issues” (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]).A director also disclosed the suspicious activity and Mr Volpe’s obstruction to the Isle of Man Financial Crime Unit (FCU), who said they would investigate (Condescendence 5 page 14 of LM reclaiming print).The auditors KPMG carried out an additional full scope audit. </p><li><p align="justify">By letter dated 18 October 2007, FSC wrote to the directors of HC setting out further information which they required.</p></li></ul><ul><li><p align="justify">By letter dated 26 November 2007 Mr King advised the HC board that “some sort of fraud had been deliberately introduced with invalid land registry details on a number of the loans”.He stated that he had applied pressure to Mr Volpe and Mr Cannon, whereupon there had been “full repayment of the loans with relevant interest” which meant that “investors were secure”. </p><li><p align="justify">On 17 December 2007, KPMG signed the accounts and added a completion note using language such as “The risk of fraud increased to high as a result of the documentation issues surrounding the SPVs, where some form of fraud appeared to have been attempted”.In their audit report opinion, they stated “We have been unable to verify where funds advanced to the SPVs were invested.In addition, we were supplied with false documentation in relation to the SPVs which appears to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead us.Given these loans were repaid in the period, we consider that the effect of this is not so material and pervasive that we are unable to form an opinion on the financial statements [opting instead for express qualifications that loan and security documentation could not be validated] … There is uncertainty as to where the monies lent to the [SPVs] were then subsequently invested … Investigations continue to determine what party (or parties) were involved in and were accountable for these events, and whether any action should be taken against them …” (Lord Doherty paragraph [9]). </p><li><p align="justify">By letter to HC dated 4 January 2008, KPMG gave serious warnings about their inability to validate loan and security documentation, and lack of evidence as to the purpose for which the money advanced to SPVs was applied.In their words:</p></li></ul><p align="justify">“ … Our report is designed to … avoid weaknesses that <i>could lead to material loss or misstatement. </i>However, it is your obligation to take the actions needed to remedy those weaknesses and should you fail to do so we shall not be held responsible <i>if loss or misstatement occurs as a result … </i>[Having explained the disappearance of the funds and the apparent repayments, on which legal advice had been received, KPMG warned] … these matters are extremely serious … an attempted fraud appears to have been perpetrated … We would recommend that the Board continue their investigation into this matter and formally document their decision as to whether or not to inform the criminal justice authorities …”<p align="justify">A full copy of a court opinion detailing these and other claims with regards to a further case against Burness Paull LLB - which coincidently also collapsed earlier last year - can be viewed here: <a href="http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/court-of-session-allows-proof-against.html"><strong>Court of Session allows proof against Levy & Mcrae and Burness Paull LLP in Heather Capital case as liquidators attempt to recover cash from collapsed £280m hedge fund</strong></a>.<p align="justify">In the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F3FQcPgx9QYvavxVw64w5YB6KBFkG2TQ/"><strong>motion of abandonment filed by EY & Heather Capital, heard in the Court of Session on 28 February before Lord Glennie, Lady Paton & Lady Clark of Calton</strong></a>, Lord Glennie’s opinion sums up matters in relation to issues in the Heather Capital case, which linked claims of financial wrongdoing directly to Scotland’s judiciary – who, ultimately heard and ruled on the case.</p><p align="justify">The Scottish Sun reported on the serving of the £28million civil writ which named lawyer Peter Black Watson - back in February 2015, here:<p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"><a><strong><img width="300" height="269" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/KpRg6dLjC9eHCfvLoJLz3Ia9eyhGz9t75bRKh9lwjJDvBoXM1IQheE2lCc0q0CzS_EgisyMqYyWdbwRA93nmAw0cvBOdxoSMS4A0JZ7ABWD-f-Gz1KSTIg_bQSHTRDFS4TOHvqvAhA">WRIT HITS THE FAN</strong></a></p><p align="justify"><strong>FIRM FIRM SLAPPED WITH COURT SUMMONS - Top legal outfit in megabucks lawsuit</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Practice is linked to bust hedge fund - Briefs with ties to big business and high-profile clients</strong><p align="justify"><strong>By RUSSELL FINDLAY Scottish Sun 15 February 2015</strong><p align="justify"><strong>A TOP law firm has been hit with a multi-million pound writ linked to a finance company at the centre of a fraud investigation.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Legal practice Levy & McRae — which acts for footballers, politicians, cops and newspapers — faces the claim over its role in connection with £400million investment scheme Heather Capital.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>It's claimed millions of pounds went missing following the collapse of the hedge fund. And The Scottish Sun told last week how four men — including tycoon Gregory King — have been reported to prosecutors probing the allegations.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>King, 46, ran Heather subsidiary Mathon, where Sheriff Peter Watson — a former senior partner at Levy & McRae — was also briefly a director.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Court of Session summons was served on the firm six months after he left the legal firm.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Watson is one of the country's most high-profile lawyers and spent 33 years with Levy & McRae before quitting to set up his own business.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The visiting Strathclyde University professor sat on an expert panel created by former First Minister Alex Salmond to look into media regulation in Scotland.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Watson also acted for former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini after she was harassed by a campaigner who was later jailed.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>'Their clients are a who's who of Scotland' And he includes ex-Glasgow City Council chief Steven Purcell among his list of clients, as well as senior police and prison officers.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The legal expert, 61 — chairman of Yorkhill Sick Kids' Hospital charity — has also acted for former Rangers owner Sir David Murray.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>And a Gers supporters' group closed down its website following legal threats from Watson, who was working for under-fire directors Sandy and James Easdale.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>A source said: "Watson and Levy & McRae are very well known and their clients are a who's who of Scotland."</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Investors from around the world sunk their cash into Gibraltar-based fund Heather Capital, which launched in 2004.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Some of the cash was loaned to Mathon to bankroll developments across Scotland. But many of the Mathon-funded plans did not happen — and some of the cash was not repaid.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Liquidator Paul Duffy of Ernst & Young has been battling to recover investors' cash since 2010 and is suing Heather's auditors KPMG for negligence over their role. Isle of Man court documents — acquired by The Scottish Sun — claim Heather was operating a "Ponzi" scheme to dupe investors.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>They alleged that as early as December 2006, senior KPMG staff feared that Heather Capital "may have been perpetrating a fraud".</strong><p align="justify"><strong>And in August 2007, KPMG employee Raymond Gawne told a colleague that he was "very uncomfortable" acting for the fund which "may have acted in a criminal manner".</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The claim also alleges that millions of pounds of loans passed through the client account of Glasgow lawyer Frank Cannon who acted for Heather. KPMG senior executive David McGarry sent an email to Gregory King stating: "Frank Cannon has been uncooperative, either in providing some form of explanation for all of the security documentation prepared by his firm, or in agreeing to facilitate access to Cannon's clients' money account". McGarry added he did not accept "that this is due" to Cannon.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Watson declined to comment on the writ and Levy & McRae and Cannon did not respond to our requests for comment.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Police Scotland report naming Mr King and his associates Andrew Sobolewski, Andrew Millar and Scott Carmichael is now being considered by the Crown Office.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>A spokesman for Ernst & Young confirmed: "Heather Capital, via Ernst & Young, has made a claim against Levy & McRae." And a KPMG spokesman said: "The passages in the plaintiff's summons provide a selective and misleading picture and are drawn out simply to seek to make what is a wholly unsubstantiated case.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>"The allegations are completely unfounded and are being fully contested by KPMG."</strong><p align="justify"><strong>GREGORY KING MARBELLA-based former Glasgow Academy pupil, 46, was a lawyer and taxi firm boss before launching Heather Capital in 2004. Family business dynasty includes nightclub boss cousin Stefan King.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>PETER WATSON GREENOCK-born solicitor advocate, 61, carved out a fearsome reputation as a media lawyer during 33 years at Levy & McRae. He also dishes out justice as a part-time sheriff across Scotland.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>KING'S £400million hedge fund Heather Capital loaned millions of pounds to Glasgow-based Mathon, of which Watson was briefly a director.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>TOP lawyer and part-time sheriff Watson has acted for a string of high profile celebrity, political, sport and media clients in a glittering legal career:</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Watson’s clients included Alex Salmond, Stephen Purcell, Elish Angiolini, Yorkhill Hospital Board, Rangers Chiefs.</strong><p align="justify">and a further development reported by the Scottish Sun on the suspension of Sheriff Peter Watson:<p align="justify"><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html"><strong><img width="300" height="118" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/13SWVKb1FJqBMsEiE6YRPAkMQy7MYxO5dqaFN7E-4zF56BYwdXPd9je9oHhXNy7lyQav4MbBsDDMAqLfST0h0MBAw9GrEtaLVEt24XKUStidoSM4f56C_5WZDmcsBf0BdZEvDafUYQ"></strong></a><a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/84761/bench-ban-for-sheriff-linked-to-fraud-probe/"><strong>Bench ban for sheriff linked to fraud probe</strong></a></p><p align="justify"><strong>Lawman, 61, suspended</strong><p align="justify"><strong>By RUSSELL FINDLAY 25th February 2015, Scottish Sun</strong><p align="justify"><strong>A SHERIFF was suspended after he was linked to a collapsed finance firm at the centre of a massive fraud probe.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Peter Watson, 61, was barred from the bench by judges’ boss Lord President Lord Gill following an inquiry by The Scottish Sun.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Watson, whose past clients include ex-First Minister Alex Salmond, was briefly a director of Mathon, a company run by Glasgow bookie’s son Gregory King, 46.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>It received millions in loans from King’s hedge fund Heather Capital which crashed owing a seven-figure sum.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Watson’s suspension came 24 hours after we revealed Heather liquidators Ernst & Young filed a multi-million court demand against his former law firm Levy & McRae.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Lord Gill, 73, can suspend sheriffs and judges if it’s “necessary for the purpose of maintaining public confidence”.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Watson forged a fearsome reputation as a media lawyer over 33 years with Levy & McRae before he left the firm six months ago.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>King is one of four men named in a police report which is being considered by the Crown Office.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Judicial Office for Scotland said last night: “Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on February 16.”</strong><p align="justify">Watson subsequently resigned from the judiciary later in October 2018 – which was confirmed in an FOI response from the Judicial Office in 2019.Earlier reports on the Heather Capital writ, and subsequent collapse of prosecutions in the collapsed £400M hedge fund can be viewed here:<strong> </strong><a title="The collapsed £400M Hedge Fund with direct links to Scotland's judiciary" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Heather%20Capital"><strong><u>The collapsed £400M Hedge Fund with direct links to Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-41329532612054198872020-05-29T10:42:00.000+01:002020-06-01T21:16:09.031+01:00DISHONESTY, LORD: Files reveal Lord Carloway misled Holyrood Committee on involvement of judges’ relative in Court of Session claim – witness statement exposes direct role of Ewen Campbell in £6M land case heard by his father - judge & privy councillor Lord Malcolm<p align="justify"><em><a title="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" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><img width="390" height="519" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/MQuL4UoaPxMDQD892032W_C1CkW0a_a1_zwiaqtCJJerO_kVl-m7cGZKNoayum3LUmomElXDd4Wd5lFOoqe9K7eXA1nrdSgeTGmEyhCmBEgpIG0xsJqc8MLM3iZ614PxvO-YIidh-w=w2400"></a>Lord Carloway misled MSPs on judicial probe.</em> <strong>DOCUMENTS</strong> released to an<strong> </strong><a title="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" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><strong><u>ongoing probe of claims made by Scotland’s top judge at Holyrood</u></strong></a> - now reveal <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> deliberately misled MSPs in evidence relating to the involvement of a relative of a senior Court of Session judge in a £6million court case.</p><p align="justify">The files – in the form of a <a title="Ewen Campell Witness Statement - Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oTcLdvGWZdAQzIZvxtJzfanNROuaOll/"><strong><u>witness statement from Advocate Ewen Campbell</u></strong></a> – 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.</p><p align="justify">During the evidence session - Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil on the Court of Session case - where judge & Privy Councillor <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a> (real name Colin Campbell QC) – heard a land contamination case - up to EIGHT TIMES while his own son represented the defenders - <strong></strong><a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><u><strong>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</strong></u></a> in the same court room.<p align="justify">In response to questions from the MSP, Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) furiously claimed that Lord Malcolm’s son DID NOT have any<strong> “active involvement with the case whatsoever.”</strong><p align="justify">However – a witness statement dated May 2013 - signed by Ewen Campbell – covering the time Campbell worked for Glasgow law firm <a href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><strong><u>Levy & Mcrae</u></strong></a> – 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. <p align="justify">During the hearing, Alex Neil - MSP for Airdrie & Shotts - asked Lord Carloway:<strong> “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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Mr Neil said there were concerns the reputation of the judiciary should be protected and added:<strong> “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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">In response – a clearly flustered Lord Carloway claimed no such events had taken place.</p><p align="justify">Carloway took a strong line against the questions, and replied to the MSP stating:<strong> “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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">However - on page one of the released witness statement of Ewen Campbell – Mr Campbell confirms he did work for the defenders – Advance Construction.</p><p align="justify">Ewen Campbell states:<strong> “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”).”</strong></p><p align="justify">Ewen Campbell goes on to admit he worked on the case for nearly a year: <strong>“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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The exchange between Alex Neil and Lord Carloway can be viewed here:</p><p align="center"><a title="Alex Neil & Lord Carloway on conflict of interest case Scottish Parliament June 29 2017" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90l4R69Q7W8"><strong><u>Alex Neil & Lord Carloway on conflict of interest case Scottish Parliament June 29 2017</u></strong></a></p><p align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/90l4R69Q7W8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"></iframe></p><p align="justify"><p align="justify">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: <a title="Ewen Campbell Witness Statement Nolan v Advance Construction" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oTcLdvGWZdAQzIZvxtJzfanNROuaOll/"><strong><u>Ewen Campbell - Witness Statement - Nolan v Advance Construction</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify"><a title="Ewen Campbell Witness evidence Nolan v Advance Construction" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oTcLdvGWZdAQzIZvxtJzfanNROuaOll/"><img width="290" height="415" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/F0OHa_uezxEivJRlFG7bPUf-mOQvFEW4t79HrSGpgruLSUqMuD6JcLsmFYDnZ34xIcrKkPzIqr_Dy-EUU9o5gyPMrbpsqdXy0RO58wDupzbjXXt5kWMxFU4FyERhxvPAQOrwv0gOig=w2400"></a>Within the statement, Lord Malcolm’s son – who Carloway told MSPs had no involvement in the case - goes on at length to document numerous on-site visits he undertook at the behest of Carloway’s then judicial colleague – ex Sheriff Peter Watson, and on behalf of the client – Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.</p><p align="justify">In just one example, Ewen Campbell states: <strong>“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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">Despite Lord Carloway’s abrupt statement that Lord Malcolm’s son did not have <strong>“any active involvement with the case whatsoever”</strong> - 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.</p><p align="justify">Ewen Campbell states: <strong>“I contacted </strong>[solicitor]<strong> 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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">Campbell also admits to accepting additional instructions to work on the case in which Carloway claimed he played no active role in.<p align="justify">Ewen Campbell further stated: <strong>“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.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></p><p align="justify">Melanie Collins, partner of Mr Donal Nolan – who was the pursuer in Nolan v Advance - said:<strong> “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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">Commenting on the new evidence, the legal expert said: <strong>“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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">He continued:<strong> “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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">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:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/03/conflict-of-interest-papers-lodged-at.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">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 <a href="https://www.addleshawgoddard.com"><strong><u>Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley</u></strong></a> - which was trying to evict a couple at the centre of the case raised by Mr Alex Neil during the Committee hearing in 2017.</p><p align="justify">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 – <strong>Nolan v </strong><a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><u><strong>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</strong></u></a><strong> [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.</strong><p align="justify">In the outburst from the top judge, Lord Carloway said to Mr Neil:<strong> “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.”</strong><p align="justify">Alex Neil replied to Lord Carloway, stating:<strong> “No—we have to register what close relatives do.”</strong><p align="justify">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: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og4rCnCImts"><strong><u>Lord Carloway - Judges should not declare relatives interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017</u></strong></a><p align="justify">The terse exchange – one of many in the evidence session - led to <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pIyxlckeEqRmW2aL0G4ZdKxSqaKXIV9M/"><strong><u>material obtained during a probe by journalists which revealed Lord Carloway’s son</u></strong></a> – 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.<p align="justify"><strong>However – Lord Carloway did not declare this conflict of interest during the Holyrood hearing.</strong><p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">Papers show Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley were acting on behalf of<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/our-people/ken-pattullo"><strong><u>Kenneth Pattullo</u></strong></a> of insolvency practitioners <a href="http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com"><strong><u>Begbies Traynor</u></strong></a> – 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.<p align="justify">The couple took on Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd - over a land contamination incident on their land in Wishaw.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify"><a href="https://www.axiomadvocates.com/advocates/profile/roddy-dunlop-qc"><strong><u>Roderick William Dunlop QC of Axiom Advocates</u></strong></a>, <a href="https://www.axiomadvocates.com/advocates/profile/ewen-campbell"><strong><u>Ewen Campbell of Axiom Advocates</u></strong></a> and <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Peter%20Watson"><strong><u>Peter Watson</u></strong></a> – now formerly of Glasgow based <a href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><strong><u>Levy & Mcrae</u></strong></a> - represented Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.<p align="justify">It should be noted <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Peter%20Watson"><strong><u>Peter Watson</u></strong></a> - who ran the case for Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd was later <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html"><strong><u>suspended for a record three years plus over his links to a £28M writ</u></strong></a> involving the £400M <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Heather%20Capital"><strong><u>Heather Capital Hedge Fund</u></strong></a> collapse - <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/07/sheriff-walks-scottish-courts-confirm.html"><strong><u>and then resigned in 2019</u></strong></a>.<p align="justify">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 – <strong>without instruction</strong> – 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.<p align="justify">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: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/05/cashback-qc-legal-regulators-files.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a><p align="justify">A full report on Watson’s suspension from the judicial bench can be found here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a><p align="justify">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: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/07/sheriff-walks-scottish-courts-confirm.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a><p align="justify">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:</p><p align="center"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze-QGgaEQ_0"><strong><u>Alex Neil questions to Lord Carloway Register of Judges interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017</u></strong></a><p align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ze-QGgaEQ_0" frameborder="0" allow=""accelerometer;" autoplay;="" encrypted-media;="" gyroscope;="" pictur=""></iframe><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong><strong> 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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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—</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: Have you investigated it?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway: I am aware of the background to it.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: No, but have you investigated it?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway: I have read the papers that it involves.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway: I am sorry, but I am not aware of letters to me by those particular persons.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: Your office—</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Convener: Alex, let us be careful that we do not get into anything specific on that.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: Yes—absolutely. My point is about how Lord Carloway can reach that conclusion if he has not heard the other side.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: No—we have to register what close relatives do.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Convener: Last question, please, Mr Neil.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify">An earlier investigation revealed Lord Carloway failed to declare his son was linked to the same case: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/05/judge-of-conflict-top-judge-who.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a><p align="justify">A report being compiled for<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/judicial-register-holyrood-justice.html"><strong><u>an investigation of judges’ conflicts of interest by Holyrood’s Justice Committee</u></strong></a> – has revealed Scotland’s top judge – Lord Carloway - concealed a critical conflict of interest while <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/06/register-to-judge-lord-carloway.html"><strong><u>giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament</u></strong></a> on a <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>proposal to create a register of judges’ interests</u></strong></a>.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">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 <a href="https://www.addleshawgoddard.com"><strong><u>Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley</u></strong></a> - which was trying to evict a couple at the centre of the case raised by Mr Alex Neil during the Committee hearing in 2017.<p align="justify">The exchange between Lord Carloway and Alex Neil – one of many in the evidence session - led to <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pIyxlckeEqRmW2aL0G4ZdKxSqaKXIV9M/"><strong><u>material obtained during a probe by journalists which revealed Lord Carloway’s son</u></strong></a> – 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.<p align="justify"><strong>However – Lord Carloway did not declare this conflict of interest during the Holyrood hearing.</strong><p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">Papers show Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley were acting on behalf of<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/our-people/ken-pattullo"><strong><u>Kenneth Pattullo</u></strong></a> of insolvancy practitioners <a href="http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com"><strong><u>Begbies Traynor</u></strong></a> – 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.<p align="justify">A recent perusal of Mr Sutherland’s online legal biography at <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l9cckeTTLDBc26HlgCNTBFH88JzBlHzJ/"><strong><u>Ampersand Advocates</u></strong></a> and the<strong> </strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZjBBrujg6KnU7N8eGesXoEl3ZglQeRWK/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> - does not mention his time at the merged firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley in his online legal career: <p align="justify"><strong>Alexander Colin MacLean Sutherland BIO:</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>He speaks fluent French and German and is well placed to undertake work involving consideration of documents in those languages.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Saadi v Whiterock Investments Ltd: Outer House, Court of Session; For the defenders. Pursuer seeking reduction of the decree awarding his sequestration.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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:</strong> <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c-Reg0TybdQLIOSl2Twhm0SGX-Gw8yYh/"><strong><u>Ampersand welcomes Alexander Sutherland</u></strong></a><p align="justify"><strong>HOLYROOD SUPPORT FOR REGISTER OF JUDGES’ INTERESTS:</strong><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> – 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.<p align="justify">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 href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><strong><u>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</u></strong></a>. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com35tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-87571676052484443252020-05-06T14:04:00.000+01:002020-05-06T22:13:15.178+01:00JUDGE 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<p align="justify"><em>
<a title="REGISTER TO JUDGE: Lord Carloway criticised after he blasts Parliament probe on judicial transparency - Top judge says register of judges’ interests should only be created if judiciary discover scandal or corruption within their own ranks" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/06/register-to-judge-lord-carloway.html"><img width="390" height="525" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Zxd0HzR2MIfs8BWSL36t9HqxSGB-MH34I0dvu2KZRJpuMwhEKasMFyrn1JiML0w4h4igOL_-JAqK8jXDYvI9LIwXi3Qu9F8OP9DMbs7kvr4B-RqLcIc9XoTZcZqvjiM9NxWtnBYP9w"></a>Lord Carloway failed to declare link to judicial conflict case.</em> <strong>A REPORT</strong> being compiled for<strong> </strong><a title="JUDICIAL REGISTER: Holyrood Justice Committee to continue work on register of judges’ interests – MSPs to seek evidence from constitutional experts & report on conflicts of interest of key stakeholders in the justice system" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/judicial-register-holyrood-justice.html"><strong><u>an investigation of judges’ conflicts of interest by Holyrood’s Justice Committee</u></strong></a> – will reveal Scotland’s top judge – Lord Carloway - concealed a critical conflict of interest while <a title="REGISTER TO JUDGE: Lord Carloway criticised after he blasts Parliament probe on judicial transparency - Top judge says register of judges’ interests should only be created if judiciary discover scandal or corruption within their own ranks" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/06/register-to-judge-lord-carloway.html"><strong><u>giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament</u></strong></a> on a <a title="Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary" href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>proposal to create a register of judges’ interests</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">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 <a title="Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley" href="https://www.addleshawgoddard.com"><strong><u>Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley</u></strong></a> - which was trying to evict a couple at the centre of the case raised by Mr Alex Neil during the Committee hearing in 2017.</p><p align="justify">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 – <strong>Nolan v </strong><a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><u><strong>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</strong></u></a><strong> [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.</strong></p><p align="justify">In the outburst from the top judge, Lord Carloway said to Mr Neil:<strong> “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.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Alex Neil replied to Lord Carloway, stating:<strong> “No—we have to register what close relatives do.”</strong></p><p align="justify">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:</p><p align="center"><a title="Lord Carloway - Judges should not declare relatives interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 20127" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og4rCnCImts"><strong><u>Lord Carloway - Judges should not declare relatives interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017</u></strong></a></p><p align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/og4rCnCImts" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"></iframe></p><p align="justify"><p align="justify">The terse exchange – one of many in the evidence session - led to <a title="Colin Alexander Maclean Sutherland - Addleshaw Goddard - Law Society of Scotland search" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pIyxlckeEqRmW2aL0G4ZdKxSqaKXIV9M/"><strong><u>material obtained during a probe by journalists which revealed Lord Carloway’s son</u></strong></a> – 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.</p><p align="justify"><strong>However – Lord Carloway did not declare this conflict of interest during the Holyrood hearing.</strong></p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">Papers show Addleshaw Goddard & HBJ Gateley were acting on behalf of<strong> </strong><a title="Kenneth Pattullo" href="https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/our-people/ken-pattullo"><strong><u>Kenneth Pattullo</u></strong></a> of insolvancy practitioners <a title="Begbies Traynor" href="http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com"><strong><u>Begbies Traynor</u></strong></a> – 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.</p><p align="justify">The couple took on Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd - over a land contamination incident on their land in Wishaw.</p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">However - the couple’s £6million damages claim - led by <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Campbell%20QC"><strong><u>John Campbell QC</u></strong></a> - ended badly after a series of undeclared conflicts of interest by some of Scotland’s most senior judicial figures, instances where judges were switched from hearing to hearing, a series of refusals of legal costs claims, and denied requests to appeal in Edinburgh, and at the UK Supreme Court in London.</p><p align="justify">In a sequence of discussions and a meeting between Campbell and defenders counsel Roddy Dunlop QC which took place <strong>after Lord Woolman stated in court that Mr Nolan had a valid claim</strong> – John Campbell QC embarked on a series of unauthorised actions - and destroyed his own client’s case - by removing most of the financial claim - without consultation or obtaining permission to do so.</p><p align="justify">A recent probe established John Campbell – who agreed to act on a no-win-no-fee basis in the case - then went on to scam his client Mr Nolan for hundreds of thousands of pounds in unexpected legal fees, while also demanding thousands of pounds at a time – in cash – which the senior QC and now Edinburgh Quaich Project Charity Boss insisted on collecting in person</p><p align="justify">A full investigation of Campbell’s fee scam and the Faculty of Advocates role in concealing undeclared cash payments to Campbell is reported in further detail here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/04/cash-advocate-9k-consultations-75k.html"><strong><u>CASH ADVOCATE: £9K consultations & £75K meetings - Edinburgh Quaich Project Charity QC Boss scammed clients on no-win-no-fee deal - Faculty of Advocates files reveal extent of Advocates cash-for-fees HMRC tax dodge scam</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Mr Nolan and his partner remain constituents of MSP Alex Neil - who has followed and supports their efforts to have the case re-opened, as well as an investigation into events.</p><p align="justify">Since the sequestration of Mr Nolan and his partner took place, after the conclusion of their court case, the couple have been the victim - of what some view as revenge for daring to take on a company with public contracts who illegally dumped hazardous waste on their land, where this same company was and is represented by law firms directly linked to senior figures in Scotland’s judiciary.</p><p align="justify">Mr Nolan and his partner have been evicted from their own home, lost their farm and land.</p><p align="justify">And - <a title="Three horses killed in targeted fire attack at farm" href="https://news.stv.tv/west-central/1437928-three-horses-killed-in-targeted-fire-attack-at-farm"><strong><u>a deliberate, targeted fire attack on Mr Nolan's stables at a farm in 2019 which resulted in the death of several horses</u></strong></a> – is still under investigation by Police Scotland.</p><p align="justify">Sources believe the deliberate arson attack on the couple’s Morningside Farm which featured in <a title="Fire rips through farm stables killing four horses" href="https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/tragic-horses-die-horror-blaze-16176750"><strong><u>news reports of the tragic discovery of burned bodies of dead horses</u></strong></a> – is linked to the couple’s sequestration and setbacks in court. </p><p align="justify">And, recently, evidence has come to light of burned out vehicles possibly connected to the incident which were photographed located at a premises linked to potential suspects.</p><p align="justify">Now, there are calls for an independent, public inquiry into events which occurred during the case, the role of Advance Construction, and events in the Court of Session including involvement of certain law firms and members of the judiciary who – according to court files - deliberately concealed conflicts of interest across multiple court hearings in the case. </p><p align="justify">The case - Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd has attracted significant publicity in the press and is part ongoing probe into judicial conflicts of interest – resulting in the naming of several judges who failed to declare documented conflicts of interest in the case</p><p align="justify">Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee, and recently, the Justice Committee have received and considered evidence in relation to the actions of <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a> (Colin Campbell QC) who himself failed to declare he heard the case up to eight times while his own son – Ewen Campbell – was in the same court, representing the defenders – Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.</p><p align="justify">The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/03/conflict-of-interest-papers-lodged-at.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Minutes before Lord Carloway hit out at Alex Neil over suggestions judges declare links to their relatives interests, the top judge snapped at the MSP stating: <strong>“I am satisfied that Lord Malcolm’s actions were entirely honourable and that he acted in accordance with the code of judicial ethics.”</strong></p><p align="justify">However, the court record does show Lord Malcolm heard the case on multiple occasions while his son was in court – and new evidence has emerged from witness statements indicating Lord Malcolm’s son had also visited the site of the land contamination incident – which contradicts claims from the top judge & judicial office that Ewen Campbell had nothing to do with the case.</p><p align="justify">The original papers from Hamilton Sheriff Court in 2011 indicate that when a Sheriff Millar transferred the case to the Court of Session to be heard by Lord Malcolm – Ewen Campbell – Lord Malcolm’s son - was also present at that same hearing on 30 September 2011, along with Gavin Walker – who is a QC at Axiom Advocates.</p><p align="justify">An ongoing investigation into the case has now revealed Levy and Mcrae, representing Advance Construction in their pursuit of Mr Nolan & his partner – then sought a hearing on 14 April 2015 - to swap the original appointment of the Accountant in Bankruptcy in the sequestration of the elderly couple - to Begbies Traynor and Mr Pattullo.</p><p align="justify"><strong>That hearing took place at Hamilton Sheriff Court before the SAME Sheriff Millar - who heard the couple’s initial claim against Advance Construction in 2011 and then transferred it to be heard by Lord Malcolm in the Court of Session.</strong></p><p align="justify">However, records show that by the time of this hearing in 2015 – accountants KPMG had already been appointed by the Accountant in Bankruptcy to handle the sequestration of Mr Nolan and his partner Ms Collins – and it can not be easily explained away by the Accountant in Bankruptcy as to why KPMG were swapped out of the sequestration for Levy and Mcrae’s choice of Begbies Traynor and Kenneth Pattullo.</p><p align="justify">Events around Levy & Mcrae’s motivated appointment of Begbies Traynor and Mr Pattullo – are now the subject of calls for an investigation by the couple’s MSP and legal experts - after it emerged assets owned by the couple which were held by the Clydesdale Bank, were transferred without notification to an offshore vulture fund known as Promantoria Ltd.</p><p align="justify">And – information has now come to light that land and assets formerly owned by the couple which were seized by Mr Pattullo & Begbies Traynor on behalf of Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd - are now in the ownership of several persons of interest in relation to ongoing investigations of events which have occurred around Mr Nolan and his partner as a result of the collapse of their valid Court of Session claim.</p><p align="justify">The Judicial Office for Scotland were asked for comment on the following media enquiry:</p><p align="justify"><strong>“In relation to claims made by Lord Carloway to MSP Alex Neil at yesterday’s Public Petitions Committee in relation to declaring the interests of close relatives, and Lord Carloway’s mention of a son in the legal profession, can the Judicial Office confirm if Lord Carloway’s son currently works at Addleshaw Goddard LLP which has merged with HBJ Gateley.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“On being provided with information HBJ Gateley is a pursuer in relation to obtaining decree with a view to evicting a Ms Melanie Collins & a Mr Donal Nolan from properties in Wishaw, does the Judicial Office or Lord President wish to comment on Lord Carloway’s testimony yesterday that entering the details of close relatives work in a register is going way beyond what is being proposed in terms of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s Judiciary.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“And, in view of the claims made in relation to above, does the Judicial Office or Lord President see this as a matter which should be made clearer to the Petitions Committee after yesterday’s mention of the case during open session and Lord Carloway’s comments?”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“Finally, does the Judicial Office or Lord President have any further comment on Lord Carloway’s evidence to the Petitions Committee, and any further comment on the Petition itself?</strong><p align="justify">Baktosch Gillan, who was the Acting Head of Judicial Communications at the time, gave the following reply: <strong>“In relation to your first question, the Judicial Office does not hold that information.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Mr Gillan added: <strong>“We have nothing further to add to the Lord President’s evidence to the committee.”</strong><p align="justify">To confirm Mr Sutherland’s position at Addleshaw Goddard during the time Lord Carloway gave his evidence to Holyrood in 2017, a search of the Law Society of Scotland’s online database of solicitors was made.</p><p align="justify">Days before the query to the Judicial Office in relation to Lord Carloway’s son - the name of Alexander Sutherland appeared in the Law Society of Scotland’s online search results.</p><p align="justify">However, some time after the Judicial Office issued the statement denying they held any information on the Lord President’s son’s involvement with HBJ Gateley & Addleshaw Goddard, and a potential conflict of interest - a new search of the Law Society of Scotland’s database revealed they had removed the name of Alexander Sutherland and references to his service at Addleshaw Goddard from their online database search results – which are now published as part of this report here: </p><p align="justify">The full exchange between Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) and Alex Neil MSP at the Public Petitions Committee can be viewed, with transcript, below:</p><p align="center"><a title="Alex Neil questions to Lord Carloway Register of Judges interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze-QGgaEQ_0"><strong><u>Alex Neil questions to Lord Carloway Register of Judges interests Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017</u></strong></a></p><p align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ze-QGgaEQ_0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"></iframe></p><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil:</strong><strong> 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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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—</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: Have you investigated it?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway: I am aware of the background to it.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: No, but have you investigated it?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway: I have read the papers that it involves.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Lord Carloway: I am sorry, but I am not aware of letters to me by those particular persons.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: Your office—</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Convener: Alex, let us be careful that we do not get into anything specific on that.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: Yes—absolutely. My point is about how Lord Carloway can reach that conclusion if he has not heard the other side.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex Neil: No—we have to register what close relatives do.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Convener: Last question, please, Mr Neil.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></p><p align="justify">A recent perusal of Mr Sutherland’s online legal biography at <a title="Alexander Sutherland Ampersand Advocates" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l9cckeTTLDBc26HlgCNTBFH88JzBlHzJ/"><strong><u>Ampersand Advocates</u></strong></a> and the<strong> </strong><a title="Alexander Sutherland - Faculty of Advocates" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZjBBrujg6KnU7N8eGesXoEl3ZglQeRWK/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> - does not mention his time at the merged firm of Addleshaw Goddard-HBJ Gateley in his online legal career: <br></p><p align="justify"><strong>Alexander Colin MacLean Sutherland BIO:</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>
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.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>He speaks fluent French and German and is well placed to undertake work involving consideration of documents in those languages.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Saadi v Whiterock Investments Ltd:
Outer House, Court of Session;
For the defenders. Pursuer seeking reduction of the decree awarding his sequestration.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>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:</strong> <a title="Ampersand welcomes Alexander Sutherland" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c-Reg0TybdQLIOSl2Twhm0SGX-Gw8yYh/"><strong><u>Ampersand welcomes Alexander Sutherland</u></strong></a> </p><p align="justify">Ampersand is delighted to welcome <a href="https://ampersandadvocates.com/people/alexander-sutherland/">Alexander Sutherland </a>to the stable who called at the Bar today.<p align="justify"><strong>Before calling to the Bar, Alex trained with Addleshaw Goddard LLP, formerly HBJ Gateley. During his seat in the firm’s dispute resolution department, he gained experience of a wide range of litigation in both the Court of Session and the sheriff court, including real estate and insolvency litigation. He also had seats in the real estate and corporate recovery departments.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex 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.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex’s interests lie primarily in the fields of commercial and public law. As a devil he also gained experience of planning. His principal devilmaster was Ampersand’s </strong><a href="https://ampersandadvocates.com/people/laura-anne-van-der-westhuizen/"><strong>Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen</strong></a><strong>.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>He speaks fluent French and German and is well placed to undertake work involving consideration of documents in those languages.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>On Alex’s arrival, Head Clerk Alan Moffat said “I am delighted that Alex has joined us. He comes with a great reputation from his time at a top firm and has been highly praised during his time on the devils course. I am very sure he will continue to impress at the Bar and expect him to be a great addition to the stable.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>In the first part of the time-honoured two-stage admission ceremony, the Dean of Faculty, Gordon Jackson, QC, said the public office of advocate carried real privileges and corresponding responsibilities.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“You have become part of a great national institution which has played, throughout its existence, a very significant role in the legal and cultural life of this nation. As a member of Faculty you will play your own particular part in the future of that institution,” he added.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>In the second part of the ceremony, before Lord Clark in the Court of Session, Alex along with 6 other new calls made the declaration of allegiance.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Lord Clark said: “It is a genuine pleasure and a privilege to welcome you as members of the Faculty of Advocates and to congratulate you on this great achievement. The Faculty has long been an important and distinguished organisation. It has commonly attracted some of the ablest minds of each generation, and it continues to thrive.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“It is truly one of the great features of our society that the general public, businesses and other organisations have at their disposal people like you – independently-minded advocates who will take on and fight their causes.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“I very much hope that you thoroughly enjoy your work at the Bar and the camaraderie of your colleagues.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Alex is a welcome addition to the depth of counsel on offer at Ampersand.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>HOLYROOD QUEST FOR A REGISTER OF JUDGES’ INTERESTS</strong><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> – 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.<p align="justify">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 href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><strong><u>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</u></strong></a>. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com50tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-62391513151492143922020-05-03T14:10:00.000+01:002020-05-03T14:10:38.460+01:00REGULATOR SCRUTINY: Scots Legal Complaints Commission cost consumers & taxpayers £30M – rogue lawyers ordered to pay ONLY £963K over TWELVE YEARS, probe reveals law firms buy secrecy from financially ruined clients with Non Disclosure Agreements<p align="justify"><em><a title="Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - history of poor regulation of solicitors" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Legal%20Complaints%20Commission"><img width="390" height="531" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1gKH3BXzPJIYIy-I8eRNOB3Pkw82f1wYfDN9HSE9rhFB5erKWODcAiXoVTxWmqwu_-TOPxnUtc57hgIWUpOjJ0ITb3_YqND6JllgoSm2jFCWVtT8RDecdz54vyKjngheKQURWJbBMQ=w2400"></a>Legal services regulator faces scrutiny.</em> <strong>SCOTLAND’S </strong>legal services regulator – the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></strong></a> (SLCC) - created in response to evidence of bias by <a title="Law Society of Scotland" href="https://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></strong></a> control of solicitors self- regulation – has cost taxpayers & clients a staggering<strong> £30 Million</strong> since 2008.</p><p align="justify">And, amid renewed media interest in continuing pro-lawyer bias in the regulation of Scotland’s legal sector – data obtained from the SLCC now reveals pittance levels of compensation paid out to thousands of financially ruined clients - amounting to less than <strong>£963,000</strong> over <strong>TWELVE</strong> years.</p><p align="justify">Evidence has also emerged that corrupt Scots law firms are using the same Non Disclosure Agreements used by corrupt businessmen and jailed ex-Holyrood moguls such as Harvey Weinstein to buy secrecy from financial scandal which could impact on their business reputation & brand.</p><p align="justify">Cases brought to the attention of the media indicate several well known law firms, and even High Street solicitors have forced financially ruined clients into accepting pitiful amounts of compensation - while imposing strict secrecy agreements to ensure the details of financial scandals and identity of the law firm will never be revealed.</p><p align="justify">In <a title="SLCC - Compensation payments & Non Disclosure Agreements" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tpORUAhr3iNL2KKtp2tTXkrFhtANyiMl/"><strong><u>response to a Freedom of Information request</u></strong></a> – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission admitted at least <strong>377 cases</strong> of serious complaints against Scottish lawyers in ONLY three years – were subject to conditions of strict secrecy agreements between mediators, law firms and clients who eventually signed up to <strong>Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs).</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>FUNDING LEGAL COMPLAINTS:</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The cost of funding the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission comes from a general complaints levy – which is funded by legal fees taken from clients.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>After the funds are collected from clients, the levy is then is paid to the SLCC by all practising solicitors, advocates, QCs and other legal representatives in Scotland.</strong></p><p align="justify">The figures from 2008 to 2019 - sourced from the SLCC’s budget reports - list a total of around<strong> £27,812,965.</strong> collected from the complaints levy since 2009.</p><p align="justify">A further sum of at least <strong>£2million in public cash </strong>was paid to the SLCC by the Scottish Government in 2008-2009 - making a total income of around <strong>£29,812,965 </strong>since the legal regulator began investigating complains against rogue lawyers some twelve years ago.</p><p align="justify">The SLCC’s accounts from 2008-2019 reveal the following figures: <strong>2008-2009 £2,000,000 (received from Scottish Govt), 2009-2010 £2,142480; 2010-2011 £2,661999 2011-2012 £2,714,918 (actual intake – £1,724,624 after SLCC forced to use £1m cash reserves to reduce levy) 2012-2013 £2,792,779; 2013-2014 £2,889,679; 2014-2015 £2,679,500; 2016-2017 £2,808,300; 2017-2018 £3,163,700; 2018-2019 £3,326,199; 2019-2020 £3,623,705 proposed levy & income.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>COMPENSATION DOES NOT COVER ACTUAL CLIENT LOSS:</strong></p><p align="justify">Confirming the total amount of compensation paid to clients who suffered huge financial losses, the response from the SLCC in relation to an FOI request stated: <strong>The total amount of compensation directed by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to be paid to complainers since its creation to 31 January 2020 is £963,277.38.” </strong></p><p align="justify">The response added:<strong> “This figure includes compensation awarded for inconvenience and distress and compensation for actual loss.”</strong></p><p align="justify">However, and importantly - the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission did not provide figures for any actual financial losses suffered by clients - or financial losses quantified by clients.</p><p align="justify">The FOI disclosure also revealed the Scottish Legal Complaints Complaints Commission does not record actual sums paid to complainants.</p><p align="justify">And, the legal regulator admitted tens of thousands of pounds in compensation have still not been paid to clients, by solicitors already ordered to do so by the legal regulator.</p><p align="justify">The SLCC stated in it’s FOI disclosure: <strong>“Whilst the SLCC does not record the actual sums paid, we do record where we are notified that compensation is not paid. This figure is currently £41,516.89.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Additionally, new data recovered via a Freedom of Information request reveals at least 377 cases of serious complaints brought against Scottish lawyers in the past three years – were subject to conditions of secrecy agreements between mediators, law firms and clients who signed up to Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>BUY SECRECY – LAW FIRMS FORCE NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS TO CONCEAL SCANDAL:</strong></p><p align="justify"><a title="SLCC - Non Disclosure Agreements & Compensation FOI" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tpORUAhr3iNL2KKtp2tTXkrFhtANyiMl/"><img width="290" height="394" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/RP7MsMzDQd8d6Vz5tirIX1nZ9Xjg9ALe95m5wUWQF7DVWGMttgoO9JOfZnhSpKEYGHL-BHo_blzJAMi4mdADcD2LbuN_Y2R3NoUQOwzJ9iG8boO1f9bnEl4_rRmORaiIuU0PIJ255A=w2400"></a>On the subject of Non Disclosure Agreements between clients, and their solicitors and law firms who were the subject of complaints - the SLCC stated: <strong>“In summary, in the last three operational years (1 July – 30 June) and up to 31 January 2020,
there have been 377 cases which have been subject to such a confidentiality agreement.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>
“The SLCC process allows parties to a complaint to resolve matters between themselves at any
point prior to a Final Determination being issued by the SLCC so it possible that such
agreements could be negotiated between parties out with our process to resolve a complaint.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“It is not within the powers of the SLCC to recommend a NDA or similar as part of a resolution to
a complaint and the SLCC would not enter into such agreements to settle a complaint.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“This information is provided to the SLCC as part of an informal resolution, and the parties to the
complaints are under no obligation to provide us with such information. Therefore it would not
be recorded in a readily accessible way on the SLCC system. I am unable to provide you with
exact figures in respect of these types of Non-Disclosure Agreements.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“There have been approximately 2 instances of such agreements being recorded against
complaints settled out with the SLCC process within the last three years to the date of this FOI
request.”</strong></p><p align="justify">While the SLCC does not itself pay compensation to clients – many of whom have suffered life changing and enormous financial losses at the hands of their own legal representatives - the legal regulator does order law firms to pay compensation and other payments to complainants.</p><p align="justify">However, in just a small snapshot of cases looked at by journalists - where solicitors helped themselves to their client’s assets, emptied bank accounts, appropriated land titles and property from deceased estates & fleeced millions of pounds from clients in investment scams – there are clear indications the current system to compensate for actual and quantifiable financial losses is still heavily weighted in the solicitor’s favour.</p><p align="justify">In some instances - the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Faculty of Advocates and Law Society of Scotland have clearly, and continually turned a blind eye to multi million pound losses attributed to clear, and documented examples of dishonesty & negligence on the part of legal representatives.</p><p align="justify">However – Diary of Justice has recently been approached by several clients who were forced to register complaints to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after losing considerable sums to rogue solicitors and several well known Scots law firms.</p><p align="justify">Once complaints were filed with the legal regulator, several clients alleged they felt that they were being intimidated into the mediation process - and forced to accept outcomes and settlements far short of their expectations or actual financial losses.</p><p align="justify">Some clients who entered the SLCC’s mediation process have also alleged they were denied the right to seek independent advice on mediation and settlement offers - which in some cases were time barred to ensure clients were forced to accept little or nothing in return for – in some cases - hundreds of thousands of pounds in actual financial losses. </p><p align="justify"><strong>The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has so far not listed actual financial losses or financial losses quantified by clients in any statement from it’s creation in 2008 to publication of this article.</strong></p><p align="justify">In response to queries from a DOJ journalist, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission released a copy of their Agreement to Mediate.</p><p align="justify">The <a title="Agreement to Mediate" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L-RW4X8mr5cWJ1Py4rwuwogwk5xOZAYg/"><strong><u>Agreement to Mediate</u></strong></a> – contains contains numerous conditions, including strict terms of confidentiality - for mediation to occur between clients, mediators & lawyers accused of wrongdoing.</p><p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L-RW4X8mr5cWJ1Py4rwuwogwk5xOZAYg/"><img width="290" height="406" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-d1aPyYy3AAuhh6va2af0FHdCiI1Z42xm_Fk93FwKa9veQlKurqoYTt2ZroeSQIDMZLSYR9l7bgC9afrQE1G_9yGttXH7PZaoFXDClPN6sfX5PnR5LFHpcfryG91oEx3jWT1qOVazw=w2400"></a>On the issue of Settlements, the SLCC’s Agreement to Mediate states the following:</p><p align="justify"><strong>SETTLEMENT</strong><p align="justify"><strong>11. When/if the Participants agree on how to resolve the dispute, the Participants will draw up a Settlement Agreement with the assistance of the Mediator, for the Participants to sign and date. The Settlement Agreement will be legally binding when it is in writing and executed by the Participants. The Participants will be legally bound by the Settlement Agreement once executed and undertake to give effect to the Settlement Agreement. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>12. In the event that the Settlement involve actions by one Participant over a period of time, the other Participant will inform the SLCC’s Mediation Co-ordinator when all terms have been met.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>13. In the event that a Participant does not fulfil the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the other Participant:</strong><p align="justify"><strong>a) may be released from the Settlement terms if they so wish, by giving written notice to that effect to the other Participant; and</strong><p align="justify"><strong>b) shall inform the SLCC of the failure to fulfil the terms of the Settlement Agreement.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>14. All Participants to the dispute reserve their respective rights should a Settlement not be reached through mediation.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>CONFIDENTIALITY</strong><p align="justify"><strong></strong><p align="justify"><strong>15. The Participants, the Mediator and the SLCC agree that the discussions at mediation will be kept confidential, including the terms of any settlement Agreement.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>This paragraph shall not apply where: </strong><p align="justify"><strong>i) The Participants consent to specific disclosure;</strong><p align="justify"><strong>ii) Disclosure is necessary to implement and enforce the Settlement Agreement;</strong><p align="justify"><strong>iii) The Participants are, or any other person is, required by law to make disclosure;</strong><p align="justify"><strong>iv) The Mediator reasonably considers that there is serious risk to the safety of any person if the Mediator does not make such a disclosure;</strong><p align="justify"><strong>v) There is any allegation of a breach of the Settlement Agreement and disclosure is required for the purposes of taking further action.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>16. A Participant may disclose information or documents obtained during the mediation to a person not present at the mediation where that Participant needs to do so in order to obtain professional advice or where the person is within that party’s legitimate field of intimacy. A Participant disclosing information or documents in these circumstances must inform the professional advisor or any such person that the information or documents are confidential. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>17. In the event of breach of the obligations contained in paragraph 15 of this Agreement by any Participant, the Mediators, the SLCC and the Participant(s) who have not caused the breach shall no longer be bound by the terms of this paragraph but their rights to take further action in respect of any such breach of this Agreement shall be preserved.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>18. Neither Participant may have access to the Mediator’s notes nor SLCC Mediator Review Form nor call the Mediator nor the SLCCas a witness in any proceedings related to any of the issues between them. The Mediator’s opinion will be inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings, which may take place between the Participants concerning the subject matter of the mediation.</strong><p align="justify">The SLCC Agreement to Mediate also contains a key section which removes any liability from mediators should they be considered to have acted negligently or omit to consider issues within the scope of the mediation.</p><p align="justify"><strong>EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY</strong><p align="justify"><strong></strong><p align="justify"><strong>20. Neither the SLCC nor any Mediator, nor any body with whom the Mediator is professionally associated, shall be liable to the Participants for any act or omission, whether negligently or otherwise, in connection with the performance or purported performance of any of the services provided by them or the obligations arising under this Agreement. This Agreement may be produced and relied upon as a defence to any claim made by a Participant against the SLCC, any mediator or body with whom the Mediator is professionally associated.</strong> <p align="justify">Commenting on issues relating to mediation, a spokesperson for the SLCC provided the following statement: “<strong>We know that mediation is an unfamiliar process for some parties, but our experience is that, once people take part, it has very high resolution rates, receives higher customer satisfaction scores from both lawyers and complainers, and is more efficient. It allows both parties to take control of the outcome of the complaint, and find an agreed solution that resolves the complaint to both parties’ satisfaction, is often quicker than a full investigation, and is less costly to administer.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“Of course, not all cases will be suitable for mediation, and mediation only proceeds where both parties agree to attend. Where mediation does not help parties reach an agreed outcome, or where it is not appropriate, cases progress to investigation.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“We do ask for feedback from everyone who takes part in mediation, and we use this to take action on any concerns raised, and to consider what improvements we might be able to make to our processes.”</strong> <p align="justify">The SLCC also provided the following information:<p align="justify"><strong>These figures are from our last annual report year (2018-19): Outcomes at mediation: Before we start investigating a service complaint, we give the complainer and the lawyer or firm an opportunity to attend a mediation meeting, led by an independent external mediator. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>Number of complaints resolved by mediation: 65</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Agreed to mediation when offered: 39% (both parties need to agree to participate for mediation to proceed – if one party does not wish mediation then the matter is progressed to investigation instead)</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Mediation was successful: 71% (mediation does have a high success rate in delivering agreed outcomes, but in 29% of cases parties either did not reach or accept an outcome, which they are entitled to do, and so the case proceeded to formal investigation and, if required, determination).</strong><p align="justify"><strong>We have a page on our public facing website devoted to mediation (</strong><a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/your-complaint/our-process/mediation/"><strong>https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/your-complaint/our-process/mediation/</strong></a><strong>), which explains the process for both complainers and lawyers, and includes an information booklet and a video featuring some of our mediators, to help people understand what mediation is and how it might help them to reach a consensual resolution.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 provides that the SLCC may offer mediation as way of resolving service complaints. This is set out in section 8 of the Act. The objective of mediation is to enable the parties to resolve the service issues complained about quickly, if they choose.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Mediation can be offered at any stage after a service issue is deemed an eligible complaint (mediation is not considered appropriate where there is an eligible conduct issue to be investigated). It is voluntary, and requires the acceptance of both parties. Mediation is a confidential process which gives the complainer and the firm the opportunity to meet together with an independent third-party so they can both decide how to sort out the service complaint. The mediator is a neutral person who helps them talk through the problem to see if they can agree a fair and reasonable solution.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>If the parties reach an agreement at mediation and if all the settlement terms are fulfilled, that is the end of the complaint process. If the parties reach an agreement but for whatever reason, the settlement terms are not fulfilled, the complaint may proceed to Investigation, after the nature of the alleged breach has been considered by the SLCC. If the complainer alleges that the solicitor breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement, they can submit a new complaint to the SLCC about this. If the parties do not reach an agreement at mediation, the complaint moves to Investigation. Mediation is confidential to the parties of the mediation, the mediator and the SLCC.</strong><p align="justify">Previous media investigations, reports and coverage of issues relating to the SLCC can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Legal%20Complaints%20Commission"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - A history of pro-lawyer regulation</u></strong></a>. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-44703084037749090022020-04-27T15:02:00.000+01:002020-04-27T16:04:36.200+01:00CASH ADVOCATE: £9K consultations & £75K meetings - Edinburgh Quaich Project Charity QC Boss scammed clients on no-win-no-fee deal - Faculty of Advocates files reveal extent of Advocates cash-for-fees HMRC tax dodge scam<p align="justify"><em><a title="John Campbell QC represented clients in Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Campbell%20QC"><img width="390" height="553" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4CeimUrZguDXbqkR7zM9eKU34krl71_cEkOtHj4VCdrzQ1N71blu4QUF7uzBFyFktOLDPL9OsDlzTMBM0PmoMmd-Vsv_doT5xKfnqTMi-keD5FA97FGZ2ayw56Ed3L6J3FGS3h6SKw=w2400"></a>John Campbell no fee no win court deal was turned against client.</em><strong> A TOP QC</strong> recently appointed to head an <a title="Edinburgh Charity £25million scheme redeveloping Princes St Gardens" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-51790749"><strong><u>Edinburgh Charity £25million scheme redeveloping Princes St Gardens</u></strong></a> – is at the centre of calls for a tax probe - after newly released files reveal he used the <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> to demand huge fees - on a case he originally agreed to work on a no-win-no-fee basis.</p><p align="justify"><a title="Faculty Services Ltd - Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ziJPqWoUC8CUIx3LyJyO42YIE_UzgvjB/"><strong><u>Documents recovered from Faculty Services Ltd</u></strong></a> reveal <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Campbell%20QC"><strong><u>John Campbell QC</u></strong></a> – of <a title="Themis Advocates" href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk"><strong><u>Themis Advocates</u></strong></a> - demanded payments of well over <strong>£100,000 </strong>- for a land contamination claim – contrary to an earlier agreement Campbell made with his clients where the fee would ONLY be taken from any settlement upon success in the Court of Session case.</p><p align="justify">However - the £6million claim led by John Campbell QC - ended badly after a series of undeclared conflicts of interest by some of Scotland’s most senior judicial figures, instances where judges were switched from hearing to hearing, denial of legal costs claims & denied appeals.</p><p align="justify">Campbell then effectively destroyed his own client’s case - by removing most of the financial claims without consultation or permission to do so.</p><p align="justify">Now - there are now calls for a full investigation by tax authorities of all transactions involving Scottish Advocates - after new evidence indicates fee documents from the Faculty of Advocates were altered - to cover up a series of undeclared cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.</p><p align="justify">In one of a series of Faculty Services statements - files reveal John Campbell demanded <strong>£75,000</strong> for ‘unspecified’ meetings on the case he had already agreed to work on the no-win-no-fee arrangement in <strong>Nolan v </strong><a href="http://www.acscotland.com/"><u><strong>Advance Construction Scotland Ltd</strong></u></a><strong> [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.</strong></p><p align="justify">In another entry on the same statement - the senior Campbell QC - sometimes described as a ‘leading Scots legal figure’ - <strong>demands a staggering £9,000 for ONE single consultation</strong>.</p><p align="justify">Campbell also inserts a demand for <strong>£33,360</strong> for ‘reviewing productions’ and preparing his fee – even though he had already agreed there would be NO fee if he didn’t win the case.</p><p align="justify">Another <strong>£6,300</strong> is then charged up by Campbell for a further review of papers and ‘preparation of case’.</p><p align="justify">Given the outcome of the case, and what has since happened to Campbell’s clients as a result of his role as their legal representative - the fee statements appear to contravene the no-win-no-fee deal agreement between John Campbell and his clients.</p><p align="justify">And - in <strong>digital evidence now held by journalists</strong>, Campbell states the payments he pocketed from clients despite the no win no fee deal - include work undertaken by his Junior Counsel <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Craig%20Murray"><u><strong>Craig Murray</strong></u></a><strong>.</strong></p><p align="justify">Craig Murray now works as a barrister in London at <a title="12 Kings' Bench Walk" href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/"><strong><u>12 King's Bench Walk</u></strong></a> Chambers - and maintains a seat at <a title="Compass Chambers" href="https://www.compasschambers.com"><strong><u>Compass Chambers</u></strong></a> in Edinburgh.</p><p align="justify">A full report on Craig Murray’s involvement in the case, and his role in writing two versions of evidence to legal regulators can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/04/advocate-probe-how-legal-regulators.html"><strong><u>ADVOCATE PROBE: How legal regulators covered up for top QC - Files show Scots Advocate now working as Barrister in London – authored two versions of SAME letter for Faculty probe of cash scandal QC who failed clients in £6M Court of Session case</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">It should be noted - despite accounts from Campbell and the Faculty of Advocates demanding hundreds of thousands of pounds from Mr Campbell’s clients - on a case Campbell himself destroyed in court – both John Campbell QC and Craig Murray have now <strong>DELETED </strong>all references to the Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd case from their online biographies documenting their respective legal careers.</p><p align="justify"><a title="Faculty Services Ltd Statement - Nolan v Advance" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ziJPqWoUC8CUIx3LyJyO42YIE_UzgvjB/"><img width="290" height="430" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/av7OtUB-ZGYQcro6wNVH7mMEAaK-FpGMnVXCP9izHDg1Qdc5jUhLdApJRGSQeWsk4SLa2JATcsPGfvCl-ZL-2-oCuvmuIYvj4E0AE6u1bWjLCb0GCDEeBv2b0lyvu8lLQqw348BbUg=w2400"></a>A study of additional statements from Faculty Services Ltd currently being undertaken by a law accountant – highlights references in the newly released files to ‘undated’ sums, and credit notes for payments which were in fact – never made.</p><p align="justify">In one credit note from Faculty Services Ltd - the sum of £5000 - without any date reference is stated as paid.</p><p align="justify">However, a solicitor dealing directly with the case <strong>DENIED</strong> the undated £5,000 amount had been paid to Faculty Services Ltd - and a review of the accounts confirm NO such payment was ever made.</p><p align="justify">The undated £5K credit note listed in the documents – and other unexplained entries - appear to have been created by Faculty Services Ltd with a deliberate intention to conceal tens of thousands of pounds in undeclared cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.</p><p align="justify">The fee statements & accounts from Faculty Services Ltd now raise serious questions of how far up the involvement of figures in the Faculty of Advocates in this case stretches - after an earlier investigation established Campbell was pocketing large payments he personally insisted on collecting in cash filled envelopes from his clients in £5,000 bundles.</p><p align="justify">Written evidence recovered from files held by legal regulators revealed Campbell himself sent emails to his clients - demanding large payments in cash to pay himself and junior counsel Craig Murray.</p><p align="justify">An <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-WJO6pBnlFORUdFd3dtU21jZzg/"><strong><u>email from John Campbell to his clients</u></strong></a><u></u> revealed Campbell demanded £5,000 in cash - while he was on the way to a meeting at Airdrie Sheriff Court followed by a dinner with the Law Society of Scotland. <p align="justify">The email from Campbell states: <b>“A little better information about timing. I am due in Airdrie at 4.30. The meeting is in the Sheriff Court, which closes at 6.30. The Law Society is taking me and a colleague for dinner, but I have no idera where. There isn't a huge number of restaurants in Airdrie, but we'll find somewhere. This means I won't be at Bonkle Road until about 8. Is that OK?”</b><p align="justify"><b>“I have asked JC [John Carruthers] for a breakdown of the £5000. I will explain to you how a spec case works. I have checked; both John and I are willing to take on a spec case for Donal, but only if he signs up to it. There will be two conditions; one is that you keep the Edinburgh agent fed and watered, and the second is the size of the uplift at the end of the day, as I explained to you.”</b><p align="justify">A <a title="CASHBACK, QC: Investigation reveals Scotland’s 'top' Planning QC demanded cash payments & cheques from clients in Court of Session case linked to serious judicial conflicts of interest" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/04/cashback-qc-investigation-reveals.html"><strong><u>Sunday Mail investigation</u></strong></a> into the case established John Campbell sent multiple emails to clients – in some cases, demanding cash <b>“in any form except beads” </b>to pay for legal services.<p align="justify">An additional <u><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-WJO6pBnlFOeDMyNGVyYXk2dE0/"><strong>email from John Campbell QC to his client</strong></a></u> stated: “<b>I'm writing to confirm that we agreed at our meeting on Friday that we will meet in Dalkeith on TUESDAY morning, when you will give me £5000 towards the fees of your legal team” … “Please let me know if it's OK to meet at the Mulsanne Garage, which is at 137 High Street, and what time would suit you?”</b><p align="justify">Campbell then collected the cash in envelopes - in locations such as restaurants, a garage specialising in servicing Bentley cars, and on land at Branchal in Wishaw.</p><p align="justify">John Campbell has refused to make any statement to the media on the written evidence published in the media of his demands for undeclared cash payments from clients.</p><p align="justify">Commenting on Campbell’s emails and some of the Faculty Services fee statements, a Criminal Defence solicitor who did not wish to be named – claimed the practice of QCs and Advocates demanding fee top ups in cash is widespread and needs to be looked at.</p><p align="justify">In one case quoted by a legal source, a senior member of the Faculty of Advocates who recently appeared in the news - is alleged to have demanded a six figure sum in cash from an accused person to ensure a non-custodial sentence in a criminal prosecution.</p><p align="justify">The legal source who provided the information said <strong>“Given the seniority of the accused’s legal representation it is difficult to believe others in court were not involved in the cash for freedom deal.”</strong></p><p align="justify">In another case of a similar nature, an accused person refused to pay a similar sum of cash demanded by a high profile QC who also guaranteed a non-custodial sentence. The accused person went on to receive a custodial sentence after being found guilty at a criminal trial.</p><p align="justify">The rules on how payments to Advocates and Queens Counsel are collected from clients by Faculty Services Ltd – the fees collection arm of the Faculty of Advocates which is currently chaired by Geoff Clarke QC - are very clear.<p align="justify">Section 9.9 of the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-WJO6pBnlFOa0Fld0hTVHVuSGM/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates Code of Conduct</u></strong></a> states: <strong>“Counsel should not under any circumstances whatever discuss or negotiate fees with or receive fees directly from the lay client.”</strong><p align="justify">Further rules from the Code of Conduct state clearly that fees to QCs and Advocates acting as counsel can only be collected by solicitors, and then paid over to clerks and Faculty Services. <p align="justify"><b>“Normally Counsel’s fees are negotiated between the clerk and the solicitor. All fees should be paid to Counsel’s clerk.”</b><p align="justify">Additional guidance designed to cover over any direct payments ‘collected’ by Advocates states: <b>“If any fee happens to be paid direct to Counsel, Counsel must account for it forthwith to his or her clerk.”</b></p><p align="justify"><strong>CASE BROKE ALL JUDICIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES:</strong></p><p align="justify">Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 is the same<strong> </strong>case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary – notably where <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a> (Colin Campbell QC) failed to disclose on multiple occasions - the fact Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campell - represented the defenders in the same court.<p align="justify">The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/03/conflict-of-interest-papers-lodged-at.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a>.<p align="justify">It is also worth noting the Nolan v Advance (Scotland) Ltd case drew in a series of sheriffs and judges – from not easily explained hearings at Hamilton Sheriff Court involving Sheriff Millar, Peter Watson & Levy & Mcrae – and Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campbell – to Court of Session judges including <strong>Lord Brodie</strong>, <strong>Lord Menzies</strong>, <strong>Lord Woolman</strong>, <strong>Lord Bracadale</strong> (and a concealed recusal) and <strong>Lord Hodge</strong> – who later prevented the case being appealed to the UK Supreme Court without declaring he had already ruled on the case while in Edinburgh on multiple occasions.<p align="justify">A full report on Lord Hodge, his undeclared conflicts of interest and his role in denying an appeal to the UK Supreme Court can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/01/conflict-of-justice-deputy-president-of.html"><strong><u>CONFLICT OF JUSTICE: Deputy President of UK Supreme Court Lord Hodge blocked appeal to UKSC on damages case he previously heard 16 times – where fellow judge Lord Malcolm failed to declare his own son represented defenders in same court</u></strong></a><p align="justify">An earlier investigation of this case revealed that when Lord Woolman stated in court papers that Mr Nolan had a case, John Campbell QC removed – <strong>without instruction</strong> – 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.<p align="justify">A full report on how John Campbell QC reduced his own client’s financial claim almost to zero and without any instruction or consultation - can be found here: <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/05/cashback-qc-legal-regulators-files.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a><p align="justify"><a title="Roderick William Dunlop QC of Axiom Advocates" href="https://www.axiomadvocates.com/advocates/profile/roddy-dunlop-qc"><strong><u>Roderick William Dunlop QC of Axiom Advocates</u></strong></a> along with Lord Malcolm’s son who is now at the same Advocates Stables as Dunlop – <a title="Ewen Campbell of Axiom Advocates" href="https://www.axiomadvocates.com/advocates/profile/ewen-campbell"><strong><u>Ewen Campbell of Axiom Advocates</u></strong></a> - and <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Peter%20Watson"><strong><u>Peter Watson</u></strong></a> – now formerly of Glasgow based <a href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><strong><u>Levy & Mcrae</u></strong></a> - represented Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.<p align="justify">At the time – Peter Watson was a member of Scotland’s judiciary – and held various positions and directorships in relation to a hedge fund run by Greg King.</p><p align="justify">However – Peter Watson’s involvement in the collapsed £400million Heather Capital Hedge fund was beginning to trickle out into the media - and in 2015 after questions were put to Scotland’s top judge by the Scottish Sun newspaper - Lord Brian Gill suspended Peter Watson from sitting as a judge <strong>“to maintain public confidence in the judiciary”.</strong> </p><p align="justify">A full report on Watson’s suspension from the judicial bench can be found here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Watson’s suspension as a judge 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: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2019/07/sheriff-walks-scottish-courts-confirm.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify"><strong>JOHN CAMPBELL QC & THE EDINBURGH CHARITY PROJECT:</strong></p><p align="justify">Recently, and in a blaze of public relations, John Campbell QC was appointed as Chairman of <a title="The Ross Development Trust" href="https://www.thequaichproject.org/about-us/ross-development-trust"><strong><u>The Ross Development Trust</u></strong></a> - a charity created to lead a redesign of West Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.</p><p align="justify">However, Campbell’s appointment as Chairman of the project comes amid a scandal where big businesses, vested interests and wealthy donors were promised access to high-profile celebrities, international publicity at VIP events tickets for high-profile concerts, exclusive drinks parties and dinners under a secret fundraising drive by the Quaich Project – which Campbell now chairs.</p><p align="justify">Leaked details published last month by the media suggest corporate backers will be able to advertise their brands all across the redeveloped Princes Street gardens and the new amphitheatre which will replace the current Ross Bandstand.</p><p align="justify">Campbell’s reaction to the publication was an aggressive response, attacking critics of the public-private partnership project for “scaremongering” over “completely untrue” claims that it would lead to over-commercialisation and privatisation of the gardens.</p><p align="justify">It was reported in the media that John Campbell insisted there was <strong>“absolutely no evidence”</strong> to support claims that Princes Street gardens would be turned into a <strong>“private playground”</strong> reserved for wealthy donors and for commercial companies – yet the documents detailing the funding drive & secret promise of sponsorship to big business and vested interests - are now <a title="Quaich Project private funding plan" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g4sq0D5WY9CaFgqrnJdlfx4SPH_B_ZOp/"><strong>widely circulating in the public domain</strong></a> after being leaked to the press.</p><p align="justify">Eerily - the plan to redevelop Princes Street Gardens – dubbed the ‘<a title="https://www.thequaichproject.org/" href="https://www.thequaichproject.org/"><strong><u>Quaich project</u></strong></a>’- is developing a similar theme to how parts of the Court of Session ended up in the ownership of the Faculty of Advocates, after legal figures targeted the Laigh Hall complex, claiming ownership of the hall via a series of dubious titles and a lobbying campaign to take possession of the court buildings. </p><p align="justify">The Laigh Hall scandal resulted in a secretive deal after a bitter campaign by the Faculty of Advocates to usurp possession of parts of the Court of Session building for their ownership, adding it to their asset portfolio under a trust chaired by Court of Session judge Lord Brailsford.</p><p align="justify">The Scottish Government eventually caved in and ‘gifted’ parts of the Court of Session to the Faculty of Advocates – even though the building belonged to the City of Edinburgh Council.</p><p align="justify">A full report on what happened to the Laigh Hall – which now hosts many exclusive events for lawyers & their businesses, and the transfer of ownership to the Faculty of Advocates can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/wolffe-hall-edinburgh-council-racks-up.html"><strong><u>WOLFFE HALL: Edinburgh Council racks up £53K legal bill in failed bid to recover ownership of Parliament House - as papers reveal Faculty of Advocates “occupied” Laigh Hall for 150 years without recorded title deeds</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Campbell is also a Trustee of the Scottish Historic Buildings Trust, and of Planning Aid Scotland, and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS)</p><p align="justify">Former Cabinet Minister <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/msps/currentmsps/alex-neil-msp.aspx"><strong><u>Alex Neil MSP (SNP Airdrie and Shotts)</u></strong></a> – who is backing his constituents in their quest to obtain justice, has now called for a full probe into the allegations against Campbell.</p><p align="justify">The Sunday Mail reported on the development & political backing in an investigation, here: <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/msp-brands-legal-watchdog-toothless-10187056"><strong><u>MSP brands legal watchdog a 'toothless waste of time' after top QC avoids censure over cash payments</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">The Sunday Mail’s original Investigation and report on John Campbell QC and his cash demands from clients can be found here: <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/we-gave-top-qc-5000-10142447"><img width="290" height="434" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/yc9Oid_vgtr7HDaRjqOsCguoIZk4hpsbf56-QT4MsxQng3MwJUbsCd_Qp4OWrT9Ig8yPl9wpAFDwtgmAFTB4SZPJbQgCz65TQ5ZHOuz6lWoIUzMzTiQ80n3o9XzH2VJPzlJ74g"></a> <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/we-gave-top-qc-5000-10142447"><strong><u>'We gave top QC £5000 cash in an envelope four times' Couple claim law expert broke guidelines as MSP calls for probe</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">By Craig McDonald Sunday Mail 2 APR 2017 <p align="justify"><b>A couple claim one of Scotland’s leading QCs breached strict guidelines and asked for legal fees to be paid direct to him in cash.</b><p align="justify"><b>Melanie Collins and partner Donal Nolan said they made the unusual payment after John Campbell told them he needed “£5000 from you in any form”.</b><p align="justify"><b>Melanie said she and a friend met Campbell, who once represented Donald Trump’s Scottish business, in a restaurant in Dalkeith where she handed over the sum in banknotes.</b><p align="justify"><b>She said she paid the QC – one of Scotland’s top planning law experts – three further sums of £5000 in cash at other meetings.</b><p align="justify"><b>The method of payment is a breach of strict guidelines issued by the Faculty of Advocates – the ­professional body all advocates and QCs belong to.</b><p align="justify"><b>The couple’s MSP last week called for a probe into the payments.</b><p align="justify"><b>Campbell wrote in an email to Melanie on October 10, 2012: “Tomorrow, I am looking forward to a serious talk with you and John but I need to collect £5000 from you in any form.”</b><p align="justify"><b>The man referred to is solicitor advocate John Carruthers, who assisted in the case.</b><p align="justify"><b>Four days later, Melanie received another email from Campbell which said: “I’m writing to confirm that we agreed at our meeting on Friday that we will meet at Dalkeith on Tuesday morning when you will give me £5000 towards the fees of your legal team.”</b><p align="justify"><b>Melanie, 62, a former land developer, of Bonkle, Lanarkshire, said: “I and a friend met with Mr Campbell at a restaurant in Dalkeith where I gave him an envelope containing £5000.</b><p align="justify"><b>“There were three other ­occasions when I paid him £5000 cash in envelopes.</b><p align="justify"><b>“One was at the Dakota hotel in Lanarkshire, one was at my home in Bonkle and one was a site in Cambusnethan in Wishaw relating to the court case. Looking back it might seem odd – but I had never had any dealings with a QC before and just assumed this was the way they worked.</b><p align="justify"><b>“I paid two further cheques, one to Mr Campbell and one to a law firm, of £5000 and £4000. The total was £29,000.”</b><p align="justify"><b>The payments related to a civil case Donal initially planned against a construction firm in 2011. The case was heard at the Court of Session in 2013.</b><p align="justify"><b>Melanie said: “We won the case but were awarded £20,000. Our total legal fees were in the hundreds of thousands.”</b><p align="justify"><b>She reported the cash payments claims to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in 2014.</b><p align="justify"><b>The SLCC said at the time: “The complaint has been considered carefully by the SLCC. It has been decided … will not be investigated as it has not been made within time limits, for the reasons set out in the attached determination.”</b><p align="justify"><b>The couple’s MSP, Alex Neil, the SNP member for Airdrie and Shotts, said: “All these allegations have to be investigated.</b><p align="justify"><b>“If there has been malpractice at any stage this has to be dealt with by the appropriate ­authorities. Donal and Melanie’s problem up until now is that they’ve not been listened to when they have made the complaints.”</b><p align="justify"><b>The SLCC could not be contacted for comment.</b><p align="justify"><b>The Faculty of Advocates’ guide to conduct states: “Counsel should not under any circumstances whatever discuss or negotiate fees with or receive fees directly from the lay client.”</b><p align="justify"><b>Their disciplinary tribunal can hand out fines of up to £15,000. A member can also be suspended or expelled from the faculty.</b><p align="justify"><b>The Faculty of Advocates refused to comment last week.</b><p align="justify"><b>Campbell, 67, said: “I have no comment to make.”</b><p align="justify"><strong>JOHN CAMPBELL QC BIOGRAPHY:</strong></p><p align="justify">During the span of his legal representation provided in Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd, John Campell was based at the former Hasties Stables of Advocates, which rebranded themselves earlier this year as <a title="Themis Advocates" href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk"><strong>Themis Advocates</strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The rebrand of Hasties Stables after Advocates in the former Hastie Stable announced they were to re-emerge under the new brand of Themis Advocates – on the appointment of new senior clerk Kiera Johnston who will work alongside depute clerks Sara Mauriello and Liz Archibald.</p><p align="justify">Sitting alongside <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/John+D.+Campbell+QC">John D. Campbell QC </a> in Themis Advocates are members of Scotland’s judiciary – including Mungo Bovey QC – who has sat as a part time Sheriff since 2009.</p><p align="justify">Themis Advocates describe themselves in the following terms: <strong>“Themis Advocates is a generalist stable, of which our advocates cover all areas of the law well. Within the stable, solicitors can find counsel able to handle a very broad range of inquiries, both in the range of subject matter and in the nature of the task requiring to be undertaken. We can provide competent advocates at all levels for any item of work. For ease of use we have arranged the Areas of Practice under the headings listed on the left. Click on any one of these headings for a breakdown of specialist topics within that heading.”</strong><p align="justify">Alongside John Campbell QC at Themis Advocates are the following QCs: <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Mungo+Bovey+QC">Mungo Bovey QC </a>;<a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Andrew+Brown+QC">Andrew Brown QC </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Laura+Dunlop+QC">Laura Dunlop QC </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Bruce+Erroch+QC">Bruce Erroch QC </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Leo+Hofford+QC%2C+FCIArb">Leo Hofford QC, FCIArb </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Kirsty+Hood+QC">Kirsty Hood QC </a><a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Gavin+MacColl+QC">Gavin MacColl QC </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Alan+McLean+QC%2C+FCIArb">Alan McLean QC, FCIArb </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Brian+Napier+QC">Brian Napier QC </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Steven+Walker+QC">Steven Walker QC </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/senior/Andrew+Webster+QC">Andrew Webster QC</a><p align="justify">Juniors at Themis called for over seven years include the following: <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/David+F+Ballantyne">David F Ballantyne </a>; <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Mike+Bell">Mike Bell</a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Joe+Bryce">Joe Bryce </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Alan+Caskie">Alan Caskie </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Maria+Clarke">Maria Clarke </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Gerry+Coll">Gerry Coll </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Donald+Davidson">Donald Davidson </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Andrew+Devlin">Andrew Devlin </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Kenneth+Forrest">Kenneth Forrest </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Robert+Frazer">Robert Frazer </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Kenny+Gibson">Kenny Gibson </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Alasdair+Hardman">Alasdair Hardman </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Ewan+Hawthorn">Ewan Hawthorn </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Graeme+Henderson">Graeme Henderson </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Jeya+Irvine">Jeya Irvine </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/David+Leighton">David Leighton </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Catherine+MacColl">Catherine MacColl </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/David+McLean">David McLean </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Fintan+McShane">Fintan McShane </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/John+Moir">John Moir </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Ross+Pilkington">Ross Pilkington </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Chris+Pirie">Chris Pirie </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior/Michael+Upton">Michael Upton</a><p align="justify">Juniors at Themis called for under seven years include the following: <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Tracey+Brown">Tracey Brown </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Andrew+Crawford">Andrew Crawford </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Michael+Dempsey">Michael Dempsey </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Tim+Haddow">Tim Haddow </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Chris+Jones">Chris Jones </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Ann+MacNeill">Ann MacNeill </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Julie+McKinlay">Julie McKinlay </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Graham+Middleton">Graham Middleton </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Safeena+Rashid">Safeena Rashid </a> <a href="https://www.themis-advocates.co.uk/advocates/junior7/Katerina+Stein">Katerina Stein</a><p align="justify">John Campbell also maintains a role at <a title="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/" href="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/"><strong>Trinity Chambers</strong></a> in England, alongside: <a href="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/people/queens-counsel/toby-hedworth-qc/">Toby Hedworth Q.C.</a> <a href="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/people/queens-counsel/john-campbell-qc/">John Campbell Q.C.</a> <a href="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/people/queens-counsel/andrew-stafford-qc/">Andrew Stafford Q.C.</a> <a href="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/people/queens-counsel/francis-fitzgibbon-qc/">Francis FitzGibbon Q.C. </a> <a href="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/people/queens-counsel/nicholas-stonor-qc/">Nicholas Stonor Q.C. </a> <a href="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/people/queens-counsel/caroline-goodwin/">Caroline Goodwin Q.C.</a><p align="justify">Barristers at Trinity Chambers can be found here: <a title="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/people/barristers-a-z/" href="https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/people/barristers-a-z/"><strong>Trinity Chambers - Barristers a-z</strong></a><p align="justify">The Trinity Chambers website describes their practice in the following terms: Trinity Chambers is proud of its reputation as being one of the leading sets of barristers’ chambers in the North of England, endorsed by the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 Directories - "Trinity Chambers' ‘expertise, professionalism and empathy are second to none’", the "extremely efficient" clerks are "always keen to assist" Legal 500 2019, ‘One of the most renowned sets in the North East for good reason’ Legal 500 2020.</p><p align="justify">This is a reputation we have won by investing in staff, services and facilities, by implementing a robust administration and clerking structure, and, crucially, by supplying high quality legal advice and advocacy.<p align="justify">Trinity were the first chambers north of London, and only the fourth in the country, to be awarded the General Council of the Bar’s BarMark which is an annual review of all aspects of practice management, client care and regulatory compliance as assessed and reported upon by the British Standards Institution.<p align="justify">We were the first BarMark chambers in the country to be awarded Investors in People. Trinity were among the first six chambers to be awarded the Legal Services Commission’s Quality Mark. Since our establishment in 1954, we have consistently grown so that we now offer a broad spectrum of specialisation, expertise and experience, with consistently high quality across the board.<p align="justify"><strong>John Campbell QC Trinity Chambers Biography</strong><p align="justify">John Campbell Q.C. CASES – with no reference to his role in Nolan v Advance Constuction (Scotland) Ltd:<p align="justify">About 200 windfarm and other planning cases at Committee, in writing, on appeal to Inspectors and Reporters, and on Appeal and Judicial Review in Scotland, Cumbria, Northumberland, East Yorkshire, North Wales, West Wales, and Norfolk; Avich & Kilchrenan Community Council – appearance before UN Economic Committee for Europe’s Åarhus Convention Compliance Committee, Geneva, Switzerland; Beauly to Denny OHL Inquiry – major power line inquiry from Beauly (Inverness-shire) to Denny (Stirlingshire); Bilfinger Berger Siemens CAF Joint Venture - training for Edinburgh Trams Mediation; Coastal Regeneration Alliance – Community Right to Buy under Land reform (S) Act 2003 – wrongful refusal to register lawful interest by Scottish Ministers; David Bines v CNES – [2010] Otter control at a fish farm; Gloag v Perth and Kinross Council and The Ramblers Association – right to roam – right to erect a fence with out planning permission; Gordon & Macphail v The Moray Council – Land Tribunal Valuation dispute for loss of use of a spring feeding a malt whisky distillery; Gordons Trustees – landlord’s resistance to an informally created agricultural tenancy; Grantown on Spey Caravan Park – Certificate of Lawful Use and Development against Planning Authority; success and costs awarded; HMA: v Hyslop – farmer carrying shotgun and allegedly threatening ‘lampers’ on his own ground – unanimous acquittal; HMA v Reid – shaken baby death; ICE v Addison – professional body wrongfully expelling Chartered Engineer; Laird v Scottish Borders Council – Planning consent invalidated for ambiguity; Lidl Stores – Nine public inquiries for new stores; Macaskill Stornoway [2009] Lorry noise nuisance case; Mearns Residents Association – flooding – correct interpretation of Council’s obligations to regulate housing permissions; Nairn v Fife Council [2008] Listed Buildings and ransom strip at large Country House; Newton Mearns Residents Association [2014] CSOH – flooding issues, Protective Expenses Order; Packard v Scottish Ministers [2012] – judicial review of windfarm Planning decision – bias and pre-determination by Scottish Ministers alleged; Parry v Highland Council – Contested certificate of lawful use for a fish farm; Pentland-Clark v Maclehose and Others – [2013] 10 year long Will dispute; Pirie and another v NEC – unlawful contract termination of TV distributor’s agreements; Q-Park – Access through designated bridge Airspace valuation; RIAS v Mays – unlawful expulsion of architect from membership of professional body – compensation; S and others – prolonged family dispute among four brothers following sale of a waste recovery business; Scott v McTear – auction house denying liability for compensation after burglary; TMSL v Rannoch Club – unlawful contract termination – compensation; Scottish Parliament Inquiry – 2004 – Inquiry into overspend on the Scottish Parliament Building; Trump International v Scottish Ministers UKSC [2015] judicial review of decision about the correct interpretation of a term in Electricity Act 1989;William Grant & Sons, Distillers [2013] – judicial review of Planning Decision; Wilson v Morton Fraser – Solicitors negligence claim, contested valuation of loss of profit<p align="justify">APPOINTMENTS: Member of the Scottish Bar since 1981, QC Scotland since 1998
;Member, Dispute Review Board, Mersey Gateway Crossing 2015-<p align="justify">LECTURES & SEMINARS: Regularly gives talks on Planning law and Arbitration to solicitors, local authority staff, students, clients and others and has written a number of articles on Listed Buildings and Built and Natural Heritage issues<p align="justify">EDUCATION: LLB Edinburgh 1972<p align="justify">ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: John Campbell is a Scottish Queen’s Counsel, qualified to practice throughout the UK.<p align="justify">He graduated from Edinburgh University in 1972, and worked as a solicitor in Scotland until 1978. He was appointed as an Assistant Director of Legal Aid in Hong Kong where he worked in a range of public service legal jobs until appointed a Magistrate in 1980. He returned to Scotland in 1981.He passed Advocate that year, was called to Lincolns Inn in 1990, and took silk in 1998. He was a member of 40 King Street Chambers in Manchester throughout the 1990s.<p align="justify">He has worked in Family Law, both claimant and defendant Personal Injury and industrial disease work, and much earlier, in Crime. He has acquired a lot of agricultural experience, particularly for estates, farms and tenants and in landlord and tenant issues, and has worked widely in promoting arbitration and mediation for farmers, and in rent reviews both in Scotland and around the world. He has been a registered Construction Adjudicator and is currently a Member of a DRB.<p align="justify">He has worked in Town and Country Planning since the mid 1990s and has developed that speciality to include Environmental Law and some Construction Law. He is particularly active in Renewable Energy work on behalf of communities, NGOs, third parties, developers and councils.<p align="justify">His practice today is mainly in Planning and Environmental Law, property and land law, and agriculture and energy work, and he has a specialised practice in all kinds of ADR work and its promotion. He has carried out about 200 public inquiries and a number of related judicial reviews. Outside the law, he is Chairman of Scotland’s largest Building Preservation Trust, and of a University Research Advisory Board.<p align="justify"><strong>DO you have a complaint or case where a QC or Advocate has not provided fair legal services? What are your experiences of dealing with the Faculty of Advocates? </strong><p align="justify"><strong>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 </strong><a href="mailto:scottishlawreporters@gmail.com"><strong>scottishlawreporters@gmail.com</strong></a><p><strong></strong></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-53164339559543792012020-04-20T18:00:00.000+01:002020-04-21T12:17:01.393+01:00JUDICIAL REGISTER: Top judge failed to provide convincing argument against register of judges’ interests, Justice Committee evidence calls into question Justice Secretary’s misleading explanation of Scottish judges serving in Scotland and Gulf States courts<p align="justify"><em><a title="JUDICIAL REGISTER: Holyrood Justice Committee to continue work on register of judges’ interests – MSPs to seek evidence from constitutional experts & report on conflicts of interest of key stakeholders in the justice system" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/judicial-register-holyrood-justice.html"><img width="390" height="457" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/04u2ytYuebiaRREbFPwRoDbhD1mY0rUtaoTf9szVq2bZGG_UjFf9MKO3HyQn9Tp6VaPWAnNeXYHRIElhJ-_u2ulaW8DE_k2MkhMCgMwHw3zEXTDwhfwJuZiLDK3C-dYOMsWhQD3l3Q=w2400"></a>Lord Carloway failed to provide convincing reason against judicial register.</em> <strong>EVIDENCE</strong> heard by the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee during MSPs recent consideration of a cross party plan to create a register of judges’ interests – reveals Scotland’s top judge again failed to provide any convincing arguments against a proposal to require Scotland’s judges to declare all their interests.</p><p align="justify"><a href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> – 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.</p><p align="justify">A <a href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/68/0/Judicial-Recusals"><strong><u>Register of Judicial Recusals</u></strong></a> was created in April 2014 by now former Lord President – <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> – in an attempt to persuade to drop their investigation of a proposal to create a fully published register of judges interests.</p><p align="justify">However, after <strong>eight years</strong> of investigation by the Public Petitions Committee and now the Justice Committee – the proposal - which has cross party backing, media support, support from independent former Judicial regulators and has sparked wide public debate on the state of Scotland’s judiciary – has now earned the backing of Justice Committee MSPs who believe the proposal should go forward to create a full register of interests – putting judges on the same level of transparency as elected members of the Scottish Parliament.</p><p align="justify">During the hearing, John Finnie MSP said: <strong>“The debate seems to be polarised. The petition has been open for a considerable number of years, and an issue remains. The public would expect some measure of accountability.”</strong></p><p align="justify">James Kelly MSP said: <strong>“Over the period for which the committee has been examining the issue, I have become convinced by the case for a register of interests for the judiciary.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“I note the responses from the cabinet secretary and Lord Carloway; there is clearly a bit of a stand-off here. Members’ suggestions of taking additional evidence to take the issue forward are sensible. We should not park the issue; it is important and we should continue to press it.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Upon consideration of <a title="Petition PE1458 Register of Judicial Interests Justice Committee Combined Responses LP, CS Justice, SJA" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K3ZG0FHvMRvD7XX2Mz3X5_YIfaJAH3gC/"><strong><u>written evidence and material provided by the Petitioner</u></strong></a> in response to:<strong> </strong><a title="JUDGE JUDGES: Scotland’s top judge refuses to face MSPs on judiciary’s EIGHT YEAR battle against register of judges’ interests – Lord Carloway says he will not attend Holyrood to ‘rehearse the same arguments which have not apparently found favour’" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/judge-judges-scotlands-top-judge.html"><strong><u>letter from Lord Carloway</u></strong></a>, <a title="NO, MINISTER: Justice Secretary claims Holyrood transparency legislation for register of judges’ interests - would undermine top judge who refused to meet Justice Committee on EIGHT YEAR judicial register petition" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/no-minister-justice-secretary-claims.html"><strong><u>letter from Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf</u></strong></a> and <a title="INJUSTICE OF THE PEACE: Judge admits Scottish Courts concealed conflict of interest recusals - Justices of the Peace were told by Court staff any cases where JP judges decided to step down from court hearings - would NOT be recorded in official register of judicial recusals" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/injustice-of-peace-judge-admits.html"><strong><u>letter from Scottish Justices Association</u></strong></a> - members of the Justice Committee decided to seek evidence from constitutional and academic witnesses – and briefings on the extent of conflicts of interest relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish justice system. Video footage of the hearing can be viewed here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWqbxZpdMsQ"><strong><u>Register of Judges Interests Petition PE1458 Justice Committee 10 March 2020</u></strong></a></p><p align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YWqbxZpdMsQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"></iframe></p><p align="justify">Minutes of the meeting concluded with the following decision: <strong>Public petition PE1458: The Committee considered various pieces of correspondence received in relation to its ongoing consideration of the petition. The Committee agreed to keep the petition open and to seek further oral evidence in due course, in round-table formal, from constitutional and academic witnesses.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>The Committee also agreed to seek further written briefings from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) in relation to other potential conflicts of interests relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish judicial system. The Committee will consider the scheduling of this work as part of its work programming up to spring 2021.</strong><p align="justify"><strong>Response to Lord Carloway's letter of 29 January 2020 - </strong>The letter from Scotland’s top judge – <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> to the Justice Committee in which Lord Carloway refused for the second time to give evidence to MSPs on the petition, was reported in further detail here<strong>: </strong><a title="JUDGE JUDGES: Scotland’s top judge refuses to face MSPs on judiciary’s EIGHT YEAR battle against register of judges’ interests – Lord Carloway says he will not attend Holyrood to ‘rehearse the same arguments which have not apparently found favour’" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/judge-judges-scotlands-top-judge.html"><strong><u>JUDGE JUDGES: Scotland’s top judge refuses to face MSPs on judiciary’s EIGHT YEAR battle against register of judges’ interests – Lord Carloway says he will not attend Holyrood to ‘rehearse the same arguments which have not apparently found favour’</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Responding to <strong>Lord Carloway's letter of 29 January 2020 – evidence submitted in written form by the petitioner to the Justice Committee stated: </strong></p><p align="justify">Noting the terms of Lord Carloway's letter, the Lord President's earlier evidence to the Petitions Committee on 29 June 2017 is available in video format here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L33BZAu6L0Y"><strong><u>Lord Carloway evidence on Register of Judges interests Petitions Committee Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017</u></strong></a> for members interest. <p align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L33BZAu6L0Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"></iframe></p><p align="justify">I would encourage the Justice Committee to engage with Alex Neil MSP, who attended that hearing and asked pertinent questions of the Lord President. I believe the Committee could gain further insight into the issue of judicial interests, and failures of judges to declare recusals, by hearing from Mr Neil.<p align="justify">Lord Carloway states in his letter that <b>"Elected office and judicial office are not comparable"</b><p align="justify">I believe anyone watching the evidence session where Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil, would disagree with the Lord President's statement.<p align="justify">Transparency is, a public expectation of public office. A necessary guardian of fair hearing, truth, and a form which holds everyone accountable. Transparency can many times, be the foundation of public trust in politics, public life, and even the courts - where - without transparency, where would justice be?<p align="justify">The judiciary are the most powerful branch of the executive and therefore must be held to be the most accountable and adhere to the same level of transparency which applies to all other branches of public service.<p align="justify">Importantly, transparency does not impede independence of the judiciary, or even any other branch of the Executive. Rather transparency enhances public trust, and adherence to public service.<p align="justify">Lord Carloway states the following:<b> "</b><b>I remain of the view that, from the constitutional perspective, the extent of any monitoring of judicial conduct, including judges' interests relative to the performance of their duties, should remain a matter for the Judiciary and not for Government or Parliament."</b></p><p align="justify">The policy adopted by the judiciary of 'judges judging judges' is what ended up blunting any meaningful powers to the office of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to oversee judicial complaints in Scotland.<p align="justify">These issues involving a lack of oversight of judicial complaints powers have been widely reported in the media: <a title="My position is window-dressing, says legal watchdog with budget of £2000" href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13136366.my-position-is-window-dressing-says-legal-watchdog-with-budget-of-2000/"><strong><u>My position is window-dressing, says legal watchdog with budget of £2000</u></strong></a><p align="justify">Judicial Conduct, judicial interests and related issues are certainly a matter for primary legislation, and it is worth noting the office of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer was established by Section 30 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008<p align="justify">In terms of a failure to declare interests or to maintain a register of interests, I draw to the attention of members - the issue of Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare interests in Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (1999), commonly referenced as "Hoffmann/Pinochet"<p align="justify">Hoffmann/Pinochet tainted the Law Lords over the question of declarations of interest despite their requirement to declare in a register, and subsequently the UK Supreme Court was created in the <a title="Constitution Reform Act 2005 Part 3 Section 23" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/23"><strong>Constitution Reform Act 2005 Part 3 Section 23</strong></a><p align="justify"><b>Importantly</b> the previous requirements of Law Lords to declare interests when they sat as Law Lords in the House of Lords, was omitted from the 2005 Uk legislation and set the stage where to this day - the Justices of UKSC have stated they themselves judge they do not require to declare their interests.<p align="justify">The UKSC's position on judicial interests <a title="UKSC Judges Expenses and Interests" href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/justices-interests-and-expenses.html"><strong><u>UKSC Judges Expenses and Interests</u></strong></a><p align="justify">The statement from the UKSC justices which has been quoted by two Lord Presidents previously, reads as follows: <b>"Against this background the Justices have decided that it would not be appropriate or indeed feasible for them to have a comprehensive Register of Interests, as it would be impossible for them to identify all the interests, which might conceivably arise, in any future case that came before them. To draw up a Register of Interests, which people believed to be complete, could potentially be misleading."</b><p align="justify">Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare his interests and the impact of such on public confidence could be summarised by Lord Hutton in his ruling on Hoffmann/Pinochet:<p align="justify">Lord Hutton said: <b>‘there could be cases where the interest of the judge in the subject matter of the proceedings arising from his strong commitment to some cause or belief or his association with a person or body involved in the proceedings could shake public confidence in the administration of justice as much as a shareholding (which might be small) in a public company involved in the litigation.’</b><p align="justify">While no one has been willing to discuss exactly why UKSC judges lost the previous Law Lords requirement to declare and register interests - Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare his interests in the Pinochet case, set a standard for judges to declare interests - which even Professor Paterson in his testimony to the Public Petitions Committee agreed with.<p align="justify">The judiciary's position on declarations of interests and creating a register of judicial interests, is contrary to the wider public interest and expectation of transparency - especially in our courts.<p align="justify">While noting the Lord President's repeat of his earlier comments in relation to issues involving the Council of Europe, and the Judicial Council in Scotland, Lord Carloway has not provided any convincing argument against creating a register of judicial interests.<p align="justify">It is also very clear from Lord Carloway's letter, the judiciary continue to maintain resistance to the very notion of a register of judicial interests, and will not create one on their own.<p align="justify">As the Public Petitions Committee have already found the petition's proposal of a Register of Judicial Interests to be "workable", and there has been consistent support including media and public interest and for the petition since it was filed in 2012 - and given the Justice Committee are minded to advance this matter as no convincing argument against this proposal has been made, I urge members to take the petition forward and advance PE1458 to primary legislation, to ensure all members of Scotland's judiciary declare and register their interests, in the same way as all others in public life, including all 129 MSPs of the Scottish Parliament register and declare their interests.<p align="justify">Further evidence submitted to the Justice Committee in response to the Justice Secretary’s continuing opposition to the creation of a register of judges’ interests, noted serious discrepancies in the Justice Secretary’s claims regarding Scottish judges serving in middle east Gulf States – reported in an earlier article here: <a title="NO, MINISTER: Justice Secretary claims Holyrood transparency legislation for register of judges’ interests - would undermine top judge who refused to meet Justice Committee on EIGHT YEAR judicial register petition" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/no-minister-justice-secretary-claims.html"><strong><u>NO, MINISTER: Justice Secretary claims Holyrood transparency legislation for register of judges’ interests - would undermine top judge who refused to meet Justice Committee on EIGHT YEAR judicial register petition</u></strong></a><p align="justify">The Justice Committee have previously heard and viewed detailed evidence identifying several Scottish judges who served in Scottish courts while also serving in the Gulf States. MSP John Finnie made several observations on this in an earlier Justice Committee hearing here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTkhbdqExm0"><strong><u>John Finnie MSP - Scots Judges serving in Gulf States - Justice Committee 28 May 2019</u></strong></a><p align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yTkhbdqExm0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture"></iframe></p><p align="justify"><strong>Responding to the Cabinet Secretary's letter of 7 February 2020</strong> <strong>– evidence submitted in written form by the petitioner to the Justice Committee stated: </strong><p align="justify">Noting the Cabinet Secretary's response, I wish to point out one of the two Scottish judges in articles submitted to the Justice Committee, was indeed serving in Scotland at the time of his service in the UAE, - dates on court opinions delivered by Lord McGhie in Scotland and previously provided to the Justice Committee show this to be the case.7<p align="justify">The newspaper investigation stated "<strong>Our investigation found that Lord McGhie has been registered to sit in the UAE for the past two years while he was also dispensing justice at the Court of Session in Edinburgh." - This was accurately reported in the media: </strong><a title="Scottish judges slammed for being on payroll of oppressive regimes abroad" href="https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/scottish-judges-slammed-being-payroll-13376003"><strong><u>Scottish judges slammed for being on payroll of oppressive regimes abroad</u></strong></a><p align="justify"><strong>Regarding Lord Hope of Craighead, members will be aware Lord Hope serves in the UAE and has done for some time, while also remaining a cross bench peer in the House of Lords, and therefore being required to declare his interests: </strong><a title="Lord Hope of Craighead Register of Interests" href="https://members.parliament.uk/member/2004/registeredinterests"><strong><u>Lord Hope of Craighead Register of Interests</u></strong></a><p align="justify"><strong>As well as having a continuing effect on public life in the UK and Scotland as a peer, Lord Hope's House of Lords register of interests list "</strong>Chief Justice of the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts (commercial court system in Abu Dhabi)" - necessitating the swearing of a judicial oath in Abu Dhabi, <strong>"</strong>Council Member and Trustee, Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association" & "Door Tenant, Brick Court Chambers, London, as an arbitrator".<p align="justify">Members of the Justice Committee will be aware many retired Scottish judges are brought back into service in the Scottish Courts, or for the purposes of heading inquiries and other public service roles - such as Lord Bracadale , and others such as retired Lord President Brian Gill, who is also listed as working as a Judicial Commissioner (along Lord Bracadale) for the UK Surveillance Commissioner:<strong> </strong><a title="Appointment of 13 Judicial Commissioners" href="https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/investigatory-powers-commissioner-announce-the-appointment-of-13-judicial-commissioners/"><strong><u>Appointment of 13 Judicial Commissioners</u></strong></a><p align="justify">Lord Gill is also involved in calling for a major inquiry into the land tenure system in Scotland - and therefore still maintains an influence on legislation and public life in Scotland.<p align="justify">Clearly, where retired judges are brought back into service, for court duty or inquiries, the Judiciary of Scotland should maintain their register of interests, given these judges are again, serving either the courts or the Scottish Government, and therefore contributing to public life in Scotland.<p align="justify">On the issue of recusals - in relation to financial interests (although the petition does seek to include all interests & links of members of the judiciary) for some reason there have never been any requirements for judges to disclose financial links which may result in a recusal published in the register of recusals.<p align="justify">And, I would draw to the attention of the Justice Committee - reports of a Sheriff heard a case involving a supermarket in which he had shareholdings, and then refused to recuse himself from the case - reported by the Herald newspaper: <a title="Pressure grows for register of judges' interests as sheriff hears Tesco case while holding shares in company" href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13157592.pressure-grows-for-register-of-judges-interests-as-sheriff-hears-tesco-case-while-holding-shares-in-company/"><strong><u>Pressure grows for register of judges' interests as sheriff hears Tesco case while holding shares in company</u></strong></a><p align="justify">A further report on the same Sheriff revealed he also held shares in a company which was the subject of Scotland's biggest Proceeds of Crime order in connection with activities in Iraq, reported by the Scottish Sun: <a title="Judge has Shares in Bribe Firm" href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/808021/judge-has-shares-in-the-bribe-firm/"><strong><u>Judge has Shares in Bribe Firm</u></strong></a><p align="justify">I have previously drawn members attention to the promotion of former top prosecutor Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland to the position of a Senator of the Court of Session. It is a matter of record Lord Mulholland supported Lord Carloway's review to abolish corroboration and previously appeared before the Justice Committee as Lord Advocate, as a witness expressing such support.<p align="justify">The fact Scotland's top prosecutor was given a position as a top judge in the Court of Session, is a matter of public interest, and as anyone may conclude, could create multiple conflicts of interest particularly given the short gap between Lord Mulholland's retirement as Lord Advocate and elevation to the judiciary. <p align="justify">These are issues which are clearly of relevance to a register of judges interests and should be included in such a register, given there are clear examples of cases in the past where prosecutors, promoted to members of the judiciary have heard cases and appeals by persons they previously prosecuted, but failed to declare any interest in court.<p align="justify">Over the course of six years of investigation and consideration by the Public Petitions Committee of evidence and hearings, every opportunity was given to myself and others, to respond to hearings, evidence and submissions from others in relation to Petition PE1458.<p align="justify">There is a stark contrast in these submissions, where only the judiciary and vested legal interests have taken an opposite view to transparency and declarations of interest - to the point Lord Gill refused twice to appear before the Petitions Committee, and now Lord Carloway has refused to appear before the Justice Committee on this petition.<p align="justify">Everyone else, and including two Judicial Complaints Reviewers who filed submissions with the Public Petitions Committee, and the Justice Committee, support the creation of a register of judicial interests.<p align="justify">Given the Cabinet Secretary's comments and the lack of any further arguments advanced by the Scottish Government and Lord President against the creation of a register of judicial interests, I would urge the Justice Committee to move forward and advance the petition to primary legislation.<p align="justify">An earlier article featured new material presented to the Justice Committee on the issue of how Justices of the Peace were deliberately excluded from the recusals register created by Lord Gill in April 2014 – reported in further detail here: <a title="INJUSTICE OF THE PEACE: Judge admits Scottish Courts concealed conflict of interest recusals - Justices of the Peace were told by Court staff any cases where JP judges decided to step down from court hearings - would NOT be recorded in official register of judicial recusals" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/03/injustice-of-peace-judge-admits.html"><strong><u>INJUSTICE OF THE PEACE: Judge admits Scottish Courts concealed conflict of interest recusals - Justices of the Peace were told by Court staff any cases where JP judges decided to step down from court hearings - would NOT be recorded in official register of judicial recusals</u></strong></a><p align="justify">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 href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><strong><u>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</u></strong></a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-56496026318649799032020-04-07T09:39:00.000+01:002020-04-07T09:39:57.904+01:00ADVOCATE PROBE: How legal regulators covered up for top QC - Files show Scots Advocate now working as Barrister in London – authored two versions of SAME letter for Faculty probe of cash scandal QC who failed clients in £6M Court of Session case<h5 align="justify"></h5><p align="justify"><em><a title="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" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/05/cashback-qc-legal-regulators-files.html"><img width="390" height="543" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Hv3dD4gSfB7d7Nifhso3TsGlrnbPAPOH5R_jy5kzzgN-9e74JeXzPgOmwG89N8zhuiI54-bD-2XRg-zKuTj9T1fvSVlkSGnP4YOzh29l2Y1WUhxzBTfjERPP06IvAOxlGgwFUuni6Q=w2400"></a>Craig Murray – re-written evidence removed bribes claim.</em> <strong>AN INVESTIGATION</strong> of how the <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> and <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></strong></a> (SLCC) covered up complaints against a top QC - show the inadequacies of the same legal regulators who will now <a title="FACULTY RESIGNATION: Gordon Jackson resigns as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - after video footage reveals top QC named two of his client’s accusers in train while talking about Alex Salmond sexual assault trial" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2020/04/faculty-resignation-gordon-jackson.html"><strong><u>consider allegations</u></strong></a> against <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Gordon%20Jackson%20QC"><strong><u>Gordon Jackson QC</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">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 -<strong> </strong><a title="Craig Murray of 12 Kings Walk" href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/barristers/craig-murray/"><strong><u>Craig Murray of 12 Kings Bench Walk</u></strong></a> - submitted two versions of written evidence in connection with an investigation of a senior QC - <a title="John Campbell QC" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Campbell%20QC"><strong><u>John Campbell QC</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">However, while Campbell was receiving cash from his clients – a move strictly forbidden by the Faculty of Advocates – court files also revealed Campbell removed – <strong>without instruction</strong> - over £4million and a costs claim from the same Court of Session case where he had also sought cash payments from his clients.</p><p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify">Material previously obtained by the media established Advocate <a title="Craig Murray" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Craig%20Murray"><strong><u>Craig Murray</u></strong></a> as the author of two versions of the same letter to the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></strong></a> (SLCC) in connection with their investigation of serious allegations against John Campbell QC.</p><p align="justify">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.<p align="justify"><strong>Critically - </strong>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.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">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 <a href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><strong><u>Levy & Mcrae</u></strong></a> – the law firm identified in the <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html"><strong><u>£400million collapse of a Gibraltar based hedge fund - Heather Capital</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">The <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1nFZkYr7uS2V1hXX2dXRlpFZlE/view"><strong><u>letter was sent by Mr Murray to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></strong></a> in relation to a complaint against <a title="John Campbell QC" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Campbell%20QC"><strong>John Campbell QC</strong></a><u></u> – who lists Planning law as a speciality.<p align="justify">Crucially, however, <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1nFZkYr7uS2WHZmZ2ZHR2VzOVE/"><strong><u>a significantly altered version of the letter - still bearing the name of Advocate Craig Murray as the author</u></strong></a> – removes references to<strong> ‘offers of a bribe’</strong> 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 – <strong>Nolan v. Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.</strong><p align="justify">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 <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> via the law firm <a href="http://www.clydeco.com/"><strong><u>Clyde & Co</u></strong></a> (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. <p align="justify">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 <a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Malcolm"><strong><u>Lord Malcolm</u></strong></a> (Colin Campbell QC) failed on multiple occasions to disclose the fact his own son was representing the defenders in the same court.<p align="justify">The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, was reported here:<strong> </strong><a href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/03/conflict-of-interest-papers-lodged-at.html"><strong><u>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</u></strong></a><p align="justify">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.<p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong> <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1nFZkYr7uS2V1hXX2dXRlpFZlE/"><img width="290" height="412" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4cJF_bBxHX7QuDwsMqNae93UAuVftKyxuczkYCWpWopjZFu8BvSkcnJLzZ696zh-OWPvXimATqIr36eg2AW74b6h3PqbfjOeRlir3Ph2-PlALOTRlA4R5g8VOwOqFldOE3Cw"></a><em>Advocate Craig Murray’s letter to SLCC (Text marked in pink shows extent of deletions in Faculty’s version).</em> In a letter dated 22 July 2014 to the SLCC, Craig Murray writes:<b> “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 and offered a bribe. There was nothing to identify that person or connect that person to the defenders.”</b></p><p align="justify">However, the second version of the letter, has the references to bribery removed from the end of the sentence. <p align="justify">The undated letter still bearing Craig Murray’s name and Advocates address, then reads: <b>“</b><b>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.”</b><p align="justify">Then, both versions of the letter from Craig Murray to the SLCC continue: <b>“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.”</b><p align="justify">Councillor John Taggart - who is referred to by Murray, was interviewed late last week. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">The Councillor further alluded to the identity of the person as an employee of a main contractor for North Lanarkshire Council. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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.. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">However, Senior Counsel for Mr Nolan - John Campbell QC - chose not to introduce the conversation about the allegations of bribery in court. <p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1nFZkYr7uS2WHZmZ2ZHR2VzOVE/"><img width="290" height="415" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6fk1PlNNf9kwp485XDmG8LUo-v6GUcjpBNyrQ03KtDGrndSILcNkFb3q9Tdnr8_BvNrqx7PGwPXieGSpH6vGjMNF9O_xWKNoCebDSR5f8F9tbm7tMfSR1wfnP2qG8qv4CuOd"></a><em>Undated, altered version of Advocate Craig Murray’s letter to SLCC.</em> The removal of references to a bribe, and swathes of material removed from the second, ‘undated’ version of Craig Murray’s letter to the SLCC - raises further questions over the written testimony offered by the Advocate & some time Prosecutor to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. </p><p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">Fergusson wrote: <b>”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”</b><p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">Anne Kentish, of Clyde & Co wrote: <b>“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.”</b><p align="justify"><b>“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.”</b><p align="justify"><b>“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)”</b><p align="justify"><b>“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.”</b><p align="justify"><b>“Mr Murray has confirmed that the undated version is a draft version of the final version dated 22 July 2014.”</b><p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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: <b>“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?”</b><p align="justify"><b>“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.”</b><p align="justify">It is unusual for such material to be made public as papers submitted to the SLCC remain unreleased due to confidentiality rules. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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,<p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">Pressed on the matter, a spokesperson for the Crown Office then suggested: <b>“..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.”</b><p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">No reply was received. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">The National newspaper carried an exclusive investigation into the Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd case, here: <a href="http://www.thenational.scot/news/15169642.Couple_s_human_rights_breach_claim_raises_questions_about_how_judicial_conflicts_of_interest_are_policed/"><strong><u>Couple's human rights breach claim raises questions about how judicial conflicts of interest are policed</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">During the earlier media investigation, Craig Murray was contacted for his comments on material handed to the press. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">Craig Murray refused to comment. <p align="justify">Craig Murray was asked to confirm if his letter was altered by someone other than himself. <p align="justify">Craig Murray refused to comment <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">Craig Murray refused to comment. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">Craig Murray refused to give any comment. <p align="justify"><strong>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.</strong> <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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). <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">Duncan was tasked with defending John Campbell QC in relation to the complaint investigatoin launched by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">The SLCC refused to comment. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">A spokesperson for the SLCC said: <b>“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.”</b><p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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.<p align="justify">Scrutiny of publicly available legal profiles for Advocate & barrister Craig Murray now reveal there are <strong>NO REFERENCES</strong> on his current work profiles to his role and legal representation in <strong>Nolan v. Advance Construction [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 - </strong>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.<p align="justify"><a title="Craig Murray" href="https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Craig%20Murray"><strong>Craig Murray</strong></a> 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 <a href="http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service</u></strong></a> (COPFS).<p align="justify"><b>GLOWING LEGAL PROFILE: Craig Murray – Advocate, Barrister & Advocate Depute:</b><p align="justify">Craig Murray - Year called: 2008 <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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). <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify">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. <p align="justify"><strong>Craig Murray – </strong><a title="Biography 12 Kings Bench Walk" href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/barristers/craig-murray/"><strong>Biography 12 Kings Bench Walk</strong></a><p align="justify">Craig Murray Call: 2017 Areas of expertise <a href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/barristers/craig-murray/#personal-injury">Personal Injury</a> <a href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/barristers/craig-murray/#clinical-negligence">Clinical Negligence</a> <a href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/barristers/craig-murray/#product-liability">Product Liability</a> <a href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/barristers/craig-murray/#industrial-disease">Industrial Disease</a> <a href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/barristers/craig-murray/#public-authority-liability">Public Authority Liability</a> <a href="https://www.12kbw.co.uk/barristers/craig-murray/#fraud">Fraud</a> <p align="justify">Call: 2017 – Bar of England and Wales 2008 – Scottish Bar<p align="justify">Craig joined 12 King’s Bench Walk as a tenant in December 2018, having successfully completed a practising pupillage at these Chambers.<p align="justify">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.<p align="justify"><strong>Personal Injury:</strong> 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.<p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Clinical Negligence:</strong> 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.<p align="justify"><strong>Recent cases include:</strong>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.<p align="justify"><strong>Product Liability: </strong>Craig has been instructed in some of the largest group litigations in Scotland concerning product liability, including:<p align="justify">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).<p align="justify">Surgical mesh products. PIP implants. Metal on metal hips. Craig also has experience of claims arising from motor vehicles and surgical stents.<p align="justify"><strong>Industrial Disease: </strong>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.<p align="justify"><strong>Public Authority Liability: </strong>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.<p align="justify"><strong>Fraud: </strong>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.<p align="justify"><strong>Agricultural Accidents: </strong>Craig has a particular interest in personal injury claims arising from agricultural accidents.<p align="justify">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.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Qualifications & Awards</strong>: 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)<p align="justify"><strong>Appointments & Memberships:</strong> Personal Injuries Bar Association Chartered Institute of Arbitrators<p align="justify"><strong>Directories:</strong> 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<p align="justify"><strong>DO you have a complaint with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or Faculty of Advocates?</strong><p align="justify"><strong>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,</strong> <strong>by email to </strong><a href="mailto:scottishlawreporters@gmail.com"><strong>scottishlawreporters@gmail.com</strong></a><u></u>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-53991856004545681602020-04-05T17:00:00.000+01:002020-04-05T21:48:53.330+01:00FACULTY RESIGNATION: Gordon Jackson resigns as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - after video footage reveals top QC named two of his client’s accusers in train while talking about Alex Salmond sexual assault trial<p align="justify"><em><a title="Gordon Jackson - Dean of the Faculty of Advocates" href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><img width="390" height="542" align="left" style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; float: left; display: inline;" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WYdYTzAQ1quxoiH1uLMSPS_fo9nET868PqbwiWaE5HC4yTrFhTeNYup1an12Sn8H3QA9hH6b6r32aafqXzJUL6D3yx-ABpfkRa41x-AYOIYc7dO-247opRkSXJoJWE7h7uAIgOgKAQ=w2400"></a>Gordon Jackson steps down as Dean of Faculty of Advocates.</em> <strong>SCOTLAND’S </strong>most senior QC<strong> </strong>has stood down from his position as Dean of the <a title="Faculty of Advocates" href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> after<strong> </strong><a title="Alex Salmond was a bully and a ‘sex pest’, his own QC says on train" href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/alex-salmond-was-a-bully-and-a-sex-pest-his-own-qc-says-on-train-jfgbkr857"><strong><u>video footage published by the Sunday Times</u></strong></a> revealed remarks he made about his client Alex Salmond - and his accusers.<p align="justify">Gordon Jackson QC said on Friday last week, he was standing down as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - because he is now under investigation for professional misconduct after he ‘self-referred’ his actions to the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission</u></strong></a> (SLCC).<p align="justify">In a statement <a title="published by the Faculty of Advocates on their Twitter feed" href="https://twitter.com/FacultyScot/status/1246100356548919299"><strong><u>published by the Faculty of Advocates on their Twitter feed</u></strong></a>, Mr Jackson said: <strong>“I have intimated my decision to resign as dean of the Faculty of Advocates, with effect from 30 June, at the latest.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“It would not, however, be appropriate for me to remain as Dean at a time when the Faculty was considering disciplinary proceedings regarding my conduct.”</strong><p align="justify"><strong>“Accordingly, if, before that date, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission remits the recent complaint for consideration by the Faculty’s Complaints Committee, I will stand down as Dean immediately. I do not intend to make any further comment.”</strong><p align="justify">It is thought the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will eventually send the complaint to the Faculty’s Complaints Committee for consideration - as has previously occurred in complaints made to the SLCC against advocates.<p align="justify">However - the SLCC’s complaints process are known to many as biased, toothless and tediously slow - and it is still possible Jackson may survive as Dean of the Faculty until the 30 June date offered in his resignation statement unless he steps down of his own accord as is reflected in his statement.<p align="justify">The position as head of the Faculty of Advocates is one of the most coveted and influential roles in Scotland’s legal system - bringing with it responsibility for discipline of all Advocates, influence over how legislation is framed by the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament - and what many perceive as an ‘ownership’ of the selection process for Scotland’s top prosecutor – the Lord Advocate.<p align="justify">Gordon Jackson QC succeeded Scotland’s current top Law Officer Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC to the role of Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in 2016.<p align="justify">Gordon Jackson - once a Scottish Labour MSP, member of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee, and who has represented among others, members of Scotland’s criminal underworld, and politicians - will continue working as a QC after stepping down as dean of the Faculty of Advocates.<p align="justify">In the video footage published by the Sunday Times - Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader and client of Gordon Jackson - was referred to as “a sex pest” and an “objectionable bully” - before being acquitted of all charges in his sex offences trial last week.<p align="justify">During the video footage, Gordon Jackson also names two of the women who alleged sexual assault by Salmond, despite strict rules that protect the anonymity of women in alleged sexual offence cases.<p align="justify">During the filmed conversation, Jackson mentioned his strategy for cross examination of one woman in the trial of Mr Salmond as being "All I need to do is put a smell on her."<p align="justify">On March 29, <a title="Rape Crisis Scotland issued a statement in connection with media reports of Mr Jackson’s comments" href="https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/rape-crisis-scotland-calls-for-immediate-investigation-into-actions-of-gordon-jackson-qc/"><strong><u>Rape Crisis Scotland issued a statement in connection with media reports of Mr Jackson’s comments</u></strong></a>:<p align="justify">A spokesperson said: <strong>“Protecting the anonymity of all people who report sexual crimes is of critical importance and is one of few reassurances that can be offered as part of an otherwise daunting and intimidating process. For this to be undermined by such a senior lawyer in a public place in such a high-profile trial is horrifying and completely unacceptable.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Jackson is Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and we cannot see how this behaviour – caught on film – is in keeping with the Faculty of Advocate’s own guidance on conduct. There should be an immediate investigation. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>One of the most chilling aspects of this is Jackson’s statement about his strategy for the cross examination of one of the women in the trial: “All I need to do is put a smell on her.” This statement alone confirms the fears of many, many survivors who do not report for fear of what would be done to them in court. Trials should be based on evidence, not on smears and attacks on character. We need an urgent overhaul of how these cases are dealt with.”</strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2