POST OFFICE JUDICIARY: Why has the Post Office Horizon Inquiry yet to hear from the judges who convicted & sentenced over 900 postmasters and sent 236 to prison - on faulty evidence from the Post Office Horizon IT system

Judges & Prosecutors at centre of Post Office IT scandal. AMID the almost daily headlines of dishonest, manipulated practices and flawed evidence used by the UK’s Post Office and Prosecutors to convict over nine hundred postmasters and postmistresses - there is one key group which has so-far escaped the slightest calling before the Inquiry – The judiciary.

And on the sheer scale of injustice contained in the prosecutions, and convictions of over nine hundred postmasters – there can be no doubt the UK and Scotland’s judiciary have many questions to answer.

The Law Gazette recently reported Post Office lawyers held secret meeting with judge to stop disclosure  : “Lawyers for the Post Office arranged a secret meeting with a judge to prevent disclosure to defence solicitors in a criminal trial, the Post Office Inquiry heard yesterday. Solicitor Martin Smith and his barrister colleague Simon Clarke met the judge at Birmingham Crown Court in 2013 on the eve of a trial of a sub-postmaster accused of theft.

“The prosecuting lawyers applied for public interest immunity on the report, successfully persuading the judge that the defence solicitors should not be made aware of it.”

Clearly, the judiciary are much more involved in the Post Office Horizon scandal than the Judicial Office Media relations teams across the UK would like us journalists, and the public to believe.

Yet to date in the Post Office inquiry, not one member of the judiciary who convicted and sentenced the postmasters has appeared to face questions and give evidence on how they and the judiciary as an institution did not appear to even question the hundreds of prosecutions brought against Postmasters.

The figures are grim - Around 736 people were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 based on information from the faulty Horizon computer accounting system – ‘evidence’ from which was then used by Prosecutors, the courts and the judiciary to secure over 900 convictions.

A further 283 cases were brought against postmasters, using information from the same faulty Horizon accounting system - by other bodies, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) in Scotland.

In total, 236 postmaster and postmistresses have been sent to prison.

However, in not one hearing of the Post Office inquiry to date of publication - have the public heard from members of the judiciary – the same judges who convicted over 900 postmasters, and then sent 236 postmasters to jail.

As readers, and all court reporters will be well aware - more often than not when a conviction is secured by the prosecution, and particularly so when that conviction will result in a prison sentence – the judge often reads out a sentencing statement or comments to those who are found guilty in court.

The content of these sentencing statements and comments from trial judges - upon the court finding an accused guilty – often result in diatribes of piercing detail, grim listening and reading.

Many times, journalists & others in court rooms have listened to sentencing comments from the bench - while Prosecutors smirk at their side of the court, the Trial judge will often cast up details of what was previously heard in the trial, rounding on the convicted person’s past, their character, background, perhaps even their family and other issues as perceived by Prosecutors to justify the guilty verdict.

The strength of sentencing statements & comments from the presiding judge, are often designed to ensure no one, not even the media – can take issue with what occurred in that court room or question the evidence used to convict – what we now understand to be wrongful prosecutions based on a faulty computer system.

And when a trial concludes, and the accused who are found guilty deserve such comments for their crimes, there are few who would not agree such statements are very much well deserved, and in the public interest.

However, and for all to see in the Post Office Inquiry so-far, whatever the judges said in court to the hundreds of postmasters wrongly - perhaps even maliciously convicted - and the hundreds of postmasters sent by judges to prison – there is an absolute public interest case for all such comments and statements from the judiciary to be published, and accounted for.

Over Nine Hundred convictions – and - Two hundred and Thirty Six persons sent to jail – all sent there by a judge – is an alarming scale of wrongful, perhaps even malicious prosecutions.

The justice system has been used, and willingly so – to target and convict, then jail UK Postmasters on an industrial scale – in an effort which very likely was motivated to protect the Post Office and the Horizon IT accounting system it used, from the scrutiny and accountability which we now see coming to the fore in the questioning of witnesses in the Post Office inquiry.

If the Post Office Horizon inquiry is to reveal the true extent of the complicity of the justice system in the scale of the determined and malicious application of justice against the Postmasters – every single sentencing judge should be called to appear before the Post Office inquiry, read out their sentencing comments or statements and face questions on every single conviction and prison sentence handed down by a judge.

When do we get to hear from the judges who sentenced and sent all the Postmasters to jail?

Convicting over Nine Hundred people and sending Two Hundred and Thirty Six to jail – is not the act of any honest institution, honest courts, honest Prosecutors, honest justice system or an honest judiciary.

This cannot be explained away, no matter how many at-times- Media Relations Spokespersons for the judiciary & demanding members of the UK’s legal professions call up journalists to steer us away from questioning why the judges did their bit for the Post Office and Government.

POSTMSTER PROSECUTIONS IN SCOTLAND

In Scotland, over 100 Postmasters were prosecuted by the Crown Office and convicted, sentenced by Scottish judges on the basis of information provided by the faulty Post Office Horizon accounting system.

The Crown Office first became aware of issues linked to the Horizon system in 2013 but only stopped pursuing new cases in 2015.

According to a Law Society of Scotland 2022 Press release, - In Scotland postmasters were convicted of embezzlement or fraud – prosecutions taking place between 2004 and 2013. Postmasters in Scotland who were convicted in court were sentenced to a range of penalties, which also included being sent to prison. Some of these cases are under consideration by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

The Lord Advocates who were responsible for the Crown Office during prosecutions of Postmasters during this period - from 2004 to 2013 were: Colin Boyd (2000-2006); Elish Angiolini (2006 – 2011); and Frank Mulholland (2011- 2016)

Both Colin Boyd (Right Hon Lord Boyd of Duncansby), and Frank Mulholland (Rt Hon Lord Mulholland) are now judges in the Court of Session - Scotland’s highest court.

Lord Boyd if Duncansby’s biography on the Judiciary of Scotland website states the following:

Lord Boyd was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Courts in June 2012.

He qualified as a solicitor in 1978; became an advocate in 1983; and was appointed as a Queen's Counsel in 1995.

He practised at Caesar & Howie from 1978 to 1982 and as an advocate from 1983 to 1997, building up a practice in civil and particularly planning law.

He acted as an advocate depute from 1993 to 1995 and was appointed Solicitor General for Scotland (for the UK Government) in 1997 and for the Scottish Executive in 1999.

He was Lord Advocate from 2000 to 2006. His time in office saw the devolution of legislative responsibility to the new Scottish Parliament and the introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. He brought in significant reforms to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. He was also responsible for the prosecution of the Lockerbie trial.

He returned to practice as a solicitor advocate in 2007 joining Dundas & Wilson Solicitors as a Consultant and Head of Public Law. He was appointed a privy councillor in 2000 and became a life peer in 2006.

In 2019, he was appointed Vice-President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

Lord Frank Mulholland’s biography on the Judiciary of Scotland website states:

Lord Mulholland was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Courts in May 2016.

He graduated in law at Aberdeen University (1981) and also graduated with a masters degree in business administration at Edinburgh University (1997).

He was appointed as the Solicitor General for Scotland in 2007 and the Lord Advocate in 2011.

He has wide experience including having been Procurator Fiscal in Edinburgh, Area Procurator Fiscal for Lothian and Borders, Crown Counsel and Senior Crown Counsel.

He has dealt with the most challenging and high profile cases as a prosecutor and has appeared in the appellate courts, including a full bench of the Appeal Court and in the UK Supreme Court.

Ex Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) - the only recent Lord Advocate (outwith James Wolffe KC) not to be given a judicial seat in the Court of Session - has a number of other credits listed in various online biographies as the following:

Since September 2012, Angiolini has been the Principal of St Hugh's College, Oxford. Angiolini has been a pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford since 2017 and is an Honorary Professor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Angioolini also served as Chancellor of the University of the West of Scotland from 2013 to 2021.

In June 2022, Angiolini was appointed a Lady of the Order of the Thistle by Queen Elizabeth II. Angiolini took part in the Coronation of Charles III, representing the Order of the Thistle.

In June 2023, Angiolini was appointed to the office of Lord Clerk Register by King Charles III, the first woman to hold the role since its creation in the 13th century.

However, despite all the decorations of judicial office or and Royal orders of the Lord Advocates who were responsible for the Crown Office, and COPFS prosecutions in Scotland - including the wrongful prosecutions of the Postmasters, and a few other cases known to journalists - so far, not one of Scotland’s Lord Advocates have appeared at the Post Office Inquiry to face questions or answer why their Prosecutors went after Postmasters using information provided by the Post Office which is now clearly in dispute.

For more details on the Post Office Horizon Inquiry - read Computer Weekly here: https://www.computerweekly.com/ and follow developments via the Inquiry website here: https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/

UNFIT FOR INTERPOL: UK Government want to “plant their choice at the head of INTERPOL” – The not-so-secret campaign to place Scots or British top cop candidates at the head of Global Law Enforcement group in Tories “post-Brexit INTERPOL strategy”

UK Tory Govt want their choice for INTERPOL boss AN ONGOING media investigation into why Police Scotland stalled the release of the registers of interests of current & recently retired senior Police Officers - has heard claims the force was told to refuse or delay the release of information - to assist the Conservative UK Government’s ‘post-Brexit INTERPOL strategy’ efforts “to plant their choice at the head of INTERPOL” - the Global policing organisation .

Journalists began investigating claims the Tories wanted to place a Scottish Policing figure at the heart of INTERPOL last year, after material was handed to the media on the extent of lobbying by the Scottish & UK Governments to bring the INTERPOL 2024 conference to Glasgow, in November 2024 – with the Tory UK Government able to announce their choice of Boss to influence and lead the Global Law Enforcement organisation.

Material released under Freedom of Information legislation by the Scottish Government confirmed some aspects of information already handed to journalists – claims which were backed up in the content of Freedom of Information disclosures and content in a letter written by Emma Gibbons, Head of International Law Enforcement Cooperation Unit at the UK Home Office.

Emma Gibbons wrote: “I am writing to you as the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for delivery of the UK-hosted INTERPOL General Assembly (GA) 2024, which will take place in Glasgow in the first week of November next year. As SRO, I lead the Home Office delivery team and hold overall responsibility for the event, including the use of the budget. I am supported by the Home Office INTERPOL team as the central co-ordinating delivery team, who oversee the governance detailed below and manage the day to day preparations for this event, working hand in glove with the NCA NCB.”

Ms Gibbons continued: “This is a genuinely exciting event, marking the culmination of the Government’s 5 year, post Brexit INTERPOL strategy. It will see the election of a new leadership team to the organisation in addition, we hope, to the election of a UK national as the new Secretary General.”

“Hosting the event gives the UK a headline role in a major international law enforcement diplomatic event and secures the UK’s place as a world-leader in law enforcement. This is key to the UK’s intention to remain at the forefront of global law enforcement cooperation. With this in mind, event delivery will require collaboration across all units, departments, and organisations, which is why your contribution is crucial for the event’s overall success”

The Freedom of Information disclosures from the Scottish Government can be viewed or downloaded at these links:

(1: FOI - INTERPOL GA - 202300384398 - FINAL RELEASE (2): FOI - INTERPOL GA - 202300384398 - Email Attachments (3): Scottish Government FOI Response-202300384398

Earlier this week, journalists heard allegations from a whistle-blower who provided credible evidence the beleaguered Scottish Police Service had been told to stall any related data disclosures on senior Police Officers - while the UK Government sought to select a candidate for the INTERPOL Secretary General election later this year.

The claims – by a Policing insider – point to fears within UK policing circles that several current & former senior officers from Police Scotland may be seen internationally as too controversial because of their past records in Policing

A reading of the histories of several but not all of the Scottish Policing candidates currently being considered, or in some cases supported by the Conservative UK Government, reveal some of the following information:

One candidate was directly involved in an illegal spying operation to plant electronic surveillance tools on journalists and others digital devices, and was considered to have been part of a move by corruption unit officers to destroy records of investigations including fake passports, false identities and alleged serious criminality.

A second candidate was alleged to have given false evidence to an independent investigation on operational Policing issues, submitted false evidence to a Scottish Parliament Committee and in relation to their job received secret cash payments for employment related issues to help the officer avoid paying tax.

A third candidate was previously accused of multiple allegations of serious sexual assault.

Additional information provided in relation to Scottish Policing candidates also revealed a history of drunken misconduct, complaints from fellow officers of threatening behaviour, several accusations of assault, and a newly discovered file of complaints and poor professional conduct while in an earlier career.

Speaking to journalists earlier this week, the whistle-blower alleged Police Scotland had been told to stall the release of information in relation to Freedom of Information requests for the Registers of Interests of current and recently retired senior Police Officers.

Journalists also heard how figures from the Scottish and UK Government had become involved in the apparent secrecy around what transpires to be already released material from several years back.

A memo shown to a journalist by the whistle-blower reads to the effect that all effort should be made to delay, or refuse release of the information relating to current and former senior officers at Police Scotland and to refuse to give any response to media enquiries.

The material contained in the Registers of Interest for Senior Police Officers - which Police Scotland have been stalling to release an updated version for several months - was published in an earlier release form by this blog in an earlier article here: 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

The information contained in the earlier version of the Police Scotland Register of Interests follows:

CC Iain Livingstone:

Public Appointments: Member - Independent Steering Group (Op Kenova), Reviewed Annually - No remuneration.

Member - Scottish Sentencing Council, Reviewed Annually - No remuneration.

No Financial and Business interests No Political activity No related party transactions No conflict of interest

DCC Fiona Taylor:

No Public Appointments

Financial and Business interests - Owns a flat which is let No Political activity No related party transactions No conflict of interest

ACC Bernard Higgins:

Public Appointments: Trustee - Police Care UK (formerly known as Police Dependents Trust), May 2013 - Present - No remuneration.

Board Member - Euro 2020 Local Organising Committee, 2017 - Present - No remuneration

No Financial and Business interests No Political activity No related party transactions No conflict of interest

ACC Angela McLaren:

Public Appointments: Trustee - The Police Treatment Centres, for a period of 3 years - No remuneration. - Companies House shows Appointed on: 01st December 2018.

Trustee - St George's Police Children Trust, for a period of 3 years - No remuneration. - Companies House shows appointed on 1st December 2018.

No Financial and Business interests No Political activity No related party transactions No conflict of interest

ACC Paul Anderson:

Public Appointments: Chair Racing Committee, Scottish Canoe Association, 2019-2020 - No remuneration.

No Financial and Business interests No Political activity No related party transactions No conflict of interests

Other Executive Officers

DCC Johnny Gwynne (retired 15/03/2019 but in post at the date of your request); DCC Will Kerr; ACC Mark Williams; ACC John Hawkins; ACC Gillian MacDonald; ACC Alan Speirs; ACC Malcolm Graham; ACC Steve Johnson;

No Public Appointments No Financial and Business interests No Political activity No related party transactions No conflict of interest

The above details were released to journalists in 2019.

However, in a short Freedom of Information response dated 21 December 2023 to a FOI request late last year by journalists - Police Scotland refused to provide any substantive information on Senior Officers interests and instead only released the following sentence:

“In response, I can advise that 2 members of Force Executive have registered interest for Property Letting and Shop or other like business between the dates of your request.”

An FOI review request regarding the limited disclosure, and failure to provide any real information on senior Police Officers interests was submitted in December 2023 - to which no response has yet been received even with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office being notified of delays.

The full text of the Home Office letter on the INTERPOL Glasgow Conference can be viewed below:

I am writing to you as the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for delivery of the UK-hosted INTERPOL General Assembly (GA) 2024, which will take place in Glasgow in the first week of November next year. As SRO, I lead the Home Office delivery team and hold overall responsibility for the event, including the use of the budget. I am supported by the Home Office INTERPOL team as the central co-ordinating delivery team, who oversee the governance detailed below and manage the day to day preparations for this event, working hand in glove with the NCA NCB.

This is a genuinely exciting event, marking the culmination of the Government's 5 year, post Brexit INTERPOL strategy. It will see the election of a new leadership team to the organisation in addition, we hope, to the election of a UK national as the new Secretary General. Hosting the event gives the UK a headline role in a major international law enforcement diplomatic event and secures the UK's place as a world-leader in law enforcement. This is key to the UK's intention to remain at the forefront of global law enforcement cooperation. With this in mind, event delivery will require collaboration across all units, departments, and organisations, which is why your contribution is crucial for the event's overall success.

To ensure there is an effective level of join-up, we have agreed a delivery governance structure. At the top-level lies the GA Senior Group who will meet on an ad-hoc basis this year, moving to a more frequent rhythm of meetings in 2024. This group will maintain grip and confidence for seniors directly responsible for delivering the event, including reporting to Ministers, and managing any high-level risks. This group will also be used as the escalation route for urgent decisions. The Senior Group are all represented at working level in the GA Working Group.

The GA Working Group is the primary forum to manage working level delivery of the General Assembly; it tracks progress against key delivery milestones from now until the event in 2024. Attendees should be empowered to make decisions on behalf of their organisation/department and should be considered as responsible for driving forward relevant areas of event delivery as agreed by the group.

Ten subgroups feed into the GA Working Group (see Annex). They are there to support the Working Group in informed decision-making. The members of the subgroups are the subject matter experts; your expertise is crucial in supporting the delivery of this event. I therefore want to thank you for taking part as a key member of the Borders and Immigration subgroup and ask that you ensure that updates and issues for your specific delivery area are raised with the group in a timely fashion. The issues should be reported on and shared appropriately to the wider INTERPOL General Assembly 2024 Working Group, the Home Office planning committee, myself, and any other senior boards as necessary. It is essential that subgroups log notable risks and issues that could impact the delivery of the General Assembly 2024. Increasing risk items must be escalated via the boards outlined in the governance structure detailed above in which the Working Group feeds into. In the case of high-level risks, the ad-hoc Senior Group will be used as an escalation route for urgent decisions and risks.

We will also report progress against delivery into two additional boards to provide confidence at a senior level and a means of ensuring comprehensive communication to those involved: the Home Office led International Criminality Cooperation Board (ICCB) and the joint HO/NCA INTERPOL Strategy Delivery Board (ISDB). Both the ICCB and the ISDB will be used to keep senior stakeholders informed on planning progress in key areas. If you have any boards in your specific areas of delivery who you think need to be kept sighted do let us know.

The ISDB will agree sign-off on some of the more significant, high cost, or strategically important decisions in relation to the General Assembly 2024 planning. The ISDB will also approve any key delivery plans for the General Assembly and will be provided with regular updates from the Working Group. The key decisions made in these ISDB meetings will be fed into the ICCB for information and for comment where necessary.

This is a major event, with all that entails, but with close collaboration and regular communication, underpinning the principle of "no surprises", I am confident we can deliver a successful UK-hosted General Assembly 2024. If you have any concerns please do contact me or the team.

Journalists will continue to work on the investigation into how the UK Government is campaigning to put a UK Policing figure at the head of Interpol/

If readers, whistle-blowers or insiders have any information with regard to issues involving Police Scotland and Registers of Interests involving Police Officers, or the Conservative UK Government’s determination to get their candidate into the driving seat of INTERPOL - please contact the blog with further details either via the comments section or email us at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com or contact our journalists as per usual arrangements.

NEW 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

Candidate for change: Jo Farrell FOLLOWING a series of reports raising questions of judgement of the new Chief Constable of Police Scotland, 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.

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 Scottish Police Authority (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

Lynn Brown wrote: “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.”

“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.”

“The Board met on the afternoon of Monday 12 June 2023 and agreed unanimously to approve the panels recommendation.”

“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.”

“The Authority will contact all the candidates and move to announce this appointment as soon as practicable if Ministers approve this appointment.”

Writing to Craig Naylor, the current HM Inspector of Constabulary - Martyn Evans, Chair of the Scottish Police Authority stated: “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”

It has since emerged the only other candidate for the Chief Constable role was Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Graham.

Earlier this week, Deputy Chief Constable Graham announced his retirement from Police Scotland, leaving the force on 8 April 2024.

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: LET 20231208 FOI Response - 2023-24-052 incl appendices collective

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: 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

More questions on Iain Livingstone’s leadership at Police Scotland can be found here: 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

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.

COPS 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

Scots lawyers cash-in on cops SCOTLAND’s hard-up national police force – Police Scotland – paid over TWENTY FOUR million pounds to lawyers, advocates and Kings Counsel in just under a three year period – according to documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation.

And some of the biggest earners among Scots law firms each received over THREE MILLION pounds from the SNP Scottish Government’s single Police service - which was until a few weeks ago run by Iain Livingstone – a ‘former’ lawyer whose register of interests earlier revealed he was still a member of Scotland’s dominant legal regulator and pro-lawyer lobbyist - the Law Society of Scotland.

A list of law firms named by Police Scotland in the Freedom of Information disclosure reveal the sheer scale of law firms, solicitors and advocates cashing in on Scotland’s beleaguered and broke law enforcement agency.

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: 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

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.

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 Faculty of Advocates.

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

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

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

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

The Freedom of Information disclosure from Police Scotland stated: “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.”

“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.”

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.

The FOI disclosure stated: “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.”

“In terms of section 16 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, I am refusing to provide you with this information.”

Commenting on the scale of payments to law firms, a solicitor who did not wish to be named said: “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.”

A now retired Police Officer described Police Scotland as “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”