Thursday, July 30, 2009

Scottish Court Service ‘blocked work’ of £30k Consumer Focus access to justice report for Lord Gill’s civil court review

scslogoScottish Court Service blocked the success of independent research into civil justice court users. A survey of Scots experiences in using the civil justice system, funded by Consumer Focus Scotland, managed by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and implemented by market research group IPSOS-MORI, which was initially hoped would interview hundreds of people but eventually only took in the views of 35 court users, is raising questions from consumers & solicitors after it was revealed the Scottish Court Service had effectively blocked the wider success of the research, by refusing to hand over court documents & data to the researchers. The uncooperative attitude of the Court Service has led to accusations the SCS has diminished the effectiveness of the survey, which has today been revealed to have cost the taxpayer at least £30,000.

SLAB The Scottish Legal Aid Board received £30K from Consumer Focus to manage the research. Colin Lancaster, Director of Policy & Development at the Scottish Legal Aid Board commented : "The Board received a contribution of £30,000 from Consumer Focus Scotland for the commissioning of the work. The Board contributed the internal resource to cover the commissioning exercise and project management for the research. A total of £28,400 (inc. VAT) has been paid for the development, fieldwork and reporting on the first phase of the research. The findings report will be published in the next couple of weeks. Before the research is published we will be formally handing the findings over to Lord Gill. The cost of the research should be viewed across the life of the project, including any second phase. This work is in an area where unfortunately there was little previous research to learn from in terms of approach, methodology, research tools etc.”

He continued : “We commissioned the work to a highly reputable research contractor with excellent quality control mechanisms. The work was carried out by senior researchers with expertise in qualitative research and in talking to people about potentially emotional experiences and subject areas. The field work was very time consuming, requiring our contractor to design interview schedules, work with a number of separate agencies, follow up leads, secure consent and an interview time, interview, code, analyse and report."

You can read more about the research specification for the project, here : Research Specification - Consumer Views & Experiences of using the Civil Courts in Scotland (pdf)

Consumer Focus ScotlandConsumer Focus Scotland let it be known the Scottish Court Service had refused access to court records for the research. A spokeswoman for Consumer Focus Scotland, asked about the aims of their research, said : "Our intention was therefore to gather evidence that would help us to better understand the nature and drivers of individual civil court users’ views and experiences of the sheriff courts. We hoped that the research would provide useful evidence for the civil courts review."

"We had set out to do a large scale quantitative survey of the experiences of people who had been involved in the courts process. However, we were unable to do so when early in the process the Scottish Court Service advised us that for data protection reasons they were unable to allow us access to the necessary court records. While this was very disappointing, we had to look for other ways of carrying out the research. A qualitative methodology was then developed through approaching in-court advisers, and through using data on legally aided parties held by SLAB."

She continued : "In terms of how we will use the research, the final research report following the interviews with 35 people with experience of the civil courts will be published next month, and will be sent to the civil courts review. We hope that it will provide a useful evidence base for the review and for the Scottish government in taking forward any future reforms of the civil justice system, as well as any possible future research."

"The final research report will not therefore give the broad perspective that we had initially sought, but will provide an important snapshot of the experiences of the people involved."

The whole idea of reforming Scotland's civil courts was begun over six years ago, when the Scottish Consumer Council, with the support of the then Scottish Executive, secured funding from the Nuffield Foundation to carry out a series of seminars to critically examine the civil justice system, and to encourage proposals for change and development. The SCC set up a Civil Justice Advisory Group representing various stakeholder interests, chaired by the Right Honourable Lord Coulsfield, to take the process forward.

The final report of the Advisory Group was published in November 2005. It concluded that while some aspects of the system are working well, there was a need for review of a number of aspects of the system, which in turn brought the announcement in February 2007 during the previous administration of a review of the civil courts, led by Lord Gill, the Lord Justice Clerk, which you can read more about here : Civil Courts Review

However, today even members of the legal profession questioned the effectiveness of the independent research effort, after it was leaked a few weeks ago, that plans by Scottish Ministers to use the results of the survey to scale back some of Lord Gill's proposals for civil justice reform, had to be themselves scaled back after media outlets including 'Diary of Injustice' published the fact that only 35 people had taken part in the actual research project.

A legal insider said : "With only 35 people being interviewed for a survey to support the Gill civil court review, it must make people wonder what on earth is going on in the justice system when the author of the review Lord Gill stands up at a conference, effectively calls Scots law antiquated, and then the Court Service who are running the Gill review, effectively block the Consumer Focus survey from obtaining interviews of court users by refusing to hand over documents to the research teams."

"With the obstructive attitude from the Court Service, anyone would think they didn't want the Consumer Focus research to succeed in reporting actual court users experiences to back up the Gill reforms. Why didn’t someone get MacAskill to do something about it ?"

He continued : "While I'm sure the research team has done a great job working within the restrictions forced on them by the SCS, in the end, a survey of only 35 people to back up what is being billed as a wide ranging set of reform proposals to Scotland's civil justice system is not as potent as a survey with a few hundred court users who could easily have been found had it not been for the SCS, and this would have sat a lot better alongside Lord Gill's report."

An ex highly placed official of the Scottish Consumer Council when asked for their opinion on the problems encountered by the researchers said : "The Scottish Consumer Council would never have settled for such a small head count on a project of such importance as this."

He continued : "Perhaps the Scottish Court Service felt a bit put out that independent research was being done into their own review and that was the real reason they blocked the researcher's access to more information. I think the problems of ‘data protection’ could have been easily ironed out if someone from the Scottish Government had stepped in and ‘banged heads together’."

The Scottish Court Service were asked for comment on why they had refused to hand over documentation to the research team to assist the consumer orientated survey. However, they have not replied to enquiries.

MacAskill tight lippedJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill could have done much to assist the independent research into civil court users access to justice. The Consumer Focus report is due for release tomorrow, 31 July, and while its contents should prove interesting, I am left wondering why there has not been more cooperation between the Scottish Courts Service, Consumer Focus Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and of course, the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who himself could have seen to it the CFS sponsored research obtained a much greater sample of people to generate as much valuable information as possible, from civil justice court users, and of course, many others across Scotland who find it impossible to even get into a court.

After all, It is fairly obvious now that in Scotland, there are many people who are denied access to the civil justice system, either through lack of access to legal representation, lack of information and advice, and because the court process is itself, intimidating, remote, complex and expensive. This prejudice, by the legal system, against the public, must be ended, with full thought given to the public interest, rather than the usual prioritising of the vested interests of the legal profession, who prefer to maintain their long held monopoly on access to justice by forcing consumers down the usual route of engaging the exorbitantly costly & very poor quality legal services on offer by Scotland’s legal profession.

Surely the needs of ordinary Scots who cannot obtain access to justice in our own country must be addressed, and the public granted freedom to use a modern day civil justice system in Scotland, rather than continue to encounter restricted access to what Lord Gill himself refers to as our Victorian-aged justice system.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

since MacAskill is out to lunch on justice you have to expect the children to squabble over who gets to do what

Anonymous said...

"We had set out to do a large scale quantitative survey of the experiences of people who had been involved in the courts process. However, we were unable to do so when early in the process the Scottish Court Service advised us that for data protection reasons they were unable to allow us access to the necessary court records.

With the courts it is data protection.

MP's it is their security.

The Law Society, it was to cover up their cover ups. What a bent legal and political system we have which carries a label, DEMOCRACY, MORE LIKE SECRECY.

ebeneezer shyster said...

oh dear !

While the rest of us have to make do with getting chucked out our homes and made unemployed this lot are chucking money around all their pals.What I could have done with 30k !

Anonymous said...

Did someone at Consumer Focus forget how to use the internet to access cases ?

http://www.casecheck.co.uk/

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Lord Gill will also be asking why only 35 people were polled on their courtroom experiences.Good work Peter keep it up.

Anonymous said...

And if it wasnt for Peter Cherbi we would all be none the wiser !

So with that in mind whats the betting that none of this will get a mention at the tea & biscuits press conference to publicise the mori survey ?

Anonymous said...

This research - shown for what it is and discredited thanks to your reporting - is clearly designed to act as a 'spoiler' to Lord Gill's reviwe of a Civil Justice System which he claims is 'failing Society'.

And what on earth is Consumer Focus Scotland doing 'in bed' with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and goodness knows how many other 'Establishment' bodies ?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like this research was very disorganised.If after learning they couldn't get the info they wanted what steps were taken to get around that ?

Just another waste of public money.I'd have preferred the Scottish Consumer Council to do the thing itself.Maybe next time they wont get involved with SLAB and this will be a lesson learned (not!)

Anonymous said...

Hello Peter.I am a solicitor (a round of boos & hisses from your readers)

I would have happily taken 30K for finding 35 clients to tell Consumer Focus the civil justice system stinks so why the melodrama going through the Legal Aid Board to hire an outside firm to do it ?

Surely they could have done this research themselves ?

Anonymous said...

When a new lawyer, doctor or accountant appears, clients and patients should ask themselves,

Is this person simply a new member of staff?

Have they been moved from some other practice, or firm because of public exposure as a crook.

How do you know what another Douglas Mill, Phillip Yelland, Dr Shipman looks like?

Regarding the article, Christ Peter these courts must be more bent than the back road to Argyle.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill tight lippedJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill could have done much to assist the independent research into civil court users access to justice.

HE IS IN THE WRONG JOB, HE IS IN BED WITH THE LAW SOCIETY.

Anonymous said...

Scottish Court Service blocked the success of independent research into civil justice court users.


Again we corruption from a system driven not by justice, but self protection.

Anonymous said...

Good posting.I read the pdf you linked and it seems to me if this has been talked about for 6 years they could have come up with a lot more than 35 people for interviews.

Put it this way Peter - if the justice system in Scotland was running smoothly you wouldn't be able to write about these things.Clearly there is something very wrong and very rotten north of the border.I hope you get someone to fix it .. even if it has to be Westminster !

Anonymous said...

POST YOUR COMPLAINT ON THE SOLICITORS FROM HELL WEBSITE

Have you been LET DOWN by your Solicitor or Barrister?

Do you feel that there is no recourse when this happens? Well, you're probably right!

It seems that today's legal system is designed to protect the very people it contains. However...

Under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, you have the right to freedom of speech or expression and to voice your complaint!

VISIT SOLICITORS FROM HELL AND POST YOUR COMPLAINT NOW

Anonymous said...

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC YOU CANNOT SUE A LAWYER IN SCOTLAND.

If you try and sue a lawyer, you will find your lawyers are insured by Marsh & Royal Sun Alliance, your crooked lawyer and their lawyers will be insured both by Marsh & Royal Sun Alliance, the Sheriff or Judge in your case is a subscribing member of the Law Society of Scotland (THIS PROTECTS CORRUPT LAWYERS) and this is also insured by Marsh & Royal Sun Alliance, and several of the Scottish Courts Service staff, as well as the Auditor of the Court, have similar insurance arrangements.

THE ABOVE PROFESSIONALS INSURERS WOULD BE PAYING YOUR DAMAGES, SO THE LAWYERS WILL STOP YOUR CLAIM.

WHAT KIND OF LEGAL SYSTEM DO WE HAVE WHEN THE SCOTTISH COURT SERVICE "BLOCKED WORK" OF £30K CONSUMER FOCUS ACCESS TO JUSTICE REPORT FOR LORD GILL'S CIVIL COURT REVIEW? CORRUPT COURTS THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE, COURTS THAT MIRROR THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND. CORRUPT, CORRUPT, CORRUPT.

Anonymous said...

There are many criminals in Scotland who are prosecuted by the courts.

There are other criminals who are above the law, Judges, lawyers Advocates, GP's, other medics, the biggest criminals with the most power are those who investigate complaints from the public against members of their own profession. Phillip Yelland who sent a client to a law firm representing the Legal Defence Union is a prime example. The client committed suicide, but Yelland will sleep at night because he is ruthless.
Criminals in a privilidged position in society not by merit, but by the criminal cover of self regulation.

Anonymous said...

Like these courts, the following are crooks too.

Glasgow Office
The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (MDDUS)
Mackintosh House
120 Blythswood Street
Glasgow
G2 4EA

London Office
The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (MDDUS)
1 Bell Yard
London
WC2A 2JR

The Legal Defence Union Ltd
a Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in Scotland
Company No 106696
Professor David O'Donnell
Athas House
Inchbare
By Edzell
Angus
DD9 7QL

People of Scotland these are the people who will take legal action against you if you upset their members. There is a Legal Catch 22, they can take you to court, but you cannot take them to court because you will need a lawyer who is a paid up member of the crooked Law Society of Scotland.
So doctors and lawyers can basically treat you any way they want. This arrangement ensures they are licenced for corruption because they know they are immune from prosecution. Think about this the next time you book an appointment. I can tell you if you want to warn patients or clients about a corrupt professional you will need to do this yourselves. These crooks are quite happy to leave their crooks working with you.

Anonymous said...

842pm - I'm sure you would,thief !

Anonymous said...

Put it this way Peter - if the justice system in Scotland was running smoothly you wouldn't be able to write about these things.Clearly there is something very wrong and very rotten north of the border.I hope you get someone to fix it .. even if it has to be Westminster !

It will have to be WESTMINSTER because our corrupt parliament have the current arrangement in place with MacAskill et Salmond.

Anonymous said...

Well written as usual Mr Cherbi.
I was reading the release from Consumer Focus Scotland and their report.

I think as you say more could have been done in the time allotted to find more people to participate.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Hello Peter.I am a solicitor (a round of boos & hisses from your readers).
===================================
Not really, boos and hisses will change nothing, it is injust that self regulators are self protectors, and this must change because you can do what you want to clients and Yelland's lot will protect you, and so will the commission. Look at O'Donnell twelve claims for corruption and he is allowed to work with clients because he has a mentor, certainly as crooked as himself.

The culture of the whole legal establishment is self protectionism, and clients are being ruined because the lawyers see them like politicians see soldiers, cannon fodder, and client fodder, to be used to make money and block those who threaten the profession.

A South Lanarkshire GP involved in serious corruption in medical records still works with other patients, because the culture of the system is one of self protection. He should have been struck off. A rotten system of protection for lawyers, doctors, accountants who can do what they want because they are not answerable to their victims. Criminals all of you.

Anonymous said...

Have you noticed how many charges are dropped against members of the legal profession. Colin Boyd was one of them, so we should not be surprised that the Scottish Courts Service blocked work of £30k Consumer Focus access to justice report for Lord Gill's civil court review.

The lawyers will fight to preserve their self regulatory status and keep their profits high. Lawyers do not care about the outcome clients cases they love money nothing else.

Anonymous said...

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill could have done much to assist the independent research into civil court users access to justice.

Correct Peter but he is not on the consumers of legal services, or should I say poor legal service side, as you know. I would not be surprised if MacAskill had been involved in corruption during his career at some point. If he had his friends at the law Society would have covered it up. Perhaps that is why he is so loyal to them?

Anonymous said...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2524432.0.Making_courts_more_civil_for_Scots_litigants.php

and 2 weeks later !