Thursday, February 28, 2013

A little less Victorian, Lord Gill ? Proposal to ‘transform’ Scotland’s antiquated courts is little more than ‘updated business model for lawyers’, will have little impact on Scots access to justice

Lord Gill

In reality, proposals to transform Scotland’s Courts will have little real effect on access to justice. THE LATEST plans to transform Scotland’s antiquated, prejudiced & famously ‘closed-shop-to-all-but-lawyers’ courts & justice system are now upon us in the form of the Scottish Government’s Courts Reform Consultation, coming somewhat desperately a whole four years after Lord Gill, now Scotland’s top judge, branded the Civil justice system as “Victorian” and “failing society”.

The plans are presented as a sweeping sea change to the speed of justice in Scotland, like so many earlier proposals which have led to the current daily chaos of Scotland’s courts where cases can languish for decades without a result.

The Courts Reform Bill as it is being presented follows Lord Gill’s earlier criticisms, stating that Civil courts are vital to the effective functioning of a civil justice system. However, the structure of the civil courts in Scotland is still largely based on a Victorian model. Because of that, and the massive social and legal changes which have taken place over the last century, the structure is now under a considerable degree of strain: too much business is taken up in higher courts - particularly the Court of Session - which could be more appropriately dealt with by lower courts; cases need to be better monitored and managed; the civil procedure rules urgently need modernised and made more accessible to the citizen; and there needs to be far greater flexibility in the ways actions can be brought and funded.

However, and in keeping with any in-house driven “reform” of a justice system notoriously dominated by the vested interests of a money making legal profession who regularly overcharge clients and prolong legal actions in court for no other purpose than making money, the plans may well end up as so many other ‘reforms’ to the justice system have ended up – putting money into the pockets of lawyers while clients and consumers not able to afford justice, lose out.

The Making Justice Work - Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill - A consultation paper, published yesterday by the Scottish Government “invites views on proposals to restructure the way civil cases and summary criminal cases are dealt with by the courts in Scotland. The proposals provide the legal framework for implementing the majority of recommendations of the Scottish Civil Courts Review, led by Lord Gill the former Lord Justice Clerk and now Lord President of the Court of Session. The proposals discuss a redistribution of business from the Court of Session to the sheriff courts, creating a new lower tier of judiciary in the sheriff court called the summary sheriffs with jurisdiction in certain civil cases and summary criminal cases. Other proposed measures include the creation of a new national sheriff appeal court and a new national specialist personal injury court.”

The somewhat hard-to-find consultation papers for members of the public who wish to give their views, can be downloaded HERE although readers would be advised to grab the documents quickly before the usual pettiness of the Justice Department kicks in and the links are changed to avoid too many submissions being made by the public at large. Replies to the consultation must be submitted by

The key proposals in the consultation include:

* Increasing the threshold under which only the Sheriff Court can deal with civil cases from £5,000 to £150,000 so that more can be dealt with locally - freeing up the Court of Session to deal with the most complex disputes.

* The creation of a new judicial post – the summary sheriff – to hear lower value civil cases and less complex criminal cases. These sheriffs will have expertise in such casework and, in many cases, will use a new simpler procedure to resolve disputes fairly, swiftly and efficiently.

* The creation of a Sheriff Appeal Court to deal with civil appeals and less serious criminal appeals.

* The creation of a national personal injury sheriff court as a centre of expertise.

* Improvements to judicial review procedure, including introducing a three-month time limit for applications to be brought.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was on hand to make the usual if somewhat nonsensical sweeping claims of change in the courts system for the better. Mr MacAskill said : “The civil justice courts have remained relatively unchanged for more than a generation. These reforms will help us ensure that the right cases are heard in the right places and therefore reduce unnecessary delays, cost and bureaucracy.”

Mr MacAskill continued : “The proposals will also mean that Scotland’s top civil judges will deal with Scotland’s most complex civil legal cases, with others being dealt with in local sheriff courts where they will still be subject to the same level of scrutiny as before and will be heard more quickly and efficiently, for the benefit of all. The impact of current delays and high costs go beyond the courts themselves to the very businesses and individuals seeking both quick and efficient resolution. As part of our Making Justice Work programme, we are working to create a modern justice system that is fair, accessible and efficient and that better meets the needs of the people of Scotland today and these reforms are a key part of this.”

Mr MacAskill could only rely on supporting comments from a solicitor, and the Association of British Insurers, both of whom predictably welcomed the Scottish Government’s proposals.

However, a representative from one of Scotland's consumer bodies told Diary of Injustice she felt the proposals were little more than “an update to a profitable business model for lawyers” and are a far cry from what is actually needed to give Scots consumers a more fair, less expensive & direct route to access the courts & justice system.

She said : “The proposals currently put forward appear to transfer the problems from one set of courts to another and do little to help people without legal representation access the courts. Party litigants and those who cannot afford legal representation will invariably find themselves excluded from the new arrangements which are clearly aimed at promoting the use of solicitors & other legal professionals.”

A court user who is currently stuck in a years long battle in the Court of Session was also critical of the plans, pointing out there is nothing in the bill to encourage more honesty on the part of law firms who take on legal cases just to “drum up business and fees no one can really afford”.

He said  : “Mr MacAskill’s plans fail to encourage higher standards in legal services and cut down on the numbers of victims falling to law firms who make false promises to clients of speedy results in cases which more often than not take years and end up in failure and clients personal finances swallowed up in legal fees.”

Cutting through the Justice Minister’s incredulous claims on the subject, what we are actually talking about in these reforms is, simply, creating new business markets for lawyers and the legal profession rather than giving the Scots public direct access to justice.

If, for instance, you are a party litigant, either through circumstances of not being able to afford the daft rates charged by Scots law firms for poor legal work with little chance of success, or perhaps you find yourself on the legal profession’s boycott list, these latest proposals from the Scottish Government will do little to give you increased access to the courts.

So, again, those vested interests in the courts system, in the form of solicitors & law firms, will as usual gain the most as in ramping up legal business on the back of feeding clients glorious tales of securing them massive settlements in ‘quick’ legal actions which actually will end up taking years to proceed to court at the usual vast expense to clients, and will simply clog up the Sheriff Courts instead of the Court of Session.

It is also of interest to note the plans put forward by the Scottish Government of creating a new judicial tier as well as effectively localising many more claims in local court cases will inevitably bring dangers where the currently undeclared interests of the judiciary may well begin to conflict with claimants cases being heard in Sheriff Courts.

The pitfalls of localising claims to local courts may begin to affect personal injury or damages claims, where for instance, undeclared links between members of the judiciary, their families and local professions, industries & public bodies who are subject to legal actions, will end up resulting in cases not be heard on a fair basis, for example, where a litigant may be suing a health board, law firm or other defender which has a connection to a member of the judiciary or someone in the local court staff rolls.

Such problems of conflict of interest are not resolved in the Scottish Government’s Courts Reform Bill, given the fact the same Lord President who once called Scotland’s justice system as “Victorian” has vehemently rejected a need for a register of interests as has been proposed to the Scottish Parliament here : Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

Lord Gill is also bitterly resistant to outside transparency of the judiciary as reported in an earlier article here : VICTORIANA : Report reveals Lord President Lord Gill ‘froze out’ Judicial Complaints Reviewer amid series of revoked findings, secret unshared memos & dismissed complaints

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Little surprise now lawyers find their profits dropping all the CCR recommendations now come out of the woodwork to drum up new business for lawyers.

As you say it will end up in a lot of hurt for people who are gullible enough to believe the talk about getting a wad for suing another and then ending up with nothing themselves.

Anonymous said...

Sheriffs with expertise?

Where are they going to get them?from the legal profession?

Why does the Scottish Government have to create another tier in the judiciary who will probably go on to earn £100K plus a year to deal with all these cases our currently 'overworked' judges on up to £200K a year cant deal with at the moment ??

Also like your point about a register of interests.Very good !

Anonymous said...

This is really just tinkering around the edges and as been noted adding yet more layers of administration to a system which is aready unable to cope. In short, jobs for the boys.

When, if ever, is Lord Gill going to get around to applying some changes which are meaningful to the Scottish Public and its right to access justice.

The introduction of Class Actions and direct client contact with Counsel - without the need for a solicitor acting as intermediary - would be a long overdue start to remedying the current 'Banana Republic' system.

Anonymous said...

"Scotland’s antiquated, prejudiced & famously ‘closed-shop-to-all-but-lawyers’ courts & justice system"

SUMS IT UP IN ONE SENTENCE

Anonymous said...

Suddenly MacAskill recognizes some of the many failings of a thoroughly discredited system which he has long since claimed was respected worldwide.

Just another SNP Hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

and MacAskill's promises are so brilliant there is no equivalent rant from the Lord President!

Anonymous said...

This judicial oligarch will change nothing. Stone age Gill wants clients cases delayed to make money for his legal family, go visit a taxidermist Gill. Lord Wanker.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill said "As part of our Making Justice Work programme, we are working to create a modern justice system that is fair, accessible and efficient and that better meets the needs of the people of Scotland today and these reforms are a key part of this."

Come off it man,you have been in power since 2007 and if anything the justice system is even worse today!

Anonymous said...

Gotta hand it to you Peter you really know how to pull apart all this bs from the judges/Macaskill!

nightingale said...

To be honest I feel the real issue here is the Court of Session is now becoming famous for ruling against just about anyone who is not a lawyer or has a company or profession involved in public life or the justice system.

Aware of this the judges and politicians are trying to spread the cases around the courts system in order to claim all these negative judgements being made against people who have been wronged in some way or another by whoever are justified when clearly not.

They can try to fool us but we all know what is really going on which is the judges are protecting the backs of public bodies,government etc and only occasionally selecting a case they rule in favour of a genuine victim to send a message they are still the boss of the legal system.

Anonymous said...

Too little too late.

The Scottish Govt,Lord Gill and the rest of them have been telling us the courts are just peachy and we have all been wrong.Now they say we need to reform it so there is more efficient justice (what a joke) and create even more judge jobs to make it all work.

Just who the hell is gaining here (lawyers of course) because it is definitely not the wee guy on the street who is having to pay for it all.

Anonymous said...

* The creation of a new judicial post – the summary sheriff – to hear lower value civil cases and less complex criminal cases. These sheriffs will have expertise in such casework and, in many cases, will use a new simpler procedure to resolve disputes fairly, swiftly and efficiently.

* The creation of a Sheriff Appeal Court to deal with civil appeals and less serious criminal appeals.

* The creation of a national personal injury sheriff court as a centre of expertise.

MMMM WHERE'S THE MONEY HONEY SAID THE JUDGES WHEN THEY HEARD THERE ARE GOING TO BE EVEN MORE JUDGES TO DEAL WITH CASES JUST SO LAWYERS CAN MAKE A LONG LASTING BUCK FROM PEOPLE IN NEED OF JUSTICE

Anonymous said...

Did you know Diary of Injustice is banned at the SLCC because it may "upset" the employees as they look for ways to save crooked lawyers and bully people into withdrawing their complaints?

Anonymous said...

Mr MacAskill could only rely on supporting comments from a solicitor, and the Association of British Insurers, both of whom predictably welcomed the Scottish Government’s proposals.

Haha the two most hated professions who are most likely to gain megabucks under his plans!

Anonymous said...

They would not be changing the rules if they did not benefit from it.Just look what happened with the legal aid changes a few weeks ago - the lawyers protested outside the Parliament in Edinburgh and MacAskill had to change around his plans it is the same here no different and all leads to money in the pockets of lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Given all the damage the British Insurers legal teams have done to people over the years in court this is a bit like asking the World's Worst banker to promote reforms to Scottish Banking!
Exactly what you'd expect from MacAskill!

Anonymous said...

Having sat in front of Lord Gill and listened to him and his colleagues I believe nothing of what they say.

Anonymous said...

Closing down the courts was his earlier plan and now MacAskill wants more expensive judges!

You just cannot trust the SNP on justice issues with him in charge !

Part 1 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/warning-issued-over-plans-to-close-1336067
Warning issued over plans to close 11 sheriff courts in Scotland
21 Sep 2012 13:25

THE Scottish Courts Service (SCS) has begun a three-month consultation, outlining its plan to shut 11 sheriff courts and five justice of the peace courts.

A PROPOSAL to close 11 sheriff courts across Scotland threatens access to justice, the Law Society of Scotland has warned.

The Scottish Courts Service (SCS) has begun a three-month consultation, outlining its plan to shut sheriff courts in Dornoch, Duns, Kirkcudbright, Peebles, Rothesay, Alloa, Cupar, Dingwall, Arbroath, Haddington and Stonehaven.

Business from these courts would be transferred to neighbouring districts.

Justice of the peace courts in Coatbridge, Cumbernauld, Annan, Irvine and Motherwell would also be shut under the plan, with business transferred to sheriff courts in appropriate districts.

The consultation also includes a proposal to centralise High Court functions and sheriff and jury trials.

SCS said having fewer court buildings will allow investment to be targeted to ensure the "best possible facilities and level of service is available for all court users but more particularly for victims, witnesses and vulnerable people".

The Law Society said the changes could restrict access to justice, particularly in rural areas.

Austin Lafferty, society president in Scotland, said: "Local courts have an important role within their communities and it is absolutely essential that access to justice remains the core consideration throughout this consultation process.

"It is vital that as a result of trying to streamline costs in one area, new difficulties are not created elsewhere.

"Neither should we expect individuals to shoulder additional costs of attending courts that are costly and difficult to reach and nor do we want to see, for example, an accused person travelling on the same local bus as a witness on an extended journey."

Anonymous said...

Part 2
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/warning-issued-over-plans-to-close-1336067

Eric McQueen, executive director of SCS, said: "With greater levels of specialisation expected to result from the justice reforms, we anticipate the most serious types of business being heard in fewer locations.

"Many of our court buildings were built in Victorian times and are both expensive to maintain and difficult to adapt to modern needs.

"We accept that having fewer court buildings, as proposed, will impact on travel distances for some people and the consultation paper sets out the likely impact of the proposed changes.

"For most people, attending court is a rare experience and future court services will seek to reduce this requirement through greater use of technology and online services."

The plans were criticised by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) which represents court staff.

Scottish secretary Lynn Henderson said: "There can be little doubt that the reasons behind these proposals are part and parcel of the swingeing cuts in public sector budgets which will disproportionately affect the poor and vulnerable of our society.

"PCS maintains that a properly resourced and funded justice system is a cornerstone of our democracy and that is what the people of Scotland need and deserve."

A spokesman for Victim Support Scotland said: "We welcome the public consultation and our opportunity to respond, and we will be working to ensure that the position of victims and witnesses is fully taken into account in any decisions made."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The SCS operates independently of government but they are not immune from the financial pressures facing us all.

"This three-month consultation gives the people of Scotland the opportunity to have their say on the proposals the SCS are putting forward, to make more efficient use of the court estate, and we'd encourage them to make their views known.

"Any final proposals for court closures would need to come before parliament for approval."

The Scottish Government has cut the SCS budget for 2013-14, with a further cut expected for the following year.

Conservative justice spokesman David McLetchie said: "A reduction in the number of courts should only be made if the capacity for processing criminal and civil cases is not adversely affected. I fail to see how this is achievable by the proposal to close more than a third of Scotland's sheriff courts.

"These proposed changes require careful consideration, especially in rural areas where the presence of a local court can save time and money.

"As the SCS itself accepts, court closures will impact on travel time and this could lead to trials being delayed.

"Simply closing courts without properly examining the consequences will expose ministers to charges of pursuing a soft-touch agenda which short-changes the victims of crime."

Labour justice spokesman Lewis Macdonald said: "Witnesses, police and victims will now have to travel further to see justice done, making it more difficult for people to attend court and this threatens to cause more delays and disruptions to cases.

"Local communities who are served by these courts need to make a stand and campaign for the courts to remain. If a court is regularly used and meets a geographical need, then it should be kept."

Anonymous said...

What do you have to hide Lord Gill? Why do you protect the profession so much. Its all about money and protecting the reputations of criminals who are tried and exonerated by bureaucracy.

Hannah Arendt was writing about anti semitism and the forces that led to Totalitarianism but I am not accusing you of this, that would be madness indeed. But she wrote

"Bureaucracy or a system of bureaus where no one is accountable for what is being done and it is impossible to identify culprits". Sums self regulation up perfectly. It works for the SLCC, Law Society and all of the other creepy bureaucracies who cover up judicial crimes, instead on them going through the public courts. I don't believe you have clients interests at heart at all. Your Civil Courts Review was simply words.

Anonymous said...

This will end in tears for many.

Can you imagine trying to sue your former solicitor in a local Sheriff court kept in business by that same solicitor's law firm?

Impossible.

Same goes for personal injury claims against any local authority or profession or prominent local company bound to have influence (or dare I say even a little kickback) in the running of the local sheriff court.

MacAskill's plans are ridiculous.If anything they are aimed at making justice even more out of reach of people who need it not giving them more access to it.

Anonymous said...

A little less Victorian,Lord Gill?

I imagine the reply will be something like "No thanks,lets be even more Victorian and keep the dirty scruffy plebs out of our courts!"

Anonymous said...

* Increasing the threshold under which only the Sheriff Court can deal with civil cases from £5,000 to £150,000 so that more can be dealt with locally - freeing up the Court of Session to deal with the most complex disputes.

This will not work.Sheriffs tend to get high value cases wrong probably because they are reluctant to tread on too many toes locally.Cases over £50,000 (or maybe less) will be fired back to the Court of Session.

* The creation of a new judicial post – the summary sheriff – to hear lower value civil cases and less complex criminal cases. These sheriffs will have expertise in such casework and, in many cases, will use a new simpler procedure to resolve disputes fairly, swiftly and efficiently.

Again,will not work.If the justice system is too busy to handle the current load these new summary sheriffs will end up being used as subs on the bench for all & sundry including sentencing neds for a weekend of window smashing.

* The creation of a Sheriff Appeal Court to deal with civil appeals and less serious criminal appeals.

And this Sheriff Appeal Court will handle appeals against who? other Sheriffs? Unworkable.Does anyone expect a fair hearing in these circumstances if we are being told the Court of Session is too busy or biased to deal with it?

* The creation of a national personal injury sheriff court as a centre of expertise.

You have got to be kidding.I have sat through thousands of court cases and there is not a single sheriff who has expertise in anything aside from the occasional giving the Fiscal a wet dream or giving a blond ned a soft sentence.

* Improvements to judicial review procedure, including introducing a three-month time limit for applications to be brought.

Three months to find a lawyer to agree to take your case then consult counsel and apply for Judicial Review or your time is up?
You have got to be kidding me.


Is that enough or shall I go on?

Anonymous said...

If judges on £220,000 a year cant deal with the work maybe we should get some who can?

Anonymous said...

Mr MacAskill could only rely on supporting comments from a solicitor, and the Association of British Insurers, both of whom predictably welcomed the Scottish Government’s proposals.

LOL!!!!!

This one will end up like all those unpaid fines the courts are chasing after!

Anonymous said...

Another loaded consultation from the SNP.

It goes something like 'You can say/write what you like but you get what we decide'

Expect the glorified toon cooncillors at the wee pretendy scottish parly to vote it through for a pie,beans n'chips on the taxpayer!

Anonymous said...

a representative from one of Scotland's consumer bodies told Diary of Injustice she felt the proposals were little more than “an update to a profitable business model for lawyers”

Yes exactly.

What a coincidence we have courts facing closure and liwyers out of business so here comes MacArsekill with the perfect solution to generate more business for both while ripping off the rest of us who have to pay for it all.

Legal Aid will be going through the roof to cover all these cases because no one has any money left to give liwyers because the banks have taken it all and if they do they are off their f*ing heads anyway!

Anonymous said...

I think we are being led up the garden path by MacAskill & Gill..

Anonymous said...

Yes good point about Party Litigants and this is because lawyers regard the court as their own play area and why not?The judge is/was a lawyer before he took to wearing a wig and everyone else in the court except you is a lawyer or is connected to a lawyer or makes money because of the lawyers so they must do as less as possible to encourage people into court on their own without expensive liars who end up bleeding everyone dry for a profit not justice

Anonymous said...

Does anyone even take MacAskill seriously these days?All his claims/initiatives have floundered and so will this latest nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Just a thought - was this due to be announced now or did they bring it forward to make the judges look better after that savaging in the papers about the complaints chief and your petition?

Anonymous said...

"Making justice work" -what a title from Kenny for nothing short of a lie!

Anonymous said...

This is a very sinister movement at work where people's expectations of justice are managed,promised and then let down time and again.You are of course correct to point the finger at the money end of it because this is exactly what the courts are all about - giving money to lawyers and making sure they keep access for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

This will end in tears for many.

Can you imagine trying to sue your former solicitor in a local Sheriff court kept in business by that same solicitor's law firm?

Impossible.

Same goes for personal injury claims against any local authority or profession or prominent local company bound to have influence (or dare I say even a little kickback) in the running of the local sheriff court.

MacAskill's plans are ridiculous.If anything they are aimed at making justice even more out of reach of people who need it not giving them more access to it.
==============================
YES INDEED WELL PUT, AND REMEMBER EMPLOYERS, LAWYERS, SHERIFFS, HIGH COURT JUDGES, LAW SOCIETY, SLCC, DOCTORS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, MEDICAL EXPERT WITNESSES, LEGAL AND MEDICAL DEFENCE UNIONS ALL INSURED BY RSA AND MARSH UK. YOU HAVE A CARTEL HERE WHO SHARE THE SAME INSURERS, PAY INTO IT AND TAKE ON CASES THEY KNOW THE CLIENT CANNOT WIN. NOW THIS IS CRIMINAL AS I AM SURE YOU WILL AGREE. THERE IS NO HEALTH AND SAFETY, JUST LINK THEM ALL WITH A COMMON INSURER AND KILL OFF THE CLIENTS CASE AFTER MAKING MONEY OUT OF AS SOMEONE PUT IT THE "LEGAL AID PIGGYBANK". ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF RSA LYING TO CLIENTS THEY CAN WIN CASES AGAINST LOCAL AUTHORITIES, EMPLOYERS. AND VICTIMS OF CROOKED LAWYERS WONT GET ANOTHER LAWYER. A CRIMINAL CARTEL OF DECEPTION MACASKILL CALLS A JUSTICE SYSTEM. A BAREFACED LIAR.

Anonymous said...

Have to say your version about this just being another way of lawyers making money makes a lot more sense than what I read in the papers about it.Also the comments are spot on.

Anonymous said...

The key proposals in the consultation include: BULLSHIT.

* Increasing the threshold under which only the Sheriff Court can deal with civil cases from £5,000 to £150,000 so that more can be dealt with locally - freeing up the Court of Session to deal with the most complex disputes. Damages YOU WILL NOT GET A PENNY PEOPLE WE HAVE TRIED IT, YOU WILL GET TORTURED, YOUR BANK AND ACCESS TO BENEFITS FROZEN, AND STARVED TO SAVE THEIR COMMON INSURER. THESE PEOPLE ARE EVIL INCARNATE, YOU ARE ALL FOOLS IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO US. THIS IS A WARNING DON'T TRUST ANY OF THEM.

* The creation of a new judicial post – the summary sheriff – to hear lower value civil cases and less complex criminal cases. These sheriffs will have expertise in such casework and, in many cases, will use a new simpler procedure to resolve disputes fairly, swiftly and efficiently. F**k off you are all insured by RSA, the cases always fail because the lawyers insurers would be paying the damages.

* The creation of a Sheriff Appeal Court to deal with civil appeals and less serious criminal appeals. Fantasy, this is not protecting the clients interests.

* The creation of a national personal injury sheriff court as a centre of expertise. Yes expertise in what you do best, cover ups. THEY WILL DESTROY YOUR LIVES FOR ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

* Improvements to judicial review procedure, including introducing a three-month time limit for applications to be brought. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT SO THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT. DON'T TRUST THESE LIARS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. WE DID ONCE, LISTEN TO THEIR VICTIMS TO AVOID BECOMING ONE.

JUSTICE GOES TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, DON'T TRUST THESE JUDICIAL MAGGOTS.

Anonymous said...

Austin Lafferty, society president in Scotland, said: "Local courts have an important role within their communities and it is absolutely essential that access to justice remains the core consideration throughout this consultation process.
---------------------------------
Lafferty means "access to justice" for the people not ruined by lawyers. A network of evil calculating scum, that is what lawyers are, every one of them.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

This is a very sinister movement at work where people's expectations of justice are managed, promised and then let down time and again.
------------------------------
Totally agree they are a group who manage deception and then dump the client when they have made their cash. State protection of a criminal faction.

Anonymous said...

No chance of getting a fair hearing in any Scottish court whether its a sheriff or court of session they are all biased against the small guy

Anonymous said...


Our justice system is clearly much worse than even the Victorians could ever dream of Lord Gill!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

* The creation of a new judicial post – the summary sheriff – to hear lower value civil cases and less complex criminal cases. These sheriffs will have expertise in such casework and, in many cases, will use a new simpler procedure to resolve disputes fairly, swiftly and efficiently.

* The creation of a Sheriff Appeal Court to deal with civil appeals and less serious criminal appeals.

* The creation of a national personal injury sheriff court as a centre of expertise.
----------------------------------This is waffle. It is marketing lawyers services [a smoke screen] when the reality is that access to the courts is conditional and there is no complaints system. Professional criminals, that is what lawyers are. Don't trust them.

Anonymous said...

http://www.intmensorg.info/crookedlawyer6.htm

A common question our group get asked often is can we recommend an honest lawyer?

The simple answer is that there are honest lawyers but they are no longer lawyers as they are either dead, have resigned from the law society or been sacked by them.

Any person who has an affinity with his fellow man and who studied law would quickly find out the speed at which any kindness, consideration, honesty, integrity or empathy would be driven out of the soul of a potential candidate and they would have no option but to resign when they finally got to know what was expected of them . Anyone who tried to operate as an honest lawyer would find they would be black balled by their organisation and its members, as HONESTY and INTEGRITY are not qualities that ensure the long term security, prosperity and survival of a legal mafia that primarily operates as fraudulently and as corruptly as they can get away with, while masquerading as some sort of legal system.
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Don't trust them.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry Peter,Scottish courts are now infamous around the world because of the Lockerbie Trial and everyone knows the Scottish justice system is rigged or can be bought by what you refer to as "vested interests".



Anonymous said...

MacAskill had support from a solicitor by the name of Gilbert Anderson (not the Hamilton CAB Gilbert Anderson!)

Gilbert Anderson, Senior Partner, DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP who was Dean of the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow during the Scottish Civil Courts Review, said:

"I welcome the consultation on the Scottish Government's draft Courts Reform Bill coming as it does hard on the heels of the legislation which was passed last month to establish the Scottish Civil Justice Council.

“I very much support the other key recommendations of the Gill Review, namely, the substantial increase in the privative jurisdiction of the Sheriff court, coupled with the introduction of specialist sheriffs.”

Interesting choice of words and person to back up MacAskill.I found the following from the same Gilbert Anderson on the Scottish Parliament website you may be interested in
http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/LegalServices/Submissions/LS3.GilbertMAndersonSolicitor.pdf

Anonymous said...

The legal profession taught me never to trust another lawyer. The are specialist at deception but they will never deceive me again.

Anonymous said...

I don't vote now. Pointless as all politicians bend over for Gill.

Anonymous said...

Just an observation if the justice system is so bad in Scotland and this seems to be the case why are all these judges getting so much money for sitting around while the public are effectively banned from the courts unless they get some scam artist lawyer to represent them and rip them off at the same time?
Surely Gill and crowd know all this has been going on for years yet sit around taking their salaries and saying bugger all about it.Pretty awful really and I feel very sorry for the people of Scotland having to live under such a regime.

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill an abuser of human rights because his club withdraw legal rights as they see fit.

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill you must have a lot to hide. Don't you care about your reputation?

Anonymous said...

In my opinion Gill is a supercilious tit in a position of power. Delays make lawyers wealthier and Gill is a lawyer who sits on the top perch. He will have caused delays for his clients so he is condemning his self with his do bugger all review.

Anonymous said...

I agree these plans are too little too late and at any rate with the kinds of verdicts handed down by courts there is no chance for the individual to get a fair hearing.In essence,obtaining justice in such a system is a myth and we all know it.

Anonymous said...

Move the cases to other courts and bump fees up, with extended delays. Gill's Civil Courts Review in 2013.

He is a shuffler but the client always loses out, Gill's justice.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

This is a very sinister movement at work where people's expectations of justice are managed, promised and then let down time and again.
------------------------------
Totally agree they are a group who manage deception and then dump the client when they have made their cash. State protection of a criminal faction.

1 March 2013 13:06
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

CASH TREES?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...

* The creation of a new judicial post – the summary sheriff – to hear lower value civil cases and less complex criminal cases. These sheriffs will have expertise in such casework and, in many cases, will use a new simpler procedure to resolve disputes fairly, swiftly and efficiently.

* The creation of a Sheriff Appeal Court to deal with civil appeals and less serious criminal appeals.

* The creation of a national personal injury sheriff court as a centre of expertise.
----------------------------------This is waffle. It is marketing lawyers services [a smoke screen] when the reality is that access to the courts is conditional and there is no complaints system. Professional criminals, that is what lawyers are. Don't trust them.

1 March 2013 16:36
Poooooooooooooooooo

This is all a big crock-of-shite?

This seems to be a way of inveigling a two tier system into place where a lower level of Sheriff/ Judge gets to take some of the work load off of the Court of Session & High Court?

This seems more interested in preserving the judges early knocking off to go to the golf club rather that sorting a broken and utterly corrupt system?

C'mon Gill. Are you a man or a mouse?

Is the system Victorian and completely useless or not?

Make up your mind or The Scottish People will have even less respect for you if that is possible?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Austin Lafferty, society president in Scotland, said: "Local courts have an important role within their communities and it is absolutely essential that access to justice remains the core consideration throughout this consultation process.
---------------------------------
Lafferty means "access to justice" for the people not ruined by lawyers. A network of evil calculating scum, that is what lawyers are, every one of them.

1 March 2013 12:51
Dohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

These nutters have totally lost the plot.....?

There are a small but important number of measures that will provide access to justice:

1) Rid the Scottish People of the blood-sucking leech that is the Law Society of Scotland. Go through their files and send to jail those staff members who have repeatedly defeated the ends of justice - this should extend to the Law Society of Scotland's lawyers too?

2) Review all of the cases presided over by the SSDT & SLCC and where there has been impropriety then jail those lawyers involved as well as the coopted panel sitters?

3) Make sure that the courts have judges/sheriffs that are fit for purpose and make sure they work to their contracted number of hours?

4) Cut lawyers, advocates & judges fees by 80%?

5) Legislate for three independent bodies who work in the court i.e. The Judges, Defence Advocates & Prosecutorial Advocates, who should be totally separate and independent of each other, including training and ethics?


This is what is called bringing our Court System up to a fit state, where it provides a service for all and does not protect the excesses of the few....?

Anonymous said...

How can the SNP pretend for Scotland to be Independent Country, when it's Judicial System is bereft of morals and is totally defunct?

I would like to see MacAskill answer this question?

Anonymous said...

I am surprised there is anyone left brave enough or maybe just stupid enough to use Scotland's courts after reading reports like this and your politicians are only making it worse and give the impression they are in the pockets of the lawyers