Friday, October 18, 2013

Scottish Court interlocutors branded “toilet roll” as hospitality gorged court staff refuse to correct errors, omissions of what judge really said in court

The £220K toilet roll - Court documents are full of errors,omissions say clients, solicitors. INTERLOCUTORS from thousands of cases heard each year in Scotland’s “Victorian” courts may not worth the paper they are printed on due to hundreds of errors, incorrect references, inaccurate points of law, and what in some instances appear to be intentional omissions of what the judge actually said in court. The situation is becoming so bad, some solicitors have dubbed interlocutors as “toilet roll”, even though the documents are supposed to be scrutinised and signed by Scottish judges earning up to £220K a year.

And, when mistakes in interlocutors are pointed out by clients and their solicitors, angry Scottish Court Service staff apparently more interested in stocking up on hospitality, gifts chocolate & champagne than doing their job, routinely refuse to correct their own errors, claiming that documents cannot be changed as they reflected exactly what happened in court - even when it is clear the official account of proceedings contains elements of a fairy tale.

As court users will be well aware, an interlocutor is the document that officially records the final decision of a court.

Interlocutors are usually prepared by the sheriff clerk and handed on to the sheriff for their scrutiny and final signature. A copy of the signed interlocutor (the original being kept at the court as part of the process) is then sent out by court staff to litigants or their legal representatives, awarding the legal authority to put the decision by the court into action.

However, if the content of an interlocutor is incorrect, the lives of litigants can easily be turned upside down along with their relationship with their legal representatives, due to mistakes, errors or deliberate omissions of a sheriff clerk who failed to produce a true and accurate account of what the judge said or decided in court. And due to the attitude or motives of those who prepare the interlocutors, it is often impossible to have any mistakes rectified.

While members of the judiciary are expected to check the interlocutor for its correctness and accuracy, the frequency of mistakes and omissions contained in interlocutors have led to rising numbers of litigants and solicitors questioning whether the sheriff or judge has ever seen the interlocutor, or had time to check it, even though their signature appears on the document.

In some cases, copies of interlocutors which have been sent out to party litigants, appear to be copies of a copy, with, in the words of one solicitor “a photocopied signature of a sheriff placed at absurd angles to the remainder of the document”.

In a recent case brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice by member of the legal profession who was contacted by a party litigant, an apparent ink stain error made by a sheriff during his signing of an interlocutor was accurately repeated in interlocutors issued in different cases on different dates, sent out to several law firms operating in the same part of Scotland, along with one party litigant.

All the interlocutors apparently signed with the same sheriff’s signature along with the same ink stain error, contained numerous & repetitive mistakes which were only corrected after four solicitors simultaneously contacted the sheriff clerk and made him aware they had “evidence to suggest the signatures were not authentic”. From enquiries made on this matter by one of the solicitors concerned, it appears the Scottish Court Service were not made aware of this incident by the sheriff clerk in question.

Unsurprisingly, the frequency of mistakes, incorrect references & omissions contained court in interlocutors appear to increase when cases involving disputes between clients and their law firms, damages & injury claims against large insurers, big business, medical negligence claims & cases involving public authorities. And, in many cases were sheriff clerks have been contacted about the mistakes, they have failed to tell their superiors a complaint has even been made about their work.

In another case already covered by Diary of Injustice which related to a sequestration of a client by a Perth law firm who left their client standing on the steps of the Court of Session without a lawyer, which in turn contributed to the collapse of the client’s medical injury claim, similar questions were raised as to the authenticity of interlocutors originating from Perth Sheriff Court.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice today, a client who did not wish to be named, alleged he had been threatened by a sheriff clerk after informing him the interlocutor produced by the court “looked like a forgery”. and contained inaccurate details of what had actually been said in court along with references to “created evidence”.

If readers have similar experiences of mistakes, omissions, perhaps deliberate errors in interlocutors and feel questions regarding the authenticity of interlocutors issued by Scottish Courts must be raised, media attention to this problem may help.

Diary of Injustice would also like to hear from any litigants or court users who have made complaints to the Scottish Court Service regarding the authenticity or integrity of a court interlocutor Readers can contact Diary of Injustice at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

With all the champers and choco they will be too fat or too drunk to write them up properly.The forged signatures of sheriffs is another matter as in criminal but nothing will be done as this is the way the Scottish courts like to do business.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the judges want it this way after thinking about what they said in court - stands to reason if they might be hurt in the pocket dont you think?

Anonymous said...

Liked the bit about the matching sigs of the sheriff with the same ink blotch in the docs

The judges just cant get the staff these days huh!

Anonymous said...

I expected as much after reading your stuff about the hospitality benders and I wouldn't put it past some of these clerks to be making mistakes in favor of whoever is paying the piper via well placed brown envelopes.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see some lawyers coming clean on what we have all known for some time!

Law Society response will be something like PCs on the line if you speak out officially!

Anonymous said...

Surely you cannot expect the judges to read all these interlocutors when they are busy flying around the world with their wives at our expense!

Anonymous said...

No wonder international litigants prefer the English courts to this Scottish train wreck of a justice system

Good luck on putting it in order!

Anonymous said...

On the face of it, you may think this is the result of beurocratic sloth, laziness and inadequate standards in relation to the practise in Scottish courts?

However, it becomes easier for them to conceal the miscarriages of justice & petty vengeance against members of the public they deem as their enemy by excusing themselves as making mistakes and that these mistakes are just part in parcel of the process and their victims just have to put up with it?

Only in Scotland!

Anonymous said...

What is the penalty for the Judge altering what he said in court to change the court transcript?

Is this simply contempt of court or is this attempting to defeat the ends of justice, requiring a mandatory prison term?

This cannot be allowed to continue unprosecuted as it is?

Anonymous said...

Recently contacted by a PL (Party Litigant) who received an interlocutor full of errors and failing to reference costs had been awarded to him.

PL turned up at court spoke to a clerk to be told it would cost him £650 to alter the document and that the money should be paid in cash at the desk same day.PL withdrew the cash from his bank turned up the next day and met a another clerk who said no payment was necessary.The interlocutor was corrected within the week.

There are reports beginning to circulate of similar incidents where clerks have demanded/taken large sums of cash from people to alter documents and when further information is sought there is no trace of the money or receipt in the SCS payments system.

Any PLs or court users who have problems with documents should take along a witness and maybe audio record the whole event as well as follow your recommendation to approach the media.

Anonymous said...

one of many at it only this one was stupid enough (and not married to someone else in the justice system) to get caught

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8454771.stm

Edinburgh court clerk admits £130,000 fraud

A sheriff clerk who was branded "the classic conman" is facing jail after admitting defrauding the Scottish Court Service of £130,000 over three years.

Graeme Wilson, 29, faked signatures on jury members' expenses forms and wrote himself blank cheques in the names of imaginary doctors billing the court.

He told workmates that he earned extra cash through semi-professional rugby and property development.

Sentence on the 29-year-old from Kirkcaldy, Fife, was deferred.

The court heard how Wilson would change the juror's name to his own and make out cheques payable to himself which netted him approximately £52,000 between 2006 and 2009.

When the computer system was changed at court and Wilson was moved to a different department he set up a second scheme.

He fabricated 72 invoices purporting to come from doctors requesting payment for fees for psychological assessments which he pretended the court had called for.

The way in which this has been carried out is quite breathtaking
Sheriff Deirdre MacNeill QC

Cheques were sent to addresses for the false doctors which were redirected to him, netting him £78,000.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard when colleagues wondered how he was able to afford a plush lifestyle he gave a string of excuses which included having wealthy parents, working as a semi-professional rugby player and rent income from a flat.

Sheriff Deirdre MacNeill QC told Wilson he displayed characteristics of a classic conman and said: "It is a shocking breach of trust and the scale and the way in which this has been carried out is quite breathtaking."

Fiscal depute Isabel Clark said Wilson's scam came to light when he returned to his work in March last year, three months after he left in December 2008, and handed in envelopes.

Ms Clark said: "They were conveyed along to the appropriate people and on looking inside the envelopes, the documents handed in were invoices and requests for psychological assessments.

"The documentation indicated they had been processed internally and date stamped by members of the sheriff court service which could not have happened because the accused had ceased employment."

'Breach of trust'

The court heard that as a result an investigation was carried out which revealed a catalogue of inconsistencies and discrepancies relating to Wilson, who started his working with the sheriff court service in 2003.

Ms Clark added that investigations showed the cash appeared to have been spent.

Wilson, a first offender, admitted forming two fraudulent schemes between 2006 and 2009, and obtaining about £130,000 by fraud.

A spokesman for the Scottish Court Service said: "The Scottish Court service expects the highest standards of conduct from those employed to work in our organisation.

"It is extremely disappointing that a former employee abused his privileged position and used detailed knowledge of our systems and processes to defraud the service. This was an appalling breach of trust.

"As the matter involves public funds we are seeking full restitution.

"Following the internal investigation, which led to the charges being brought, the Scottish Court Service conducted a rigorous external review of all its relevant policies and procedures and appropriate steps were taken."

Anonymous said...

Good to see someone exposing the crooked courts and their mafia workers

Anonymous said...

The Media - Scottish Sunday Mail apart - is already bought and paid for by the Law Society of Scotland and its notorious insurance provder Marsh.

Anf that includes the BBC.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

With all the champers and choco they will be too fat or too drunk to write them up properly.The forged signatures of sheriffs is another matter as in criminal but nothing will be done as this is the way the Scottish courts like to do business.

18 October 2013 18:26

Dont expect Police Scotland to be allowed to conduct a proper investigation into this - their Crown Office overlords (equally as corrupt or more so as the bent court clerks) will see to that.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Recently contacted by a PL (Party Litigant) who received an interlocutor full of errors and failing to reference costs had been awarded to him.

PL turned up at court spoke to a clerk to be told it would cost him £650 to alter the document and that the money should be paid in cash at the desk same day.PL withdrew the cash from his bank turned up the next day and met a another clerk who said no payment was necessary.The interlocutor was corrected within the week.

There are reports beginning to circulate of similar incidents where clerks have demanded/taken large sums of cash from people to alter documents and when further information is sought there is no trace of the money or receipt in the SCS payments system.

Any PLs or court users who have problems with documents should take along a witness and maybe audio record the whole event as well as follow your recommendation to approach the media.


19 October 2013 13:48
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

An easy scam, when nobody checks on their conduct?

Should it not be standard advice to audio or video record any interaction with anyone to do with the Court System?

Where any letter/ interlocuter is sent by post from a Sheriff, it should be returned to sender unless it is sent recorded delivery?

Anonymous said...

I do not see how the judges,sheriffs what have you can feign ignorance of this when the problem is so widespread.

Anyway isnt it about time people wised up and stopped patronising these crooked courts?go spend the money on yourselves folks instead of giving it to some crooked lawyer or some rotten court clerk or bent judge!

Anonymous said...

Wonder how the court gang feel about this publicity?
We've known they were at it for a long time along with the judges who are keeping schtum about all their own little scams..

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
one of many at it only this one was stupid enough (and not married to someone else in the justice system) to get caught

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8454771.stm

Edinburgh court clerk admits £130,000 fraud

A sheriff clerk who was branded "the classic conman" is facing jail after admitting defrauding the Scottish Court Service of £130,000 over three years.

Graeme Wilson, 29, faked signatures on jury members' expenses forms and wrote himself blank cheques in the names of imaginary doctors billing the court.

He told workmates that he earned extra cash through semi-professional rugby and property development.

Sentence on the 29-year-old from Kirkcaldy, Fife, was deferred.

The court heard how Wilson would change the juror's name to his own and make out cheques payable to himself which netted him approximately £52,000 between 2006 and 2009.

When the computer system was changed at court and Wilson was moved to a different department he set up a second scheme.

He fabricated 72 invoices purporting to come from doctors requesting payment for fees for psychological assessments which he pretended the court had called for.

The way in which this has been carried out is quite breathtaking
Sheriff Deirdre MacNeill QC

Cheques were sent to addresses for the false doctors which were redirected to him, netting him £78,000.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard when colleagues wondered how he was able to afford a plush lifestyle he gave a string of excuses which included having wealthy parents, working as a semi-professional rugby player and rent income from a flat.

Sheriff Deirdre MacNeill QC told Wilson he displayed characteristics of a classic conman and said: "It is a shocking breach of trust and the scale and the way in which this has been carried out is quite breathtaking."

Fiscal depute Isabel Clark said Wilson's scam came to light when he returned to his work in March last year, three months after he left in December 2008, and handed in envelopes.

Ms Clark said: "They were conveyed along to the appropriate people and on looking inside the envelopes, the documents handed in were invoices and requests for psychological assessments.

"The documentation indicated they had been processed internally and date stamped by members of the sheriff court service which could not have happened because the accused had ceased employment."

'Breach of trust'

The court heard that as a result an investigation was carried out which revealed a catalogue of inconsistencies and discrepancies relating to Wilson, who started his working with the sheriff court service in 2003.

Ms Clark added that investigations showed the cash appeared to have been spent.

Wilson, a first offender, admitted forming two fraudulent schemes between 2006 and 2009, and obtaining about £130,000 by fraud.

A spokesman for the Scottish Court Service said: "The Scottish Court service expects the highest standards of conduct from those employed to work in our organisation.

"It is extremely disappointing that a former employee abused his privileged position and used detailed knowledge of our systems and processes to defraud the service. This was an appalling breach of trust.

"As the matter involves public funds we are seeking full restitution.

"Following the internal investigation, which led to the charges being brought, the Scottish Court Service conducted a rigorous external review of all its relevant policies and procedures and appropriate steps were taken."

19 October 2013 16:10

If it was so easy for a court member of staff to help themselves to £130,000.00 of Public cash, how many other £130,000.00 frauds have and are being carried out in a system that is so amateurish and negligent?

What are the chances the result is, not in the Public Interest to prosecute?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Wonder how the court gang feel about this publicity?
We've known they were at it for a long time along with the judges who are keeping schtum about all their own little scams..

20 October 2013 19:34
???????????????????

Maybe they play cards at lunchtime and use their mountains of chocolates instead of currency?

Or maybe they just use the cash they have defrauded from the Public?

Anonymous said...

While Proofs at the Court of Ssssion ar often recorded the Appeal Court of the Inner House deliberattly does NOT record its hearings.

Clearly an Appeal hearing is equally if not more important to the parties should they subsequently wish to take the matter to a higher Court in London and/or Europe.

The removal of any possibility of a transcript of Appeals being made is clearly contrary to the interests of justice, but is standard practise in Edinburgh;s Appeal Court.

Anonymous said...

seems pointless going anywhere near Scottish courts if you are only going to end up with duff documents or hear from a crooked judge who is probably related or best buddies with the lawyers

Anonymous said...

There is a bit of a problem here though because most people who are in court using a solicitor hardly ever get to see interlocutors therefore no guarantee a lot of these mistakes or fiddles are ever being corrected.Some of us may well be aware of a case at Haddington where a law firm and an employee of the Scottish Court Service stitched up a case which ended up with the solicitor owning the client's home and adjacent land.The land went for building and the SCS employee ended up with a free let not too far away.

Many clients wont even think to read an interlocutor properly although hopefully with your coverage this may change.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

There are more than Wilson at it and big numbers too.I should know I used to work in the same office.He was caught while a few others got away.

Isn't it strange how clerks who have partners working at the Scottish Executive get a transfer or shuffled around instead of being prosecuted like Graeme....anyone want to take a look into this?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
While Proofs at the Court of Ssssion ar often recorded the Appeal Court of the Inner House deliberattly does NOT record its hearings.

Clearly an Appeal hearing is equally if not more important to the parties should they subsequently wish to take the matter to a higher Court in London and/or Europe.

The removal of any possibility of a transcript of Appeals being made is clearly contrary to the interests of justice, but is standard practise in Edinburgh;s Appeal Court.

21 October 2013 09:47
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;:;:;:;::;;:;:;:;:;:;:;:

Control measure of the crooked?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
There are more than Wilson at it and big numbers too.I should know I used to work in the same office.He was caught while a few others got away.

Isn't it strange how clerks who have partners working at the Scottish Executive get a transfer or shuffled around instead of being prosecuted like Graeme....anyone want to take a look into this?

21 October 2013 20:12
++++++++++++++++++++

When is the ordinary tax-paying Scot going to get some protection from these career cash-grabbing protected crooks?

Anonymous said...

Some weirdo sounding guy from what he calls a media law firm based in Glasgow Scotland sends us a few emails and a follow up letter asking for background on the election of a US judge.

I think this old looking guy thinks a lot of himself and is into making trouble now I read his law firm website and bullshit resume.He says he represents everybody including newspapers politicians and cops.Looks like he wants to spread his Scotch legal bullshit around the planet and asks us to do what he calls a favor for a colleague!

We did answer the letter complaining we did not answer his emails.One of the partners told him to stick his Scotch notepaper up his ass and run home to momma.Never heard from him again.

This asshole from Glasgow is up to something but his name doesnt hold spit over here.

So having a search about Scotch law I find your blog.Pretty impressive!and you even have hoods on the bench!Wow!Great coverage in the press too!

Anyway thanks for the read I think we should all keep an eye on these sad assed Scotch attorneys and their scams!Hell I might even send you his letter just for laughs!

Anonymous said...

The comment yesterday 21 October 2013 17:00

Heard of a similar case involving Court of Session and a clerk there so this is getting to be a habit.

Are these court workers classed as civil servants?I seem to remember they were blockading the doors a few months ago for pay & conditions but they didnt mention on their posters they line their pockets with free grub from lawyers,hospitality and free house lets for helping to steal clients assets.

The London looters have nothing on this lot.

Anonymous said...

Well it is a foregone conclusion if our courts are as crooked as they appear to be any documentation they produce is bound to be as shady as the people who sit at judges and the rest who work the courts.

Rotten from the top down

Anonymous said...

Just try arguing with one of these sheriff clerks about whats in an interlocutor and you get nowhere fast.They really are some piece of work that lot and obviously there is money behind a lot of these mistakes that are anything but!

CHECK YOUR COURT PAPERS ITS YOUR MONEY

Anonymous said...

just curious as to why a Glasgow lawyer is trying to find out about a judge in another country?

a case on the fiddle?

Anonymous said...

In our case with a faulty interlocutor the sheriff clerk first said it could be amended then via our solicitors demanded £250 for the correction.Our solicitor said just pay it or we will be arguing with them for months so we did but I had my suspicions at the time our solicitor was friends with the clerk and we were being stitched up.After we obtained the correct version of the interlocutor I found out the sheriff clerk is related to one of the girls who works in our solicitors office and since then have heard about other people having the same problems and being forced to cough up for mistakes I now think the clerks are making on purpose to get some money on the side.Someone earlier said it is no use going to the Police so who do we go to because the SLCC does not believe these kinds of complaints and neither does the Law Society.

Anonymous said...

You certainly have a way of stirring debate about the legal system!

This morning I have been told several people have been complaining about a clerk based in Edinburgh who told each one of them they did not need to show up at court for a hearing.

You might want to hand out some free advice informing people they should always attend a court hearing if they are not legally represented.

Unsurprisingly the advice of the clerk telling people they need not appear has led to judgements against the persons concerned on each occasion.

As far as I am aware all the affected cases involve one particular law firm and partly because of publicity about wrongdoings in the profession the persons affected are now talking to each other and may get together with their complaints.

I have forwarded a link to your blog to one of them although he replied saying he is already aware of it and has been using it as a reference for some time.

Hopefully he will get in touch and you can take matters forward from there.

Diary of Injustice said...

#Anonymous @ 23 October 2013 20:43

Send in the details of your case to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com and think about publicity before reporting the matter to Police.

#Anonymous @ 24 October 2013 12:41

Some aspects of what you have said have been covered in previous articles, particularly the part about clerks erroneously informing party litigants they should not attend court hearings where clearly they should be present.

If some of those concerned are reading this blog please get in touch via email ... as publicity will help you, and hopefully prevent others from failing to act in their best interests just because a clerk with what sounds like a vested interest gives litigants bad advice not to show up at court.

Anonymous said...

Not quite the image the Scottish Court Service want to portray to the public!

Anonymous said...

Yes,spot on Peter - if anyone has a case against them in court they have to show up or that is it and they end up facing the consequences no matter how right they think you are.

Anonymous said...

What about the Court Clerk flat-out lying (on paper) then saying that they are untouchable as they work in the Scottish Justice System and that if you get stuffed by them it is your own fault for being in the situation you find yourself in?

Blatant criminality by people acting as if they are above the law?

Only in Scotland!

Anonymous said...

" Good to see someone exposing the crooked courts and their mafia workers
19 October 2013 18:02 "

The only thing is the few clerks that are decent honest folk (and there are some left, I hope . . or perhaps they have now left) get tarnished by this and particularly get bullied by their 'colleagues' . . .

Seems that with compuerisation has come the pressure of the priority to process max volume of work . . . those clerks who are careful and take their time either have to 'get up to speed' or suffer the consequences that their conscientiousness entails - this includes bullying despite their anti-bullying policies.

This policy like may others (no nepotism) they proudly proclaim, is lip service only as some would no doubt attest to so that the can 'be seen' to meet standards. . for a while the sickness level (long term was poor amd mostly due to stress related illness, not because these people were incompetent or not technically sound but because of the expectations of managemt at mid to upper levels have unreasonable or incompatible targets that failed to give the proper respect to the nature of the job at hand. . . . namely, justice. . .

Many of those clerks who cared about their standards and had pride in their work have probably all left now either through sicknes, dismay or retirement. Those left have little awareness of the importance of their work and their seemed to be a creeping attitude of it just being another job with little or no loyalty to the court service or understanding of the meaning of public service . . but the latter had always been part of the ethos of SCS (formerly SCA!

More courses inc management, equal opportunites and the like have been outsourced and one might look to these as a source of the attitude change particularly where Common Purpose may be involved whish is a (political) charity that use NLP in their training, not unusual per se, but used incorrectly or by the untrained can have dilaterious effects on those being chaged.

Other items of note is the ubiquitous use of job-sharing and flexitime which may induce a laxing of personal responsibilty. I would also cite the heavy emphasis on management style, targets (no, don't laugh - honest, they're not massaeged) and personal carrer plans . .the emphasis has drifted from technical knowledge to knowledge at your fingertips on-line. . . .

I could comment further on post-computerisation attitudes but I think the drift is clear. The practice for the parties to an action having to pay for any correction to an interlocutor is shameful - I seem to remember the reason given was that the rules did not allow for such clerical error to be corrected by the clerk and Sheriff - - it is just money grabbing . . perhaps an error in the rules there ;-)

The SCS is an agency and originated as a 'one-off' civil service department nominally supervised by the Scottish Office. They have always considered themselves unique and independent of the civil service, being outwith the general structure and interdepartmental promotion opportunities. In this way the have always consodered themselves a 'law unto themselves'. It seems tha they have now gone rogue and have in the last decade consider themselves beyond anyone's authority.

It is interesting to note that Common Purpose 'motto' is 'Leading Beyond Authority' . . . .

One further comment - I had occasion to visit a civil court at Glasgow and noted the demeanour of the clerk there, his chuminess with the legal professionals there. From my viewpoint in te public benches this gave all the wring signals as there seemed to be a lack of professionalism and I wondered just how familiar the clerks were with the member of the bench and what the derived relationship was . . Is it a case of 'if you cover my back, I'll cover yours'?