Wednesday, January 22, 2020

JURY SERVICED: Register of Interests for 1,700+ Scottish Court staff has only ONE ENTRY in 3 years – Court employee’s link to winning £13K Sheriff Court jury catering contract concealed from FOI scrutiny by Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service

Court employee links to jury catering contract. QUESTIONS over the accuracy of a Register of Interests for employees of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) have emerged - after a member of staff’s link to a catering contract to provide food to jurors at one Sheriff court – was concealed from a Freedom of Information disclosure.

The lack of information in the SCTS register of staff interests, and failure to disclose court employees links to the award of a successful rolling catering contract – providing £13,000 of catering & food to jurors at Stirling Sheriff Court – was only admitted by the Court service - after a series of FOI requests established contracts were being handed out to companies linked to court employees.

Some weeks ago, questions were put to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in the form of an FOI request - after information was provided to the media suggesting significant failures of court employees to declare profitable interests linked to contracts providing services to the courts and judiciary in Scotland.

For some context on this - the probe on court staff failing to declare links to money making contracts providing services to the courts, came about during additional scrutiny of how law firms & some court staff are using hospitality to earn ‘referral fees’, employment for relatives and other financial favours linked to criminal defence law firms poaching each other’s clients.

A full report on hospitality in Scotland’s courts –with links to earlier articles- can be found here: COURT GIFTING, M’LORD: Transparency declarations of ‘hospitality’ to Scotland’s Courts reveal gift giving by Police & Prosecutors to court staff - and reductions in declared hospitality from Legal Aid millionaire law firms

In response to the Freedom of Information enquiry, Gillian Warner of the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service issued a disclosure with one single declaration, stating the following:

A member of staff advised that a member of their family owns a catering company which may at some point tender for business should the opportunity arise. To date this has not come to pass.

A request for a Freedom of Information review was submitted - and in response to that review - the SCTS were forced to reveal the contract for providing food to juries at Stirling Sheriff Court – was successful and had been awarded – despite the earlier claim that the contract had not been awarded.

Files reveal SCTS failure to disclose staff links to contracts. Margo Mackie, Deputy Head Information Governance & Correspondence said: “I have also made some further enquiries and, although Mrs Warner indicated that a tender for business had not been made, I can clarify that, subsequent to the entry in the register, the company was successful in securing a contract for catering at Stirling Sheriff Court. I am sorry that this was not identified at the time the response was issued.”

Ms Mackie added further detail in the FOI review with the entry as was declared in the SCTS staff register: “The company services a sports club in Stirling and provides outside catering for local companies for functions etc. There are no expected conflicts of interest here however, should a tendering exercise take place for any catering requirements within the Stirling area, it is quite possible that the company would attempt to secure that business. No specific additional steps identified or taken to mitigate any risk at this stage.”

However, when asked about the value of the contract and how long it had been running – the Court Service insisted a new Freedom of Information request must be submitted – which allowed the SCTS an extra twenty days for a response to be given.

It then emerged from the response to the new FOI request that the £13K rolling contract for catering – had been operational for at least a year – despite earlier claims from the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service that no such contract existed.

In response ot the second FOI request, Margo Mackie - Deputy Head Information Governance admitted: “Catering for jurors at Stirling Sheriff Court involves providing jury catering for each day a jury is sitting, with provisions made for 15 jurors. This was arranged on a trial basis for the period December 2018 and January 2019 and thereafter is a rolling contract which can be terminated with one month’s notice.”

“I can confirm that the costs incurred to date under this arrangement were £558.72 for December 2018 and January 2019 during the trial period, and £12,480.86 following commencement of the contract for the period February 2019 to December 2019.”

However, while elected politicians such as MSPs & MPs, and those in other public bodies such as Police Scotland are required to declare all their interests, a significant failing in in how employees of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service declare their interests has emerged – where Court staff are only required to declare interests they feel may be relevant, rather than a requirement for total disclosure.

A question was put to the SCTS, asking whether entries are only made in this SCTS staff register if a staff member feels they may have an interest to declare - rather than a full and comprehensive register of staff interests - per SCTS staff member - being kept and updated as appropriate - example the register of interests for Scottish Parliament MSPs.

In response, Margo Mackie - Deputy Head Information Governance stated: As regards your first point I can advise that SCTS follows the Civil Service Management Code which sets out regulations and instructions regarding the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. One of these regulations concerns "the declaration of relevant business interests which SCTS employees or members of their immediate family hold, which might compromise, or appear to compromise, their integrity, honesty, objectivity or impartiality”.

“SCTS staff are therefore required to declare any business interests (including directorships) or holdings of shares or other securities which they or members of their immediate family (spouse, including partner where relevant, and children) hold, to the extent which they are aware of them, which they would be able to further as a result of their official position.”

“This means that, where there is a potential for income or financial benefit to be gained from work related to the SCTS, staff must declare and register an interest. Such interests are declared by informing their Unit Head who considers whether the interest is appropriate and should be registered. Thereafter details are provided to Human Resources Unit for addition to the SCTS Register of Interests.Staff who do not declare and register an interest which subsequently comes to light may be subject to disciplinary action.”

After initially concealing information from a Freedom of Information request, admitting further details in a review, and then insisting on a second FOI request, the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Service claimed the member of staff had no part or involvement in procurement.

Margo Mackie Deputy Head Information Governance & Correspondence claimed: “It has been confirmed that the member of staff concerned is not involved in procurement and played no part in the quotes exercise which awarded the contract, nor do they have any active involvement in the running of the company.”

Margo Mackie added: “The matter of updating information contained in the register will be considered in future reviews of the procedures.”

However, no explanation has been given as to why the member of staff’s link to the successful contract was concealed from the initial Freedom of Information disclosure.

Independent Report – Court Employees Interests Register is insufficient

Report said SCS Registers insufficient, Court staff involved in private gains failed to declare. Former Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson’s Report on Hospitality & Gifts in the SCS stated:  “The information currently captured on the registers is insufficient to provide assurance that staff are using their common sense and considering issues such as conflict of interest.

Ms Thompson went on to recommend the “SCS should revise the Policy on Acceptance of Gifts, Rewards and Hospitality to ensure that it is fit for purpose for all staff, taking account of the various roles performed within SCS. It may also be time to revisit the levels of value for gifts and hospitality.”

The former AIB’s report also revealed court staff were using their positions to earn money privately from their links with lawyers and law firms operating in courts, stating “Several staff raised the issue of sheriff clerks who carry out extrajudicial taxations and private assessments and who personally benefit financially from these activities.”

Ms Thompson’s report roundly condemned this practice, stating: “Not only is it inappropriate in terms of the civil service code requirements for staff who are public servants to be able to receive private gain from their employment it is also highly divisive when other staff see such benefits being derived from simply being in the right post of Auditor of Court within the Sheriff Courts.”

Ms Thompson recommended in her report the “SCS should bring the practice of sheriff clerks profiting privately from their employment by SCS to an end as quickly as possible”.

Now, a number of additional claims by whistleblowers regarding undisclosed links between SCTS staff and high value contracts providing services to the courts are currently being examined by DOJ for further investigation and publication at a later date.

Readers should note the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee are currently considering an eight year cross party backed petition calling for a Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary.

Previous articles on hospitality and gifts to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, reports on gift giving to court employees and investigations by Diary of Injustice on the relationship between law firms and SCTS staff can be found here Hospitality and Gifts to the Scottish Courts.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rather than concealed they really lied to you on that one Peter and given what we know about the courts thanks to you there will be something they dont want you to write up.
So what dirty tricks are going on at Stirling Sheriff court we need to know?

Anonymous said...

corruption in a Scottish court what a surprise they are rotten to the core from the judges down to the receptionists

would anyone be daft enough to trust a Scottish court for a fair trial after knowing how they rig evidence and witnesses? you'd be daft to put any faith in anything touched by Sturgeon and her baying mob

Anonymous said...

Stirling sheriff court is home to lots of abuse/rape/dv cases been there on duty a few and you get to see all the scum of the day not a good place

Anonymous said...

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service have around 1500 employees so their claim of a single entry in a register of interests for over three years tells you a lot about the level of dishonesty at SCTS

This as a sole entry in a register of interests over a three year period according to your FOI documents:
"A member of staff advised that a member of their family owns a catering company which may at some point tender for business should the opportunity arise. To date this has not come to pass."

Therefore Gillian Thompson's report has never been acted upon and SCTS as well as staff have little requirement to be honest on disclosure of interests,

especially after Margo Mackie followed up with this quote:
“I have also made some further enquiries and, although Mrs Warner indicated that a tender for business had not been made, I can clarify that, subsequent to the entry in the register, the company was successful in securing a contract for catering at Stirling Sheriff Court. I am sorry that this was not identified at the time the response was issued.”

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 22 January 2020 at 23:17

Yes, absolutely.

@ 23 January 2020 at 00:40

Trust me - the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service has long been disingenuous & dishonest and seems to get along fine with it, no matter which political party is in government in Scotland.

@ 23 January 2020 at 10:38

Thanks, and yes - you make a good point on the sparsity of detail in the register considering the number of employees at SCTS.

re Gillian Thompson's report - yes it would seem the register of staff interests for SCTS (Scottish Court Service SCS as it was formerly known) is still unfit for purpose and lacking in proper detail - and regards your earlier point, I cannot think of a register of interests for 1,500 personnel which only contains one reference (which was then concealed to an FOI request) in over three years.

Anonymous said...

am all in favour of local business but having a local company to the same area do catering for juries seems to me like at some point the jury members or their relatives will know of or even use the same company involved in another venue and now we know there are court staff links in this contract it should be ended now

Anonymous said...

They lied in the freedom of information letter because they know they can get away with it and the Scottish information commissioner will sit there chomping on biscuits and tea while all this kicks off

Anonymous said...

My husband was taken to a hospital and the doctor overdosed his medication and caused a severe stroke and they covered up all the information on the medication used and dosage until we were offered a settlement without the hospital admitting failure.
The solicitor wrote an foi for answers about medical care and patient deaths in the same hospital then charged us for everything and took most of the settlement and he charged us three thousand pounds for the foi letter and reply and he called it medical research provided by a QC but the date of work is the same date of the foi letter he discussed with me in a meeting and we never met any QC because it was settled after 3 years and before the case was to go to court and the solicitor refused to name the QC in his account and threatened to take us to court if we did not pay.My husband and I are both still alive no thanks to the doctor and the solicitors and I would like to say the experience with the solicitor was as abusive as dealing with the hospital after my husband's stroke and arranging his aftercare.
for your information the solicitor also used a false name for the foi letter

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 23 January 2020 at 16:55

Thanks for your comment.

Freedom of Information requests are free to make by anyone (as are FOI responses within certain limits of work set in FOISA).

From your description of events and your solicitor using a false name to submit an FOI request, I have to doubt whatever the response contained - it was not worth £3K and threatening you with court action over legal fees.

Please get in touch via the blog email address and can discuss your information - this should be publicised if at all possible as I have previously been made aware of solicitors using false names & charging for FOI requests under alternative descriptions for legal work to other clients.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 23 January 2020 at 14:08

Conflicts of interest & profiteering from court services is rife, both in SCTS staff and even the judiciary - example, some Scottish & UK judges have shares & interests in companies which hold contracts with the SCTS & Scottish Government for prisoner transport services & private prisons (among other services including private security)

@ 23 January 2020 at 15:41

Deception & mishandling of Freedom of Information requests is at epidemic level with FOI and Scottish public authorities.

Anonymous said...

Rather than concealed they really lied to you on that one Peter and given what we know about the courts thanks to you there will be something they dont want you to write up.
So what dirty tricks are going on at Stirling Sheriff court we need to know?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stirling Sheriff court is run by Perth Sheriff court which is the most corrupt court in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Are lawyers allowed to use false names for Freedom of Information requests and charge it up as work?

Surely this merits striking off?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 23 January 2020 at 18:26

With all I've seen & heard regarding Scottish solicitors padding their bills with fake work, faked up work, falsified work in fake names of fake advocates and fake qcs no action has ever been taken by regulators on this widespread habit.

Havent seen any action by the Scottish Information Commissioner on solicitors using fake names to submit FOI requests - Current SIC and staff obviously not interested in protecting FOISA - trot out the same waffle Annual Reports each year rather than actually doing something to protect FOISA from such blatant abuses - especially when there are sleazy solicitors (and no doubt others) charging clients for FOI requests under the guise of 'work' as has been described in an earlier comment.

Anonymous said...

Fat chance of the current Scottish Information Commissioner standing up for Freedom of Information because he is a member of the Law Society of Scotland who are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act

"He remains registered with the Law Society of Scotland."

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15367277.career-raf-officer-to-be-scotlands-new-foi-watchdog/

Career RAF officer to be Scotland's new FoI watchdog
By Tom Gordon

AN obscure military officer is to be Scotland’s next freedom of information tsar.

Daren Fitzhenry, a senior member of the RAF legal branch, is to be the new Scottish Information Commissioner, a six-year post that comes with a salary of £73,000.

He is expected to be confirmed in the role by a vote of MSPs next Tuesday.

Mr Fitzhenry, a graduate of Glasgow University, has served in the RAF since 2000.

His appointment comes at a critical moment for Scotland’s 12-year-old FoI regime, with the Scottish Government’s poor record under the spotlight.

Mr Fitzhenry’s predecessor, Rosemary Agnew, recently ordered SNP ministers to improve their performance after a series of “totally unacceptable“ failures to respond to requests.

She gave them six months to comply with the law, arguing citizens were being denied their rights and public trust was being eroded by the government’s bad practice.

She also said she was confident her successor as Commissioner would pursue the action.

Mr Fitzhenry, who is currently based in West Sussex, will now work from St Andrews.

According to a biography released by the Scottish Parliament, Mr Fitzhenry has extensive of the “development, implementation and application of regulatory systems, legislation and international arrangements”, including application of UK FoI Act, which covers the military.

However most Scottish public bodies are covered by a more wide-ranging Scottish FoI Act, which entitles the public to information unless there are compelling reasons for withholding it.

The parliament also said Mr Fitzhenry had “an insight into the benefits and value of an effective freedom of information system as well as different practical approaches to the application and enforcement of regulation.”

However few other details were available, and the parliament was unable to give his age.

It is known that he graduated from Glasgow University with a masters of laws in 1996, and began working for solicitors Ferguson & Co in Stranraer in 1997, before switching to the armed forces.

He remains registered with the Law Society of Scotland.

He was selected after an open recruitment process by a panel chaired by Holyrood Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh, alongside Labour, LibDem, Tory and Green MSPs.

The selection was also overseen by an independent assessor to ensure fairness.

Since Ms Agnew left her post early in April, the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office has been run by head of enforcement Margaret Keyse as Acting Commissioner.

Anonymous said...

How can there be a register of interests for 1700 court employees and only one entry in 3 years?
Your Scottish courts must be a bunch of con artists!

Anonymous said...

Clearly getting honest information from the Courts is like attempting to get blood out of a stone. No wonder the country is more divided than it has ever been in my lifetime.

Anonymous said...

Stirling Sheriff Court.
Anyone remember this?

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/court-clears-policeman-of-hiding-evidence-1-603714

Court clears policeman of hiding evidence
Friday 22 February 2002

A POLICE officer decorated for bravery was seeking to rebuild his career last night after he was cleared of plotting to pervert the course of justice

PC Steven Valentine, a constable with Central Scotland police, walked free from Stirling Sheriff Court yesterday after he was found not guilty of hiding his notebook to suppress evidence that he had mishandled the arrests of three petty criminals.

The case had been brought against the Falkirk-based PC after his estranged wife, Gail, 30, reported him to the police accusing him of hiding the notebook to get revenge on a procurator fiscal who had upset him.

The majority verdict came less than 24 hours after the trial judge, Sheriff Robert Younger, ruled PC Valentine, 28, had no case to answer on two other police corruption charges: fraud and wilful neglect of duty.

PC Valentine, commended five times by his chief constable for bravery and using first aid skills to save the life of an elderly woman in a diabetic coma, had consistently denied all the charges against him.

The court verdict followed what PC Valentine described as "a living nightmare" which began when his wife found out he was having an affair with colleague, Paula Webster, a Perth-based police officer .

PC Valentine admitted in court that he fell for the Tayside WPC while they were serving together at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, but when his wife found out she threw his clothes into the garden and threatened to ruin his career.

Shortly after the argument, Mrs Valentine reported her husband to the complaints unit of Central Scotland Police, claiming he had deliberately hidden a police notebook to get revenge on a junior member of the procurator fiscal’s service.

Mrs Valentine, who was described by defence counsel Paul McBride, QC, as a bare-faced liar and a vengeful woman, phoned her husband’s superiors and handed over the notebook, claiming to have found it under their spare bed.

During the five-day trial, depute fiscal Aileen Kennedy said she had taken PC Valentine’s notebook off him in October 1997 in Falkirk Court after noticing "discrepancies" between it and an official police report PC Valentine had filed.

The court heard the procurator fiscal’s office in Falkirk later returned the notebook to him but when they asked for it back, PC Valentine told them it was missing.

In court, Mrs Valentine alleged her husband wanted to "pay back" Ms Kennedy for giving him a hard time and hid the notebook under his bed in a bid to suppress the mistakes he’d made.

She said: "He wanted to get her back, to get his revenge. He had been given a hard time about evidence that didn't match up.

"He was fitting people up so he was making up evidence so could get brownie points for CID."

Ms Valentine also claimed in court that her husband had "umpteen affairs" before he began seeing WPC Webster, but the Camp Zeist affair was the last straw.

But the defence denied PC Valentine had hidden the notebook and claimed his wife was "bitter and vengeful", intent only on getting her estranged husband into trouble.

During the trial, Det Sgt Davie Nolan, PC Valentine’s immediate superior described his colleague as "one of the hardest working officers in the force".

Yesterday, as the jury returned their not guilty verdict, PC Valentine placed his head in his hands as his sister openly wept in the public gallery.

Last night, a spokesman for Central Scotland police confirmed PC Valentine will face an internal police hearing to decide if he can return to duty.

Anonymous said...

This must be going on in an industrial scale staff milking the same organisation they are employed by via big fat contracts to relatives
In this case stuffing the face of juries while they decide guilt or innocent well this all sounds very suspicious and corrupt