CASH ADVOCATE: £9K consultations & £75K meetings - Edinburgh Quaich Project Charity QC Boss scammed clients on no-win-no-fee deal - Faculty of Advocates files reveal extent of Advocates cash-for-fees HMRC tax dodge scam

John Campbell no fee no win court deal was turned against client. A TOP QC recently appointed to head an Edinburgh Charity £25million scheme redeveloping Princes St Gardens – is at the centre of calls for a tax probe - after newly released files reveal he used the Faculty of Advocates to demand huge fees - on a case he originally agreed to work on a no-win-no-fee basis.

Documents recovered from Faculty Services Ltd reveal John Campbell QC – of Themis Advocates - demanded payments of well over £100,000 - for a land contamination claim – contrary to an earlier agreement Campbell made with his clients where the fee would ONLY be taken from any settlement upon success in the Court of Session case.

However - the £6million claim led by John Campbell QC - ended badly after a series of undeclared conflicts of interest by some of Scotland’s most senior judicial figures, instances where judges were switched from hearing to hearing, denial of legal costs claims & denied appeals.

Campbell then effectively destroyed his own client’s case - by removing most of the financial claims without consultation or permission to do so.

Now - there are now calls for a full investigation by tax authorities of all transactions involving Scottish Advocates - after new evidence indicates fee documents from the Faculty of Advocates were altered - to cover up a series of undeclared cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.

In one of a series of Faculty Services statements - files reveal John Campbell demanded £75,000 for ‘unspecified’ meetings on the case he had already agreed to work on the no-win-no-fee arrangement in Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.

In another entry on the same statement - the senior Campbell QC - sometimes described as a ‘leading Scots legal figure’ - demands a staggering £9,000 for ONE single consultation.

Campbell also inserts a demand for £33,360 for ‘reviewing productions’ and preparing his fee – even though he had already agreed there would be NO fee if he didn’t win the case.

Another £6,300 is then charged up by Campbell for a further review of papers and ‘preparation of case’.

Given the outcome of the case, and what has since happened to Campbell’s clients as a result of his role as their legal representative - the fee statements appear to contravene the no-win-no-fee deal agreement between John Campbell and his clients.

And - in digital evidence now held by journalists, Campbell states the payments he pocketed from clients despite the no win no fee deal - include work undertaken by his Junior Counsel Craig Murray.

Craig Murray now works as a barrister in London at 12 King's Bench Walk Chambers - and maintains a seat at Compass Chambers in Edinburgh.

A full report on Craig Murray’s involvement in the case, and his role in writing two versions of evidence to legal regulators can be found here: ADVOCATE PROBE: How legal regulators covered up for top QC - Files show Scots Advocate now working as Barrister in London – authored two versions of SAME letter for Faculty probe of cash scandal QC who failed clients in £6M Court of Session case

It should be noted - despite accounts from Campbell and the Faculty of Advocates demanding hundreds of thousands of pounds from Mr Campbell’s clients - on a case Campbell himself destroyed in court – both John Campbell QC and Craig Murray have now DELETED all references to the Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd case from their online biographies documenting their respective legal careers.

A study of additional statements from Faculty Services Ltd currently being undertaken by a law accountant – highlights references in the newly released files to ‘undated’ sums, and credit notes for payments which were in fact – never made.

In one credit note from Faculty Services Ltd - the sum of £5000 - without any date reference is stated as paid.

However, a solicitor dealing directly with the case DENIED the undated £5,000 amount had been paid to Faculty Services Ltd - and a review of the accounts confirm NO such payment was ever made.

The undated £5K credit note listed in the documents – and other unexplained entries - appear to have been created by Faculty Services Ltd with a deliberate intention to conceal tens of thousands of pounds in undeclared cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.

The fee statements & accounts from Faculty Services Ltd now raise serious questions of how far up the involvement of figures in the Faculty of Advocates in this case stretches - after an earlier investigation established Campbell was pocketing large payments he personally insisted on collecting in cash filled envelopes from his clients in £5,000 bundles.

Written evidence recovered from files held by legal regulators revealed Campbell himself sent emails to his clients - demanding large payments in cash to pay himself and junior counsel Craig Murray.

An email from John Campbell to his clients revealed Campbell demanded £5,000 in cash - while he was on the way to a meeting at Airdrie Sheriff Court followed by a dinner with the Law Society of Scotland.

The email from Campbell states: “A little better information about timing. I am due in Airdrie at 4.30. The meeting is in the Sheriff Court, which closes at 6.30. The Law Society is taking me and a colleague for dinner, but I have no idera where. There isn't a huge number of restaurants in Airdrie, but we'll find somewhere. This means I won't be at Bonkle Road until about 8. Is that OK?”

“I have asked JC [John Carruthers] for a breakdown of the £5000. I will explain to you how a spec case works. I have checked; both John and I are willing to take on a spec case for Donal, but only if he signs up to it. There will be two conditions; one is that you keep the Edinburgh agent fed and watered, and the second is the size of the uplift at the end of the day, as I explained to you.”

A Sunday Mail investigation into the case established John Campbell sent multiple emails to clients – in some cases, demanding cash “in any form except beads” to pay for legal services.

An additional email from John Campbell QC to his client stated: “I'm writing to confirm that we agreed at our meeting on Friday that we will meet in Dalkeith on TUESDAY morning, when you will give me £5000 towards the fees of your legal team” … “Please let me know if it's OK to meet at the Mulsanne Garage, which is at 137 High Street, and what time would suit you?”

Campbell then collected the cash in envelopes - in locations such as restaurants, a garage specialising in servicing Bentley cars, and on land at Branchal in Wishaw.

John Campbell has refused to make any statement to the media on the written evidence published in the media of his demands for undeclared cash payments from clients.

Commenting on Campbell’s emails and some of the Faculty Services fee statements, a Criminal Defence solicitor who did not wish to be named – claimed the practice of QCs and Advocates demanding fee top ups in cash is widespread and needs to be looked at.

In one case quoted by a legal source, a senior member of the Faculty of Advocates who recently appeared in the news - is alleged to have demanded a six figure sum in cash from an accused person to ensure a non-custodial sentence in a criminal prosecution.

The legal source who provided the information said “Given the seniority of the accused’s legal representation it is difficult to believe others in court were not involved in the cash for freedom deal.”

In another case of a similar nature, an accused person refused to pay a similar sum of cash demanded by a high profile QC who also guaranteed a non-custodial sentence. The accused person went on to receive a custodial sentence after being found guilty at a criminal trial.

The rules on how payments to Advocates and Queens Counsel are collected from clients by Faculty Services Ltd –  the fees collection arm of the Faculty of Advocates which is currently chaired by Geoff Clarke QC - are very clear.

Section 9.9 of the Faculty of Advocates Code of Conduct states: “Counsel should not under any circumstances whatever discuss or negotiate fees with or receive fees directly from the lay client.”

Further rules from the Code of Conduct state clearly that fees to QCs and Advocates acting as counsel can only be collected by solicitors, and then paid over to clerks and Faculty Services.

“Normally Counsel’s fees are negotiated between the clerk and the solicitor. All fees should be paid to Counsel’s clerk.”

Additional guidance designed to cover over any direct payments ‘collected’ by Advocates states: “If any fee happens to be paid direct to Counsel, Counsel must account for it forthwith to his or her clerk.”

CASE BROKE ALL JUDICIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES:

Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 is the same case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary – notably where Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC) failed to disclose on multiple occasions - the fact Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campell - represented the defenders in the same court.

The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail here: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Papers lodged at Holyrood judicial interests register probe reveal Court of Session judge heard case eight times - where his son acted as solicitor for the defenders.

It is also worth noting the Nolan v Advance (Scotland) Ltd case drew in a series of sheriffs and judges – from not easily explained hearings at Hamilton Sheriff Court involving Sheriff Millar, Peter Watson & Levy & Mcrae – and Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campbell – to Court of Session judges including Lord Brodie, Lord Menzies, Lord Woolman, Lord Bracadale (and a concealed recusal) and Lord Hodge – who later prevented the case being appealed to the UK Supreme Court without declaring he had already ruled on the case while in Edinburgh on multiple occasions.

A full report on Lord Hodge, his undeclared conflicts of interest and his role in denying an appeal to the UK Supreme Court can be found here: CONFLICT OF JUSTICE: Deputy President of UK Supreme Court Lord Hodge blocked appeal to UKSC on damages case he previously heard 16 times – where fellow judge Lord Malcolm failed to declare his own son represented defenders in same court

An earlier investigation of this case revealed that when Lord Woolman stated in court papers that Mr Nolan had a case, John Campbell QC removed – without instruction – most of his client’s own case including over £4million and a claim for legal costs – after he had discussions with the current vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates – Roddy Dunlop QC.

A full report on how John Campbell QC reduced his own client’s financial claim almost to zero and without any instruction or consultation - can be found here: CASHBACK QC: Legal regulator’s files reveal senior QC reduced claim without instructions, withheld key evidence & witnesses including Cabinet Secretary from Court of Session case

Roderick William Dunlop QC of Axiom Advocates along with Lord Malcolm’s son who is now at the same Advocates Stables as Dunlop – Ewen Campbell of Axiom Advocates - and Peter Watson – now formerly of Glasgow based Levy & Mcrae - represented Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.

At the time – Peter Watson was a member of Scotland’s judiciary – and held various positions and directorships in relation to a hedge fund run by Greg King.

However – Peter Watson’s involvement in the collapsed £400million Heather Capital Hedge fund was beginning to trickle out into the media - and in 2015 after questions were put to Scotland’s top judge by the Scottish Sun newspaper - Lord Brian Gill suspended Peter Watson from sitting as a judge “to maintain public confidence in the judiciary”.

A full report on Watson’s suspension from the judicial bench can be found here: CAPITAL JUDGE: As top judge suspends sheriff over £28m law firm writ alleging links to £400m Heather Capital collapse, what now for Lord Gill’s battle against a register of interests & transparency for Scotland’s judiciary

Watson’s suspension as a judge lasted for over three years – a record term of suspension of a member of Scotland’s judiciary and ended with Watson’s resignation in 2019, reported in further detail here: SHERIFF WALKS: Scottish Courts confirm lawyer & part-time Sheriff Peter Watson - who was named in £28M Heather Capital writ linked to collapsed £400M hedge fund – resigned from the judiciary in 2018

JOHN CAMPBELL QC & THE EDINBURGH CHARITY PROJECT:

Recently, and in a blaze of public relations, John Campbell QC was appointed as Chairman of The Ross Development Trust - a charity created to lead a redesign of West Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.

However, Campbell’s appointment as Chairman of the project comes amid a scandal where big businesses, vested interests and wealthy donors were promised access to high-profile celebrities, international publicity at VIP events tickets for high-profile concerts, exclusive drinks parties and dinners under a secret fundraising drive by the Quaich Project – which Campbell now chairs.

Leaked details published last month by the media suggest corporate backers will be able to advertise their brands all across the redeveloped Princes Street gardens and the new amphitheatre which will replace the current Ross Bandstand.

Campbell’s reaction to the publication was an aggressive response, attacking critics of the public-private partnership project for “scaremongering” over “completely untrue” claims that it would lead to over-commercialisation and privatisation of the gardens.

It was reported in the media that John Campbell insisted there was “absolutely no evidence” to support claims that Princes Street gardens would be turned into a “private playground” reserved for wealthy donors and for commercial companies – yet the documents detailing the funding drive & secret promise of sponsorship to big business and vested interests - are now widely circulating in the public domain after being leaked to the press.

Eerily - the plan to redevelop Princes Street Gardens – dubbed the ‘Quaich project’- is developing a similar theme to how parts of the Court of Session ended up in the ownership of the Faculty of Advocates, after legal figures targeted the Laigh Hall complex, claiming ownership of the hall via a series of dubious titles and a lobbying campaign to take possession of the court buildings.

The Laigh Hall scandal resulted in a secretive deal after a bitter campaign by the Faculty of Advocates to usurp possession of parts of the Court of Session building for their ownership, adding it to their asset portfolio under a trust chaired by Court of Session judge Lord Brailsford.

The Scottish Government eventually caved in and  ‘gifted’ parts of the Court of Session to the Faculty of Advocates – even though the building belonged to the City of Edinburgh Council.

A full report on what happened to the Laigh Hall – which now hosts many exclusive events for lawyers & their businesses, and the transfer of ownership to the Faculty of Advocates can be found here: WOLFFE HALL: Edinburgh Council racks up £53K legal bill in failed bid to recover ownership of Parliament House - as papers reveal Faculty of Advocates “occupied” Laigh Hall for 150 years without recorded title deeds

Campbell is also a Trustee of the Scottish Historic Buildings Trust, and of Planning Aid Scotland, and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS)

Former Cabinet Minister Alex Neil MSP (SNP Airdrie and Shotts) – who is backing his constituents in their quest to obtain justice, has now called for a full probe into the allegations against Campbell.

The Sunday Mail reported on the development & political backing in an investigation, here: MSP brands legal watchdog a 'toothless waste of time' after top QC avoids censure over cash payments

The Sunday Mail’s original Investigation and report on John Campbell QC and his cash demands from clients can be found here:

'We gave top QC £5000 cash in an envelope four times' Couple claim law expert broke guidelines as MSP calls for probe

By Craig McDonald Sunday Mail 2 APR 2017

A couple claim one of Scotland’s leading QCs breached strict guidelines and asked for legal fees to be paid direct to him in cash.

Melanie Collins and partner Donal Nolan said they made the unusual payment after John Campbell told them he needed “£5000 from you in any form”.

Melanie said she and a friend met Campbell, who once represented Donald Trump’s Scottish business, in a restaurant in Dalkeith where she handed over the sum in banknotes.

She said she paid the QC – one of Scotland’s top planning law experts – three further sums of £5000 in cash at other meetings.

The method of payment is a breach of strict guidelines issued by the Faculty of Advocates – the ­professional body all advocates and QCs belong to.

The couple’s MSP last week called for a probe into the payments.

Campbell wrote in an email to Melanie on October 10, 2012: “Tomorrow, I am looking forward to a serious talk with you and John but I need to collect £5000 from you in any form.”

The man referred to is solicitor advocate John Carruthers, who assisted in the case.

Four days later, Melanie received another email from Campbell which said: “I’m writing to confirm that we agreed at our meeting on Friday that we will meet at Dalkeith on Tuesday morning when you will give me £5000 towards the fees of your legal team.”

Melanie, 62, a former land developer, of Bonkle, Lanarkshire, said: “I and a friend met with Mr Campbell at a restaurant in Dalkeith where I gave him an envelope containing £5000.

“There were three other ­occasions when I paid him £5000 cash in envelopes.

“One was at the Dakota hotel in Lanarkshire, one was at my home in Bonkle and one was a site in Cambusnethan in Wishaw relating to the court case. Looking back it might seem odd – but I had never had any dealings with a QC before and just assumed this was the way they worked.

“I paid two further cheques, one to Mr Campbell and one to a law firm, of £5000 and £4000. The total was £29,000.”

The payments related to a civil case Donal initially planned against a construction firm in 2011. The case was heard at the Court of Session in 2013.

Melanie said: “We won the case but were awarded £20,000. Our total legal fees were in the hundreds of thousands.”

She reported the cash payments claims to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in 2014.

The SLCC said at the time: “The complaint has been considered carefully by the SLCC. It has been decided … will not be investigated as it has not been made within time limits, for the reasons set out in the attached determination.”

The couple’s MSP, Alex Neil, the SNP member for Airdrie and Shotts, said: “All these allegations have to be investigated.

“If there has been malpractice at any stage this has to be dealt with by the appropriate ­authorities. Donal and Melanie’s problem up until now is that they’ve not been listened to when they have made the complaints.”

The SLCC could not be contacted for comment.

The Faculty of Advocates’ guide to conduct states: “Counsel should not under any circumstances whatever discuss or negotiate fees with or receive fees directly from the lay client.”

Their disciplinary tribunal can hand out fines of up to £15,000. A member can also be suspended or expelled from the faculty.

The Faculty of Advocates refused to comment last week.

Campbell, 67, said: “I have no comment to make.”

JOHN CAMPBELL QC BIOGRAPHY:

During the span of his legal representation provided in Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd, John Campell was based at the former Hasties Stables of Advocates, which rebranded themselves earlier this year as Themis Advocates.

The rebrand of Hasties Stables after Advocates in the former Hastie Stable announced they were to re-emerge under the new brand of Themis Advocates – on the appointment of new senior clerk Kiera Johnston who will work alongside depute clerks Sara Mauriello and Liz Archibald.

Sitting alongside John D. Campbell QC in Themis Advocates are members of Scotland’s judiciary – including Mungo Bovey QC – who has sat as a part time Sheriff since 2009.

Themis Advocates describe themselves in the following terms: “Themis Advocates is a generalist stable, of which our advocates cover all areas of the law well. Within the stable, solicitors can find counsel able to handle a very broad range of inquiries, both in the range of subject matter and in the nature of the task requiring to be undertaken. We can provide competent advocates at all levels for any item of work. For ease of use we have arranged the Areas of Practice under the headings listed on the left. Click on any one of these headings for a breakdown of specialist topics within that heading.”

Alongside John Campbell QC at Themis Advocates are the following QCs: Mungo Bovey QC ;Andrew Brown QC ; Laura Dunlop QC ; Bruce Erroch QC ; Leo Hofford QC, FCIArb ; Kirsty Hood QC Gavin MacColl QC ; Alan McLean QC, FCIArb ; Brian Napier QC ; Steven Walker QC ; Andrew Webster QC

Juniors at Themis called for over seven years include the following: David F Ballantyne ; Mike Bell Joe Bryce  Alan Caskie  Maria Clarke  Gerry Coll  Donald Davidson  Andrew Devlin  Kenneth Forrest  Robert Frazer  Kenny Gibson  Alasdair Hardman  Ewan Hawthorn  Graeme Henderson  Jeya Irvine  David Leighton  Catherine MacColl  David McLean  Fintan McShane  John Moir  Ross Pilkington  Chris Pirie  Michael Upton

Juniors at Themis called for under seven years include the following: Tracey Brown  Andrew Crawford  Michael Dempsey  Tim Haddow  Chris Jones  Ann MacNeill  Julie McKinlay  Graham Middleton  Safeena Rashid  Katerina Stein

John Campbell also maintains a role at Trinity Chambers in England, alongside: Toby Hedworth Q.C.   John Campbell Q.C.  Andrew Stafford Q.C.  Francis FitzGibbon Q.C.   Nicholas Stonor Q.C.   Caroline Goodwin Q.C.

Barristers at Trinity Chambers can be found here: Trinity Chambers - Barristers a-z

The Trinity Chambers website describes their practice in the following terms: Trinity Chambers is proud of its reputation as being one of the leading sets of barristers’ chambers in the North of England, endorsed by the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 Directories - "Trinity Chambers' ‘expertise, professionalism and empathy are second to none’", the "extremely efficient" clerks are "always keen to assist" Legal 500 2019, ‘One of the most renowned sets in the North East for good reason’ Legal 500 2020.

This is a reputation we have won by investing in staff, services and facilities, by implementing a robust administration and clerking structure, and, crucially, by supplying high quality legal advice and advocacy.

Trinity were the first chambers north of London, and only the fourth in the country, to be awarded the General Council of the Bar’s BarMark which is an annual review of all aspects of practice management, client care and regulatory compliance as assessed and reported upon by the British Standards Institution.

We were the first BarMark chambers in the country to be awarded Investors in People. Trinity were among the first six chambers to be awarded the Legal Services Commission’s Quality Mark. Since our establishment in 1954, we have consistently grown so that we now offer a broad spectrum of specialisation, expertise and experience, with consistently high quality across the board.

John Campbell QC Trinity Chambers Biography

John Campbell Q.C. CASES – with no reference to his role in Nolan v Advance Constuction (Scotland) Ltd:

About 200 windfarm and other planning cases at Committee, in writing, on appeal to Inspectors and Reporters, and on Appeal and Judicial Review in Scotland, Cumbria, Northumberland, East Yorkshire, North Wales, West Wales, and Norfolk; Avich & Kilchrenan Community Council – appearance before UN Economic Committee for Europe’s Åarhus Convention Compliance Committee, Geneva, Switzerland; Beauly to Denny OHL Inquiry – major power line inquiry from Beauly (Inverness-shire) to Denny (Stirlingshire); Bilfinger Berger Siemens CAF Joint Venture - training for Edinburgh Trams Mediation; Coastal Regeneration Alliance – Community Right to Buy under Land reform (S) Act 2003 – wrongful refusal to register lawful interest by Scottish Ministers; David Bines v CNES – [2010] Otter control at a fish farm; Gloag v Perth and Kinross Council and The Ramblers Association – right to roam – right to erect a fence with out planning permission; Gordon & Macphail v The Moray Council – Land Tribunal Valuation dispute for loss of use of a spring feeding a malt whisky distillery; Gordons Trustees – landlord’s resistance to an informally created agricultural tenancy; Grantown on Spey Caravan Park – Certificate of Lawful Use and Development against Planning Authority; success and costs awarded; HMA: v Hyslop – farmer carrying shotgun and allegedly threatening ‘lampers’ on his own ground – unanimous acquittal; HMA v Reid – shaken baby death; ICE v Addison – professional body wrongfully expelling Chartered Engineer; Laird v Scottish Borders Council – Planning consent invalidated for ambiguity; Lidl Stores – Nine public inquiries for new stores; Macaskill Stornoway [2009] Lorry noise nuisance case; Mearns Residents Association – flooding – correct interpretation of Council’s obligations to regulate housing permissions; Nairn v Fife Council [2008] Listed Buildings and ransom strip at large Country House; Newton Mearns Residents Association [2014] CSOH – flooding issues, Protective Expenses Order; Packard v Scottish Ministers [2012] – judicial review of windfarm Planning decision – bias and pre-determination by Scottish Ministers alleged; Parry v Highland Council – Contested certificate of lawful use for a fish farm; Pentland-Clark v Maclehose and Others – [2013] 10 year long Will dispute; Pirie and another v NEC – unlawful contract termination of TV distributor’s agreements; Q-Park – Access through designated bridge Airspace valuation; RIAS v Mays – unlawful expulsion of architect from membership of professional body – compensation; S and others – prolonged family dispute among four brothers following sale of a waste recovery business; Scott v McTear – auction house denying liability for compensation after burglary; TMSL v Rannoch Club – unlawful contract termination – compensation; Scottish Parliament Inquiry – 2004 – Inquiry into overspend on the Scottish Parliament Building; Trump International v Scottish Ministers UKSC [2015] judicial review of decision about the correct interpretation of a term in Electricity Act 1989;William Grant & Sons, Distillers [2013] – judicial review of Planning Decision; Wilson v Morton Fraser – Solicitors negligence claim, contested valuation of loss of profit

APPOINTMENTS: Member of the Scottish Bar since 1981, QC Scotland since 1998 ;Member, Dispute Review Board, Mersey Gateway Crossing 2015-

LECTURES & SEMINARS: Regularly gives talks on Planning law and Arbitration to solicitors, local authority staff, students, clients and others and has written a number of articles on Listed Buildings and Built and Natural Heritage issues

EDUCATION: LLB Edinburgh 1972

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: John Campbell is a Scottish Queen’s Counsel, qualified to practice throughout the UK.

He graduated from Edinburgh University in 1972, and worked as a solicitor in Scotland until 1978. He was appointed as an Assistant Director of Legal Aid in Hong Kong where he worked in a range of public service legal jobs until appointed a Magistrate in 1980. He returned to Scotland in 1981.He passed Advocate that year, was called to Lincolns Inn in 1990, and took silk in 1998. He was a member of 40 King Street Chambers in Manchester throughout the 1990s.

He has worked in Family Law, both claimant and defendant Personal Injury and industrial disease work, and much earlier, in Crime. He has acquired a lot of agricultural experience, particularly for estates, farms and tenants and in landlord and tenant issues, and has worked widely in promoting arbitration and mediation for farmers, and in rent reviews both in Scotland and around the world. He has been a registered Construction Adjudicator and is currently a Member of a DRB.

He has worked in Town and Country Planning since the mid 1990s and has developed that speciality to include Environmental Law and some Construction Law. He is particularly active in Renewable Energy work on behalf of communities, NGOs, third parties, developers and councils.

His practice today is mainly in Planning and Environmental Law, property and land law, and agriculture and energy work, and he has a specialised practice in all kinds of ADR work and its promotion. He has carried out about 200 public inquiries and a number of related judicial reviews. Outside the law, he is Chairman of Scotland’s largest Building Preservation Trust, and of a University Research Advisory Board.

DO you have a complaint or case where a QC or Advocate has not provided fair legal services? What are your experiences of dealing with the Faculty of Advocates?

Has your solicitor, advocate or QC demanded cash payments from you at any stage of a civil or criminal case? Tell us more about it in confidence, by email to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

JUDICIAL REGISTER: Top judge failed to provide convincing argument against register of judges’ interests, Justice Committee evidence calls into question Justice Secretary’s misleading explanation of Scottish judges serving in Scotland and Gulf States courts

Lord Carloway failed to provide convincing reason against judicial register. EVIDENCE heard by the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee during MSPs recent consideration of a cross party plan to create a register of judges’ interests – reveals Scotland’s top judge again failed to provide any convincing arguments against a proposal to require Scotland’s judges to declare all their interests.

Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary – originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

A Register of Judicial Recusals was created in April 2014 by now former Lord President – Lord Brian Gill – in an attempt to persuade to drop their investigation of a proposal to create a fully published register of judges interests.

However, after eight years of investigation by the Public Petitions Committee and now the Justice Committee – the proposal - which has cross party backing, media support, support from independent former Judicial regulators and has sparked wide public debate on the state of Scotland’s judiciary – has now earned the backing of Justice Committee MSPs who believe the proposal should go forward to create a full register of interests – putting judges on the same level of transparency as elected members of the Scottish Parliament.

During the hearing, John Finnie MSP said: “The debate seems to be polarised. The petition has been open for a considerable number of years, and an issue remains. The public would expect some measure of accountability.”

James Kelly MSP said: “Over the period for which the committee has been examining the issue, I have become convinced by the case for a register of interests for the judiciary.”

“I note the responses from the cabinet secretary and Lord Carloway; there is clearly a bit of a stand-off here. Members’ suggestions of taking additional evidence to take the issue forward are sensible. We should not park the issue; it is important and we should continue to press it.”

Upon consideration of written evidence and material provided by the Petitioner in response to: letter from Lord Carloway, letter from Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf and letter from Scottish Justices Association - members of the Justice Committee decided to seek evidence from constitutional and academic witnesses – and briefings on the extent of conflicts of interest relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish justice system. Video footage of the hearing can be viewed here: Register of Judges Interests Petition PE1458 Justice Committee 10 March 2020

Minutes of the meeting concluded with the following decision: Public petition PE1458: The Committee considered various pieces of correspondence received in relation to its ongoing consideration of the petition. The Committee agreed to keep the petition open and to seek further oral evidence in due course, in round-table formal, from constitutional and academic witnesses.

The Committee also agreed to seek further written briefings from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) in relation to other potential conflicts of interests relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish judicial system. The Committee will consider the scheduling of this work as part of its work programming up to spring 2021.

Response to Lord Carloway's letter of 29 January 2020 - The letter from Scotland’s top judge – Lord Carloway to the Justice Committee in which Lord Carloway refused for the second time to give evidence to MSPs on the petition, was reported in further detail here: JUDGE JUDGES: Scotland’s top judge refuses to face MSPs on judiciary’s EIGHT YEAR battle against register of judges’ interests – Lord Carloway says he will not attend Holyrood to ‘rehearse the same arguments which have not apparently found favour’

Responding to Lord Carloway's letter of 29 January 2020 – evidence submitted in written form by the petitioner to the Justice Committee stated:

Noting the terms of Lord Carloway's letter, the Lord President's earlier evidence to the Petitions Committee on 29 June 2017 is available in video format here Lord Carloway evidence on Register of Judges interests Petitions Committee Scottish Parliament 29 June 2017 for members interest.

I would encourage the Justice Committee to engage with Alex Neil MSP, who attended that hearing and asked pertinent questions of the Lord President. I believe the Committee could gain further insight into the issue of judicial interests, and failures of judges to declare recusals, by hearing from Mr Neil.

Lord Carloway states in his letter that "Elected office and judicial office are not comparable"

I believe anyone watching the evidence session where Lord Carloway faced questions from Mr Neil, would disagree with the Lord President's statement.

Transparency is, a public expectation of public office. A necessary guardian of fair hearing, truth, and a form which holds everyone accountable. Transparency can many times, be the foundation of public trust in politics, public life, and even the courts - where - without transparency, where would justice be?

The judiciary are the most powerful branch of the executive and therefore must be held to be the most accountable and adhere to the same level of transparency which applies to all other branches of public service.

Importantly, transparency does not impede independence of the judiciary, or even any other branch of the Executive. Rather transparency enhances public trust, and adherence to public service.

Lord Carloway states the following: "I remain of the view that, from the constitutional perspective, the extent of any monitoring of judicial conduct, including judges' interests relative to the performance of their duties, should remain a matter for the Judiciary and not for Government or Parliament."

The policy adopted by the judiciary of 'judges judging judges' is what ended up blunting any meaningful powers to the office of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to oversee judicial complaints in Scotland.

These issues involving a lack of oversight of judicial complaints powers have been widely reported in the media: My position is window-dressing, says legal watchdog with budget of £2000

Judicial Conduct, judicial interests and related issues are certainly a matter for primary legislation, and it is worth noting the office of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer was established by Section 30 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008

In terms of a failure to declare interests or to maintain a register of interests, I draw to the attention of members - the issue of Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare interests in Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (1999), commonly referenced as "Hoffmann/Pinochet"

Hoffmann/Pinochet tainted the Law Lords over the question of declarations of interest despite their requirement to declare in a register, and subsequently the UK Supreme Court was created in the Constitution Reform Act 2005 Part 3 Section 23

Importantly the previous requirements of Law Lords to declare interests when they sat as Law Lords in the House of Lords, was omitted from the 2005 Uk legislation and set the stage where to this day - the Justices of UKSC have stated they themselves judge they do not require to declare their interests.

The UKSC's position on judicial interests UKSC Judges Expenses and Interests

The statement from the UKSC justices which has been quoted by two Lord Presidents previously, reads as follows: "Against this background the Justices have decided that it would not be appropriate or indeed feasible for them to have a comprehensive Register of Interests, as it would be impossible for them to identify all the interests, which might conceivably arise, in any future case that came before them. To draw up a Register of Interests, which people believed to be complete, could potentially be misleading."

Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare his interests and the impact of such on public confidence could be summarised by Lord Hutton in his ruling on Hoffmann/Pinochet:

Lord Hutton said: ‘there could be cases where the interest of the judge in the subject matter of the proceedings arising from his strong commitment to some cause or belief or his association with a person or body involved in the proceedings could shake public confidence in the administration of justice as much as a shareholding (which might be small) in a public company involved in the litigation.’

While no one has been willing to discuss exactly why UKSC judges lost the previous Law Lords requirement to declare and register interests - Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare his interests in the Pinochet case, set a standard for judges to declare interests - which even Professor Paterson in his testimony to the Public Petitions Committee agreed with.

The judiciary's position on declarations of interests and creating a register of judicial interests, is contrary to the wider public interest and expectation of transparency - especially in our courts.

While noting the Lord President's repeat of his earlier comments in relation to issues involving the Council of Europe, and the Judicial Council in Scotland, Lord Carloway has not provided any convincing argument against creating a register of judicial interests.

It is also very clear from Lord Carloway's letter, the judiciary continue to maintain resistance to the very notion of a register of judicial interests, and will not create one on their own.

As the Public Petitions Committee have already found the petition's proposal of a Register of Judicial Interests to be "workable", and there has been consistent support including media and public interest and for the petition since it was filed in 2012 - and given the Justice Committee are minded to advance this matter as no convincing argument against this proposal has been made, I urge members to take the petition forward and advance PE1458 to primary legislation, to ensure all members of Scotland's judiciary declare and register their interests, in the same way as all others in public life, including all 129 MSPs of the Scottish Parliament register and declare their interests.

Further evidence submitted to the Justice Committee in response to the Justice Secretary’s continuing opposition to the creation of a register of judges’ interests, noted serious discrepancies in the Justice Secretary’s claims regarding Scottish judges serving in middle east Gulf States – reported in an earlier article here: NO, MINISTER: Justice Secretary claims Holyrood transparency legislation for register of judges’ interests - would undermine top judge who refused to meet Justice Committee on EIGHT YEAR judicial register petition

The Justice Committee have previously heard and viewed detailed evidence identifying several Scottish judges who served in Scottish courts while also serving in the Gulf States. MSP John Finnie made several observations on this in an earlier Justice Committee hearing here: John Finnie MSP - Scots Judges serving in Gulf States - Justice Committee 28 May 2019

Responding to the Cabinet Secretary's letter of 7 February 2020 – evidence submitted in written form by the petitioner to the Justice Committee stated:

Noting the Cabinet Secretary's response, I wish to point out one of the two Scottish judges in articles submitted to the Justice Committee, was indeed serving in Scotland at the time of his service in the UAE, - dates on court opinions delivered by Lord McGhie in Scotland and previously provided to the Justice Committee show this to be the case.7

The newspaper investigation stated "Our investigation found that Lord McGhie has been registered to sit in the UAE for the past two years while he was also dispensing justice at the Court of Session in Edinburgh." - This was accurately reported in the media: Scottish judges slammed for being on payroll of oppressive regimes abroad

Regarding Lord Hope of Craighead, members will be aware Lord Hope serves in the UAE and has done for some time, while also remaining a cross bench peer in the House of Lords, and therefore being required to declare his interests: Lord Hope of Craighead Register of Interests

As well as having a continuing effect on public life in the UK and Scotland as a peer, Lord Hope's House of Lords register of interests list "Chief Justice of the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts (commercial court system in Abu Dhabi)" - necessitating the swearing of a judicial oath in Abu Dhabi, "Council Member and Trustee, Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association" & "Door Tenant, Brick Court Chambers, London, as an arbitrator".

Members of the Justice Committee will be aware many retired Scottish judges are brought back into service in the Scottish Courts, or for the purposes of heading inquiries and other public service roles - such as Lord Bracadale , and others such as retired Lord President Brian Gill, who is also listed as working as a Judicial Commissioner (along Lord Bracadale) for the UK Surveillance Commissioner: Appointment of 13 Judicial Commissioners

Lord Gill is also involved in calling for a major inquiry into the land tenure system in Scotland - and therefore still maintains an influence on legislation and public life in Scotland.

Clearly, where retired judges are brought back into service, for court duty or inquiries, the Judiciary of Scotland should maintain their register of interests, given these judges are again, serving either the courts or the Scottish Government, and therefore contributing to public life in Scotland.

On the issue of recusals - in relation to financial interests (although the petition does seek to include all interests & links of members of the judiciary) for some reason there have never been any requirements for judges to disclose financial links which may result in a recusal published in the register of recusals.

And, I would draw to the attention of the Justice Committee - reports of a Sheriff heard a case involving a supermarket in which he had shareholdings, and then refused to recuse himself from the case - reported by the Herald newspaper: Pressure grows for register of judges' interests as sheriff hears Tesco case while holding shares in company

A further report on the same Sheriff revealed he also held shares in a company which was the subject of Scotland's biggest Proceeds of Crime order in connection with activities in Iraq, reported by the Scottish Sun: Judge has Shares in Bribe Firm

I have previously drawn members attention to the promotion of former top prosecutor Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland to the position of a Senator of the Court of Session. It is a matter of record Lord Mulholland supported Lord Carloway's review to abolish corroboration and previously appeared before the Justice Committee as Lord Advocate, as a witness expressing such support.

The fact Scotland's top prosecutor was given a position as a top judge in the Court of Session, is a matter of public interest, and as anyone may conclude, could create multiple conflicts of interest particularly given the short gap between Lord Mulholland's retirement as Lord Advocate and elevation to the judiciary.

These are issues which are clearly of relevance to a register of judges interests and should be included in such a register, given there are clear examples of cases in the past where prosecutors, promoted to members of the judiciary have heard cases and appeals by persons they previously prosecuted, but failed to declare any interest in court.

Over the course of six years of investigation and consideration by the Public Petitions Committee of evidence and hearings, every opportunity was given to myself and others, to respond to hearings, evidence and submissions from others in relation to Petition PE1458.

There is a stark contrast in these submissions, where only the judiciary and vested legal interests have taken an opposite view to transparency and declarations of interest - to the point Lord Gill refused twice to appear before the Petitions Committee, and now Lord Carloway has refused to appear before the Justice Committee on this petition.

Everyone else, and including two Judicial Complaints Reviewers who filed submissions with the Public Petitions Committee, and the Justice Committee, support the creation of a register of judicial interests.

Given the Cabinet Secretary's comments and the lack of any further arguments advanced by the Scottish Government and Lord President against the creation of a register of judicial interests, I would urge the Justice Committee to move forward and advance the petition to primary legislation.

An earlier article featured new material presented to the Justice Committee on the issue of how Justices of the Peace were deliberately excluded from the recusals register created by Lord Gill in April 2014 – reported in further detail here: INJUSTICE OF THE PEACE: Judge admits Scottish Courts concealed conflict of interest recusals - Justices of the Peace were told by Court staff any cases where JP judges decided to step down from court hearings - would NOT be recorded in official register of judicial recusals

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.

ADVOCATE PROBE: How legal regulators covered up for top QC - Files show Scots Advocate now working as Barrister in London – authored two versions of SAME letter for Faculty probe of cash scandal QC who failed clients in £6M Court of Session case

Craig Murray – re-written evidence removed bribes claim. AN INVESTIGATION of how the Faculty of Advocates and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) covered up complaints against a top QC - show the inadequacies of the same legal regulators who will now consider allegations against Gordon Jackson QC.

Documents uncovered from Court of Session case files reveal the Faculty of Advocates and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission failed to act on evidence where a Scottish Advocate now working as a Barrister in London - Craig Murray of 12 Kings Bench Walk - submitted two versions of written evidence in connection with an investigation of a senior QC - John Campbell QC.

John Campbell – a well known figure in Scottish legal circles - was found to have demanded cash payments direct from clients for legal work at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

However, while Campbell was receiving cash from his clients – a move strictly forbidden by the Faculty of Advocates – court files also revealed Campbell removed – without instruction - over £4million and a costs claim from the same Court of Session case where he had also sought cash payments from his clients.

Now -  a fresh consideration of the same court files which identify Craig Murray as junior counsel to Campbell in the same Court of Session damages claim – show Craig Murray was also paid for his own work from the same irregular cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.

Material previously obtained by the media established Advocate Craig Murray as the author of two versions of the same letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) in connection with their investigation of serious allegations against John Campbell QC.

And, while Mr Murray communicated to his clients by email he was writing a letter of evidence in connection with their complaints against Campbell – it transpired Murray’s second version of the same letter was used by the Faculty of Advocates to dodge taking any action against John Campbell.

Critically - Records from the Faculty of Advocates reveal Gordon Jackson QC was Vice Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - and Scotland’s current top prosecutor – Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC was the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - during the time of the Faculty of Advocates investigation of John Campbell.

Gordon Jackson & James Wolffe’s terms of office at the Faculty of Advocates also match up with Craig Murray’s two versions of the same letter to legal regulators in connection with the probe against John Campbell.

The media investigation prompted by papers obtained from legal regulators focused on Craig Murray’s role as Junior Counsel in Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd, and the conduct of legal figures in the case – spanning eight Court of Session judges - one a member of the privy Council, several Sheriffs, high profile QCs and Levy & Mcrae  – the law firm identified in the £400million collapse of a Gibraltar based hedge fund - Heather Capital.

The letter was sent by Mr Murray to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in relation to a complaint against John Campbell QC – who lists Planning law as a speciality.

Crucially, however, a significantly altered version of the letter - still bearing the name of Advocate Craig Murray as the author – removes references to ‘offers of a bribe’ to elected councillors at a Scottish local authority, and detailed references to evidence in a high value civil damages claim in the Court of Session – Nolan v. Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11.

Enquiries by the media established the version of Murray’s letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, on the subject of  John Campbell’s role in Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd – was sent to the Faculty of Advocates via the law firm Clyde & Co (formerly, Simpson & Marwick) – who are known to represent members of the legal profession who are subject to complaints, allegations of dishonesty, corruption and negligence claims.

The complaint against John Campbell QC arose from his provision of legal services and representation to former National Hunt jockey & trainer Donal Nolan, who was the pursuer in - Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd – a case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary where Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC) failed on multiple occasions to disclose the fact his own son was representing the defenders in the same court.

The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, was reported here: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Papers lodged at Holyrood judicial interests register probe reveal Court of Session judge heard case eight times - where his son acted as solicitor for the defenders

Upon scrutiny of the two letters sent by Craig Murray to legal regulators – serious questions arose regarding the extensive differences between Murray’s two versions of the same letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the version which was eventually sent to the Faculty of Advocates.

It is important to note both versions of the same letter used by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and the Faculty of Advocates - identify Craig Murray as the author.

Significantly, certain references to allegations of bribery involving employees of a construction company and elected councillors, have been altered in a second version of Mr Murray’s letter - which bears no date.

Advocate Craig Murray’s letter to SLCC (Text marked in pink shows extent of deletions in Faculty’s version). In a letter dated 22 July 2014 to the SLCC, Craig Murray writes: “The most accurate account of Councillor Taggart’s position will be in that statement. My recollection of Ms Moore’s summary is that a person, whose identity was unknown to Mr Taggart, telephoned him about this case and offered a bribe. There was nothing to identify that person or connect that person to the defenders.”

However, the second version of the letter, has the references to bribery removed from the end of the sentence.

The undated letter still bearing Craig Murray’s name and Advocates address, then reads: “The most accurate account of Councillor Taggart's position will be in that statement. My recollection of Ms Moore's summary is that a person, whose identity was unknown to Mr Taggart, telephoned him about this case. There was nothing to connect that person to the defenders.”

Then, both versions of the letter from Craig Murray to the SLCC continue: “An allegation that the defenders had been involved in bribing an elected public official to commit perjury in court would have been extremely serious. There was no basis upon which an allegation of that sort could have been made by a responsible solicitor or advocate. There could also be no further investigation (particularly in the midst of the proof diet) as it was not known who made the telephone call.”

Councillor John Taggart - who is referred to by Murray, was interviewed late last week.

Councillor Taggart’s role in discovering the dumping of contaminated waste by Advance Construction Ltd, and his further efforts to assist Mr Nolan, and constituents affected by events, was crucial in bringing the case to court and into the public eye.

In discussions with a journalist, Councillor Taggart made clear in his own view, the evidence in relation to the offer of an inducement related to an event occurred at the opening of Calderbridge Primary School (former site of Coltness Primary School), and NOT in a telephone conversation as Mr Murray claimed in his letter to the SLCC.

Further, Councillor Taggart indicated the “person, whose identity was unknown to Mr Taggart” – according to Craig Murray’s statement, had in fact handed his business card to the Councillor during the school opening event.

The Councillor further alluded to the identity of the person as an employee of a main contractor for North Lanarkshire Council.

It has since been established both Advocate Craig Murray, and Fiona Moore of Drummond Miller were present with the Councillor when his precognition of evidence was taken.

Further enquiries by journalists have now revealed the person who allegedly offered the inducement is an employee of a major construction contractor on North Lanarkshire Council’s list of approved contractors.

When it became known the incident involving the inducement was to be used in evidence, the person who approached the councillor left Scotland for Ireland and did not return for a number of months – despite being cited as a witness to attend court to give evidence in the Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd case.

The record later shows – John Campbell QC - failed to call the witness even though the individual alleged to have offered the inducement to the councillor appears on the final witness list for the proof hearing before Lord Woolman in 2014..

If the evidence of bribery had emerged during lines of questioning at the Court of Session, the testimony may well have had a significant impact on the case, and most probably initiated a Police Scotland investigation into the companies involved, and North Lanarkshire Council.

However, Senior Counsel for Mr Nolan - John Campbell QC - chose not to introduce the conversation about the allegations of bribery in court.

Undated, altered version of Advocate Craig Murray’s letter to SLCC. The removal of references to a bribe, and swathes of material removed from the second, ‘undated’ version of Craig Murray’s letter to the SLCC - raises further questions over the written testimony offered by the Advocate & some time Prosecutor to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Curiously, the undated version of Murray’s letter then surfaces at the Faculty of Advocates – who chose to rely on this heavily altered version of Murray’s original letter - in relation to an investigation which ultimately dismissed the complaint against John Campbell QC.

In a letter dated 7 October 2015 from the Faculty of Advocates to Melanie Collins, Iain WF Fergusson QC confirmed the Faculty of Advocates preferred the lesser content of the undated letter to be used in the complaint against the QC.

Fergusson wrote: ”The earlier of your two e-mails refers to two versions of a letter by Mr Craig Murray, Advocate to the SLCC. The committee relied on the undated version of the letter as support for Mr John Campbell QC's version of events. This has brought to light an administrative error - the version of the letter dated 22 July 2015 was not before the committee when it considered and determined your complaint”

In a letter of 2 May 2016 to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, law firm Clyde & Co - acting as legal agent for John Campbell QC against the complaint attempted to explain the discrepancy between the two versions of Craig Murray’s letter and how the undated version ended up at the Faculty of Advocates.

Anne Kentish, of Clyde & Co wrote: “We have reviewed our files and have ascertained the sequence of events surrounding the letter. When the complaint was originally made against Mr Campbell, we were provided with a copy of the undated version of the letter from Craig Murray to the SLCC. It was provided to us on the basis that it set out the background to the complaint and Mr Murray’s recollection of events.. We did not, at that time appreciate that the letter was in draft. It resembled a file copy letter.”

“When senior counsel for Mr Campbell, Alistair Duncan QC prepared the response to the complaint on behalf of Mr Campbell, he indicated that Mr Murray’s letter to the SLCC should be included in the appendix to the response. When we prepared the appendix, we used the version of the letter that we had within our files which was the undated version. We did not at that time appreciate that the final, dated version, existed.”

“Later that day, Mr Duncan forwarded to us some emails which happened to have the dated version of the letter attached. We understand that Mr Duncan had been provided with the final version of the letter by Mr Murray. Neither we nor Mr Duncan realised that we were working from slightly different versions of the same letter (one being a draft and one being a final version)”

“As soon as we realised a final dated version of the letter existed (the day after the response was submitted to the Faculty) we provided Faculty with the final dated version of the letter and asked it to replace the undated version.”

“Mr Murray has confirmed that the undated version is a draft version of the final version dated 22 July 2014.”

However, the lengthy and laboured explanation from Clyde & Co to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and the email from Iain Fergusson QC are completely at odds with a written explanation provided by Advocate Craig Murray to Mr Nolan’s partner, Ms Collins.

Seeking to explain the situation regarding his letter, an email dated 23 June 2015 from Craig Murray to Mr Nolan’s partner, Melanie Collins, stated the following: “I finished writing this letter on 22 July 2014. I signed it and sent it to the SLCC that day. Copies were also sent to you and to John Campbell QC. I did not submit one to the Faculty of Advocates, nor did any Office-bearer or member of Faculty staff see the letter before it was sent (or for that matter have I passed a copy to any Office-bearer or member of Faculty staff since). I do not know how the Faculty of Advocates came to have a copy of the letter. Could you possibly provide me with a copy of the letter or email from the Faculty of Advocates, enclosing my copy letter?”

“I note that you have provided two copies of the letter. One is dated 22 July 2014 and has page numbers and footnotes. That is the letter I submitted to the SLCC and copied to you. The letter you have labelled 5B has no date, no page numbers and no footnotes. This letter is not in a form which I saved on my computer or sent to anyone else. It appears to have the same content, font and (roughly) layout as the dated version, but I have not checked on a line-by-line basis.”

It is unusual for such material to be made public as papers submitted to the SLCC remain unreleased due to confidentiality rules.

However, the papers have been made available to journalists who are investigating the litigation process of Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd - after the case was brought to the attention of MSPs at the Scottish Parliament.

And, given the author of the letter - Craig Murray also works as an ad hoc Advocate Depute prosecutor in Scotland’s courts, concerns were raised over the implications of a Prosecutor writing various versions of the same letter – where one version contained alterations to witness testimony in relation to criminal acts -  and references to evidence in what has now become a key case of judicial failures to recuse, and accusations of bias in the courts.

The Crown Office were previously asked for comment on the matter and the impact on Murray’s role as a prosecutor when the court files first came to light in 2017,

Initially, the Crown Office refused to comment, and demanded any request for media reaction be put in the form of a Freedom of Information request.

Pressed on the matter, a spokesperson for the Crown Office then suggested: “..as Mr Murray is not a COPFS employee any request for formal comment in relation to his professional conduct as an Advocate should be submitted to Mr Murray himself, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates or the SLCC. Any allegations of criminal conduct should be raised with Police Service of Scotland.”

However, there are clearly public interest questions in relation to a prosecutor named as the author of a letter where one version, used by a law firm with direct connections to the judiciary - removed evidence in relation to criminal acts and bribery.

The Crown Office was then asked if the Lord Advocate intends to act to protect public confidence in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service by ordering an investigation into the use of altered versions of Mr Murray’s letter to the SLCC, and act on the status of Mr Murray as an Advocate Depute.

No reply was received.

However, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates during the sequence of events which lead to the Faculty of Advocates investigation of John Campbell – is the current Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC.

As part of his current role as Lord Advocate - James Wolffe QC can call Craig Murray to prosecute criminal cases while acting as an ad hoc Advocate Depute.

The National newspaper carried an exclusive investigation into the Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd case, here: Couple's human rights breach claim raises questions about how judicial conflicts of interest are policed.

Papers from the court files, and digital evidence now being considered by journalists indicate the legal team of John Campbell QC, Advocate Craig Murray & Gregor McPhail who acted for Mr Nolan in Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd - received disbursements from John Campbell from funds Campbell obtained by personally collecting substantial cash sums from clients.

The payments - outwith the normal procedure of paying advocate’s fees via a solicitor and to faculty services – have previously been reported in the media and Diary of Justice due to concerns in relation to irregularities and potential tax avoidance issues.

During the earlier media investigation, Craig Murray was contacted for his comments on material handed to the press.

Craig Murray was asked why there were significant differences between two versions of his letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, one dated, the other undated.

Craig Murray refused to comment.

Craig Murray was asked to confirm if his letter was altered by someone other than himself.

Craig Murray refused to comment

Craig Murray was asked if he was aware of Lord Malcolm's true identity (Colin Malcolm Campbell) and his relationship to solicitor Ewen Campbell, one of the legal agents working for the defenders.

Craig Murray refused to comment.

Lastly, Craig Murray was asked to comment on both versions of the letter he sent to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. He was asked which one he wrote and if he was aware anyone altered the second undated version of his letter.

Craig Murray refused to give any comment.

A billing document from Craig Murray’s Compass Chambers to the client, revealed he was to be paid £800 +VAT per day for proof preparation and £1,250 + VAT per day for Court, which ran to 8 days. A bill was subsequently received from Mr Murray’s stables for around £39,000.

It has since been established, the SLCC relied on the dated version of Murray’s letter, while the Faculty of Advocates relied on the heavily altered undated version of Murray’s letter regarding their consideration of a complaint against John Campbell QC.

Papers obtained from case files and published in this investigation confirm the second, undated version of Craig Murray’s letter appears to have originated from the Edinburgh law firm – Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick).

The letter from Clyde & Co also confirms the second, undated version of Murray’s letter was sent to the Faculty of Advocates, on the instructions of Alistair Duncan QC.

Duncan was tasked with defending John Campbell QC in relation to the complaint investigatoin launched by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

However, Court papers record the same Alistair Duncan QC – who went on to defend John Campbell QC against the legal regulator’s complaints investigation - once appeared for the defenders against Mr Nolan - in the Nolan v Advance Construction case - on 9 November 2011.

Previously - the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was provided with the two versions of Craig Murray’s letter, and a copy of a letter from Clyde & Co, admitting their role in providing the second, undated version with alterations to the Faculty of Advocates.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were asked for a statement on the existence of the two versions of Craig Murray’s letter in connection with the investigation of John Campbell QC - and what action the regulator intended to take.

The SLCC refused to comment.

However, the SLCC confirmed a meeting had taken place between their Chief Executive – Neil Stevenson – and former Cabinet Minister Alex Neil MSP - who has provided powerful backing for his constituent – Donal Nolan.

A spokesperson for the SLCC said: “I can confirm that a meeting between our CEO and Alex Neil MSP took place.   The meeting was to discuss the SLCC’s process: what powers we have; actions we can take; and what we can’t do.”

The case involving Murray was brought to the attention of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee – who are probing judicial interests, failures of judges to recuse over conflicts of interest, and opposition of Scotland’s current Lord President – Lord Carloway – to calls for the creation of a register of judicial interests.

Had a comprehensive and publicly available register of judicial interests existed at the time of the Nolan v Advance Construction Ltd case, details of judicial links in the register could have prevented injustice in the Nolan case – and many others in the courts - from the very outset.

Scrutiny of publicly available legal profiles for Advocate & barrister Craig Murray now reveal there are NO REFERENCES on his current work profiles to his role and legal representation in Nolan v. Advance Construction [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 -  the same land contamination case he served with senior counsel John Campbell QC - which led to investigations by two legal regulators in Scotland, and evidence Murray was paid from secret cash payments collected by John Campbell QC.

Craig Murray currently maintains a practice at Compass Chambers in Edinburgh while also working as a barrister in London. Murray also continues to advertise his work as a Prosecutor for the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).

GLOWING LEGAL PROFILE: Craig Murray – Advocate, Barrister & Advocate Depute:

Craig Murray - Year called: 2008

Qualifications: LLM in Commercial Law (Distinction),University of Edinburgh Member, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Faculty Scholar, Faculty of Advocates LLM in Human Rights Law, University of Strathclyde, Dip Forensic Medical Sciences, Society of Apothecaries, Dip Legal Practice, University of Edinburgh LLB (Hons), University of Edinburgh.

Craig has a busy defender personal injury practice in the Court of Session, representing insurers and local authorities. A substantial practice part of his practice is in defending fraudulent claims at all levels, in particular employers’ liability cases and road traffic claims.Craig also represents claimants in medical and dental negligence claims.

Craig has been instructed in a number of complex product liability cases, including pharmaceutical cases (Vioxx and Celebrex) and medical products (mesh surgical implants and PIP silicone implants).

Craig has substantial experience in property damage claims and other aspects of reparation.Craig occasionally acts in public law and human rights cases, including judicial review, mental health appeals and immigration.Craig has previously been a tutor on the Diploma in Regulatory Occupational Health & Safety at the University of Warwick and on the Civil Court Practice course at the University of Edinburgh.

Craig was appointed as an Advocate Depute ad hoc in July 2015. He is a member of the Children’s Panel for the Scottish Borders.

Craig Murray – Biography 12 Kings Bench Walk

Craig Murray Call: 2017 Areas of expertise Personal Injury Clinical Negligence Product Liability Industrial Disease Public Authority Liability Fraud 

Call: 2017 – Bar of England and Wales 2008 – Scottish Bar

Craig joined 12 King’s Bench Walk as a tenant in December 2018, having successfully completed a practising pupillage at these Chambers.

Craig has been an Advocate at the Scottish Bar for over 10 years, where he has considerable experience in a full range of personal injury and clinical negligence work. He has appeared in the Supreme Court (Campbell v. Peter Gordon Joiners Ltd [2016] UKSC 38) and has conducted a civil jury trial without a leader (Bridges v. Alpha Insurance 2016 SLT 859). He has appeared in an 8-day trial against experienced senior and junior counsel (Pocock v. Highland Council [2017] CSOH 40 (aff’d [2017] CSIH 76). He has appeared in numerous appeals to the Inner House of the Court of Session, with and without a leader. He has prosecuted serious crime (including attempted murder) in the High Court of Justiciary. Craig is primarily instructed by UK-wide insurers and local authorities, but accepts instructions to act for claimants, particularly in clinical and professional negligence cases. He is regularly instructed in high-value RTA claims involving fatalities or brain injury. He has considerable experience in defending stress at work, harassment and assault claims, in particular those arising in schools and care establishments. Craig has an interest in local authority liability and issues of justiciability. During his pupillage, Craig had experience of motor insurance law. Craig is available to accept instructions throughout the jurisdiction. He maintains a practice at Compass Chambers in Edinburgh.

Personal Injury: Craig has experience in all aspects of personal injury law, including high value road traffic accidents, employers’ liability claims, occupiers’ liability claims, disease cases and common law liability.

He has acted for defendants and claimants in high value RTA claims involving vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. He is familiar with preparing and leading evidence on driver perception, conspicuity and accident reconstruction. He regularly prepares and leads evidence from motor engineers and forensic collision investigators. He has experience of a full range of employer liability claims, including: work equipment cases, accidents at height, accidents on construction sites, and fatal diving accidents. Craig has successfully defended occupiers’ liability claims concerning listed buildings (Brown v. Lakeland 2012 Rep LR 140; Norgate v. Britannia Hotels [2018] 8 WLUK 71). Craig has acted for claimants and defendants in mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease cases. He has acted for claimants in noise-induced hearing loss cases, HAVS cases and silicosis claims. He has acted for claimants and defendants in Legionella claims. Craig is regularly instructed by Scottish local authorities. He has succeeded in novel arguments concerning the non-justiciability of certain claims (Ryder v. Highland Council [2013] CSOH 95; Macdonald v. Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar [2015] CSOH 132) and recently appeared in the important appeal of Bowes v. Highland Council [2018] CSIH 757.

Clinical Negligence: Craig has a keen interest in clinical negligence and the wider aspects of medical law. He holds a Diploma in Forensic Medical Sciences. He has acted for claimants in clinical negligence and dental negligence cases in Scotland for 10 years. He has also acted for defendants in clinical negligence and ophthalmic negligence cases.

Recent cases include:A fatal claim concerning a failure to diagnose lung cancer. A substantial claim by a young competition dancer for a failure to diagnose a mid-foot fracture, leading to 5 operations, arthrodesis and life-long disability. A failure to diagnose deep vein thrombosis, leading to amputation of a lower leg.

Product Liability: Craig has been instructed in some of the largest group litigations in Scotland concerning product liability, including:

Medicines. In a claim against Merck relating to Vioxx, an NSAID painkiller, 6.5 million documents were produced by the defendant. Claims concerning the drug Celebrex are ongoing (see Richards & Jarvie v. Pharmacia [2017] CSOH 77 (aff’d [2018] CSIH 31).

Surgical mesh products. PIP implants. Metal on metal hips. Craig also has experience of claims arising from motor vehicles and surgical stents.

Industrial Disease: Craig regularly acts for claimants and defendants in mesothelioma and other asbestos-related disease cases in Scotland. He is familiar with the aetiology of lung disease and the latency period of asbestos-related disease. He has acted for claimants in noise-induced hearing loss cases, both cumulative exposure and ‘acoustic shock’ cases. Craig has been involved in HAVS cases and silicosis claims. He has acted for claimants and defendants in Legionella claims.

Public Authority Liability: Craig is regularly instructed by Scottish local authorities. He has succeeded in novel arguments concerning the non-justiciability of certain claims (Ryder v. Highland Council [2013] CSOH 95; Macdonald v. Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar [2015] CSOH 132) and recently appeared in the important appeal of Bowes v. Highland Council [2018] CSIH 757. Craig has represented Scottish police forces in a number of cases.

Fraud: Craig is regularly instructed in Scotland to represent insurers in personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents where fraud is suspected. He has run several trials of 4 days’ duration or more, in which fraud has been pled on the basis of contrived accidents, fictitious accidents or phantom passengers.

Agricultural Accidents: Craig has a particular interest in personal injury claims arising from agricultural accidents.

Recent cases include: Defending numerous claims of injuries caused by cattle at market. Defending landowners in respect of accidents involving trees (Craig holds a LANTRA tree felling qualification) Defending a claim by a worker who lost an arm in a thresher (ongoing) Road traffic accident involving a tractor, in which Craig was trained on a John Deere 6930 tractor Work equipment cases involving JCBs, grain dryers, crushers and fence post drivers.

Qualifications & Awards: LLB (Hons), University of Edinburgh LLM (DIst), Commercial Law, University of Edinburgh LLM, Human Rights Law, University of Strathclyde Dip Legal Practice, University of Edinburgh Dip Forensic Medical Sciences, Worshipful Society of Apothecaries Member Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Faculty of Advocates Scholarship (2007)

Appointments & Memberships: Personal Injuries Bar Association Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

Directories: Legal 500, Leading Individual, 2019 “His written work is of an impeccably high standard.” Legal 500, 2019 “His attention to detail is phenomenal; he has an excellent legal mind. He always gives advice in a clear manner and is very pragmatic and thorough. He also has very good negotiation skills.” Chambers & Partners, 2020

DO you have a complaint with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or Faculty of Advocates?

What is your experiences of dealing with the SLCC or the Faculty? Has your solicitor, advocate or QC demanded cash payments from you at any stage of a civil or criminal case? Tell us more about it in confidence, by email to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com