COPS CASH TO LAWYERS: Scotland’s single Police Service name Law firms who were paid TWENTY FOUR million pounds - during last Three years of Iain Livingstone’s term as Police Scotland Chief

Scots lawyers cash-in on cops SCOTLAND’s hard-up national police force – Police Scotland – paid over TWENTY FOUR million pounds to lawyers, advocates and Kings Counsel in just under a three year period – according to documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation.

And some of the biggest earners among Scots law firms each received over THREE MILLION pounds from the SNP Scottish Government’s single Police service - which was until a few weeks ago run by Iain Livingstone – a ‘former’ lawyer whose register of interests earlier revealed he was still a member of Scotland’s dominant legal regulator and pro-lawyer lobbyist - the Law Society of Scotland.

A list of law firms named by Police Scotland in the Freedom of Information disclosure reveal the sheer scale of law firms, solicitors and advocates cashing in on Scotland’s beleaguered and broke law enforcement agency.

Journalists continue to look at the scale of payouts - declared, and undeclared from Police Scotland in relation to wrongdoing, the use of Non Disclosure Agreements and a range of other ‘confidentiality agreements’ to cover-up issues including misogyny, criminality and other wrongdoing at Scotland's National Police Service, including issues this blog earlier reported here: POLICE SCOTLAND: Non Disclosure Agreements, whistle-blower witch-hunts, £Ms paid to silence victims, institutionally discriminatory & corrupt – The Scottish Govt Policing PR machine & lawyer-led Scottish National Police service that simply ran out of lies

The new list of law firms identified by Police Scotland reveal high earning law firms such as Digby Brown, Pbw Law – run by ex-Sheriff Peter Watson, Glasgow based law firm Levy & Mcrae and other law firms of interest named in the FOI disclosure.

The list includes all payments ‘currently declared’ by Police Scotland in the FOI disclosure - in UK pounds sterling to law firms, and Faculty Services Ltd – the ‘accounting arm’ of the Faculty of Advocates.

Digby Brown £3,542,599.74; Faculty Services Limited £3,278,006.95; Pbw Law £3,125,900.10; R S Vaughan & Co £2,416,844.59; Levy & McRae Solicitors LLP £2,289,992.27; Ledingham Chalmers £1,921,785.46; Km Law £1,688,753.90; Clyde & Co £932,049.54; Morton Fraser Llp £788,754.02; Miller Beckett & Jackson £665,000.00; Thompsons Solicitors £460,255.00; Slater & Gordon £412,075.54; Gildeas Ltd £275,645.02; Reid Cooper Partnership £272,696.20; Bdo Llp £247,219.86; Macroberts Llp £145,329.69; Thorntons Law £111,842.70; Balfour & Manson Llp £96,791.77; BTO Solicitiors LLP £94,000.00; Jackson Boyd LLP £90,814.14

Watermans Solicitors Ltd £84,908.93; £Tlt Llp 82,305.60; £Kerr Brown 79,337.49; £Dac Beachcroft 70,985.38; £Horwich Farrelly 64,717.72; £Lawford Kidd 63,580.00; £MML Client 50,000.00; £Keoghs LLP £46,582.99; £Anderson Strathern Llp £44,611.80; Jane Gordon Legal Consultancy £42,126.10; Newlaw Scotland LLP £39,112.38; Kindertons £38,763.30; Brodies Llp £36,405.05; DJ MacKay £33,896.04; Livingstone Brown £31,976.30; John Boyle £30,170.00; Harper Macleod Llp £29,927.98; G A Fordyce & Co Solicitors £28,542.20; Lyons Davidson Scotland LLP £27,292.63; Brechin,Tindal,Oatts Solicitors; £26,076.90; Dla Piper Scotland Llp £25,240.76; D J McFall £25,000.00; Carpenters £20,572.94; DWF Law LLP £19,242.50; Curle Stewart £14,574.87; SatchellMoran £13,000.00; Irwin Mitchell £11,581.30

Mullen&Co £9,799.68; Parabis Scot £9,351.50; P I Campbell t/a Campbell McCartney £9,250.00; Aamer Anwar £8,598.20; Kudos Legal £7,952.66; Grant Smith Law £7,625.20; Braenalli&Or £7,500.00; Belmont Legal £7,064.20; DallasMcMillan £7,011.60; Rollos Law £6,603.20; J Myles & Co £6,568.80; Bridge Litigation £6,509.59; Bonnar Accident £5,742.20; Sheperd&Wedderburn £5,500.00; HEDS Law £5,497.20; Jones Whyte £4,615.09; Grigor & Young £4,500.00; Winn Sols £4,500.00; Crawford Legal £4,270.12; Henderson Chambers £3,240.00; Friends Legal £2,883.38; Bond Turner Limited £2,675.40; Spectra Drive Ltd £2,527.33; MacLeod & MacCallum £2,386.80; Lindsays £2,240.15; Burness Paull Llp £2,137.20; Keoghs £2,062.98; Gray&Gray £2,000.00; Kennedys £1,786.31; Mclennan Adam Davis Solicitors £1,248.00; I M S Ltd £1,128.00; Canford Law £1,107.90; McCready / Co £1,094.00

Strata Sol £829.35; Russells Gibson & Mccaffrey £804.00; McLennan Adams Davies £780.00; MSM Law £720.00; Walker & Sharpe Solicitors £652.15; RSAMotability £549.33; Legal Services Agency Limited £504.25; Corrigall Black £324.00; Cullen Kilshaw £312.00; Hunter And Robertson £306.00; Morgan Law £285.00; Boyd Turner £218.50; Killean & Co £194.78; Tc Young Solicitors £132.00; W & As Bruce Solicitors £84.00; Mcmullen Law Limited £72.00; Linda George Family Law £48.00; Milne/Burge £19.40

The Freedom of Information disclosure from Police Scotland stated: “I would ask that you note that the figures provided relate to all categories of payments made to law firms. Accordingly, the attached information encompasses payments in respect of compensation, legal fees and outlays - all in relation to firms instructed by Police Scotland, and firms on the opposing side of a court action or a claim.”

“Additionally, the figures provided are inclusive of payments made to firms and the Faculty of Advocates relating to Police Scotland’s participation in Public Inquiries, most notably the Sheku Bayoh Public Inquiry.”

However, Police Scotland refused to release the identities of advocates and Kings Counsel who received substantial public cash payments from the underfunded force – claiming their names were exempt from release.

The FOI disclosure stated: “Finally, in relation to advocates, payments are made to the Faculty of Advocates, however, the individual names of advocates instructed to represent the Chief Constable is considered exempt.”

“In terms of section 16 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, I am refusing to provide you with this information.”

Commenting on the scale of payments to law firms, a solicitor who did not wish to be named said: “While some of the smaller payments to law firms relate to administration and other genuine legal work, the scale and frequency of larger payments to some law firms identified in the disclosure give us all an idea of the scale of secrecy, wrongdoing and cover up at Police Scotland.”

A now retired Police Officer described Police Scotland as “a sinister work environment” adding “senior officers prefer to cover up crime and wrongdoing within policing to please their political masters in the Scottish Government”

RULE BY JUDGE: Top judge Lord Carloway declares Lord President’s office & unelected judiciary - should remain final regulators of Scotland’s lawyer-regulates-lawyer legal profession & legal services market

Top judge says judiciary must regulate lawyers. SCOTLAND’S top judge – Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland) has declared his role as Lord President, and Scotland's unelected judiciary - should remain as the final regulator of Scotland’s legal services market - currently composed of around 11,000 self-regulating solicitors, advocates & Kings Counsel.

The statement by Scotland’s top judge came in Lord Carloway’s address to lawyers, judges and other legal vested interests in his recent Opening of the Legal Year 2023-2024 speech – where Carloway attacked plans to reform how lawyers regulate themselves in the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill which is currently at Stage 1 consideration a the Scottish Parliament.

In a jibe at the Scottish Government’s admittedly feeble plans to reform regulation of the Legal profession in Scotland, Lord Carloway claimed the reforms to lawyers looking after themselves in complaints regulation – “gives rise to serious constitutional concerns about the rule of law …”

Lord Carloway said: “The first is the Regulation of Legal Services. The senior judiciary recently responded to Parliament's call for views on the Bill. They were unanimous in the view that the Bill, as currently drafted, gives rise to serious constitutional concerns about the rule of law and the separation of powers. It is a threat to the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Scotland will be viewed internationally as a country whose legal system is open to political interference. This will have serious adverse consequences.”

Scotland’s top judge went on to declare his unelected office of Lord President and his judiciary, should instead remain the ultimate regulator of rogue lawyers facing any complaint or question about their provision of legal services to clients.

Lord Carloway stated: “The rights of clients, who are the ultimate consumers of legal services, to obtain legal advice, must be protected from interference by the government. The only way to ensure that lawyers will be able to stand up for the individual, whether a person or an institution, against the government of the day, is for the Lord President, and the Court of Session, to remain as the ultimate regulator of the legal profession.”

Regulation of lawyers in Scotland is currently controlled by the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and a lawyer dominated Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC)

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is funded by client fees to solicitors and Advocates who then pay the complaints levy to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

In Scotland, a decades old, repressive and at times highly vindictive regime of lawyers looking after themselves – has seen thousands of clients & consumers of legal services each year – ripped-off by their own solicitors with little or no recompense for the millions of pounds lost to legal services overcharging, theft, embezzlement & outright solicitor client fraud each year in Scotland’s legal services market.

In some of the most appalling cases of Scots lawyers found to have looted their clients assets - legal regulators have reacted to unwanted media coverage by using private briefings and turning newspapers and journalists against each other. In some well known cases, legal regulators encouraged articles against legal reforms, blocked publication of newspaper reports on identified lawyers & law firms, and personally went after ;law reform campaigners who seek nothing more than removing the self regulation element from regulation of legal services and legal representatives in Scotland.

However – despite the public protests of Lord Carloway and other ‘leaders’ of Scotland’s legal profession – including the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates who has also attacked the proposed legal reforms, the reality is the Scottish Government’s Regulation of Legal Services Bill falls far short of what is needed to quell Scots lawyers appetite for ripping off consumers and clients.

And unsurprisingly, according to legal and political sources - there are allegations much of the Scottish Government’s claimed solicitor regulation reform proposals are ‘deliberately deceptive’ and have already been negotiated away with legal interests and political partners in deals to water down what is currently in the bill.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, an MSP who along with others is said to be facing de-selection by their own embittered party – informed journalists of private briefings and meetings between MSPs of all parties - and lawyers and legal regulators who are anxious to ensure much of the already watered down proposals in the reform of legal regulation bill are eliminated or that the entire bill is stalled or axed completely.

No references to any of these meetings appear to exist in entries of the Holyrood lobbying register but it has been established meetings did take place and lawyers who met MSPs appear to believe they succeeded in their lobbying aims, stating so in private lawyer-only social media chat groups.

You can read more about the Scottish Government’s Reform of Legal Services Bill here: Reform of Legal Services Bill - Scottish Parliament

This latest attempt by a Scottish Government and the pro-lawyer Scottish Parliament to reform regulation of lawyers is the third attempt since 2000 – where in 2001 – and amid bitter evidence sessions - Holyrood’s Justice Committee led by Christine Grahame threw out calls for reform of how lawyers cover up complaints for their own colleagues.

A second attempt by another of Holyrood’s Justice Committees in 2006 saw arm twisting from legal regulators to shelve much of the proposals in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Bill, which became law in 2007 after multiple amendments lodged by MSPs, including Scottish Conservative MSPs on behalf of legal vested interests.

What became the LPLA Act 2007, which led to the formation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in 2008 – which in turn has led to some fifteen years and counting of disastrous complaints regulation by an overly false legal regulator which is in fact staffed and run by the same lawyers and vested legal interests who ran complaints at the Law Society of Scotland.

To make matters worse, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission later set into policy a system which intimidated clients who had already been ripped off by their solicitors – into signing Non Disclosure Agreements to conceal thousands of complaints against Scots multiple law firms over the last decade – with many law firms appearing week after week at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to demand complainants sign more NDAs to conceal some of the worst and repetitive acts against clients which even the old Law Society of Scotland regime failed to keep away from public gaze.

And, it should be noted the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has cost clients of Scottish solicitors around £40million pounds in complaints levies – paid for by law firms hiking client fees to meet their annual complaints levy.

Lord President Lord Carloway’s Legal Year address to lawyers, which takes the usual Judicial Office tone of launching threats against one piece of reform legislation, then absorbing another piece of legislation – the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill as a form of pro-justice system judicial PR and follow-the-money-supply-to-law-firms – is well worth a read.

It should be glaringly obvious to all the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill – more of which can be read here Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill - Scottish Parliament has only come about because Scotland’s judges, courts & lawyers have been mistreating and preying on victims of crime, abuse & countless other crimes for decades to the point the public and victims themselves demanded action – rather than the action coming willingly from the judiciary or legal profession who seem to believe they own the law.

Lord Carloway’s Opening of the Legal Year 2023-2024 speech can be downloaded here Lord Carloway - Opening of Legal Year Scotland 2023-24 with relevant content below:

Welcome to the opening of the legal year. I thank you all for coming. Since the abolition of formal court terms, today is primarily a ceremonial occasion, but it remains a useful opportunity to reflect on the progress we have made in the past year, and on what will, or at least might, happen next.

I extend a special welcome to Lord Burnett of Maldon, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and thank him particularly for his work during his years in office in ensuring that Scotland's voice was heard on legal matters in the Halls of Westminster and elsewhere.

Law Reform: Regulation of Legal Services and Criminal Justice

Looking to what it is that might happen next, there are two Bills on which views are currently being sought. Each proposes a series of notable reforms to the justice system.

The first is the Regulation of Legal Services. The senior judiciary recently responded to Parliament's call for views on the Bill. They were unanimous in the view that the Bill, as currently drafted, gives rise to serious constitutional concerns about the rule of law and the separation of powers. It is a threat to the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Scotland will be viewed internationally as a country whose legal system is open to political interference. This will have serious adverse consequences.

The rights of clients, who are the ultimate consumers of legal services, to obtain legal advice, must be protected from interference by the government. The only way to ensure that lawyers will be able to stand up for the individual, whether a person or an institution, against the government of the day, is for the Lord President, and the Court of Session, to remain as the ultimate regulator of the legal profession.

On a more encouraging note, the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill contains proposals for significant reform of the criminal justice system, many of which are based on the Lord Justice Clerk's Review. The judiciary welcome the reforms insofar as they aim to make giving evidence a less traumatic experience for witnesses, including the creation of a right to anonymity and to independent legal representation for complainers in relation to applications under the rape shield legislation, the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court and the abolition of the not proven verdict.

Overall, the judiciary believe the Bill proposes a number of measures which, in principle, represent improvements to the existing system.

The Criminal Courts: Recover, Renew, Transform

Following the build-up of criminal cases which have waited for a considerable period of time to go to trial as a result of lockdown, the court service began the Recover, Renew and Transform programme in September 2021.

The recovery aspect aimed to restore the courts to their pre-pandemic capacity. It involved recruiting more sheriffs and court staff and the setting up of more High Court and sheriff trial courts. Good progress has been made. The challenge now is an ever-increasing volume of indictments and complaints which libel sexual offences. In the face of this new volume of criminal business, we no longer expect to restore matters to the pre-pandemic position. We need to adjust our expectations and set a new reasonable baseline for the number of cases waiting to go to trial at any one time.

Our modelling predicts that the number of High Court cases waiting for trial will recover to a new reasonable baseline level by March 2025, and sheriff solemn trials by March 2026.

Prisoner escort services are causing those in custody to arrive at court late. This has an impact on the smooth operation of the criminal courts. We are looking to accelerate plans to move to virtual custodies. Pilots have already taken place. As I have said many times before, the need to bring those arrested before a court as soon as practicable, must remain a priority.

The purpose of renewal is to establish better ways of working which promote the resolution of cases at the earliest opportunity. The Summary Case Management pilot continues in Dundee, Hamilton and Paisley Sheriff Courts. It aims to reduce the number of hearings to those which are necessary, by encouraging early resolution through early disclosure. Early disclosure has allowed the Crown to take a more targeted approach to the citation of witnesses. There has been earlier resolution of proceedings brought in the pilot courts and a reduction in the number of witness citations being issued in those proceedings. Work is underway to roll the pilot out to Glasgow Sheriff Court.

Specialist online courts are being set up to deal with domestic abuse cases. The idea is to ensure that the complainer and the accused do not require to meet each other. This reduces potential trauma for complainers.

Juries continue to be balloted remotely, thus sparing the public the inconvenience of coming to court. Over the course of the past year, over 450 police and expert witnesses have given their evidence remotely in High Court trials.

A key component of transformation lies in the implementation of the recommendations of Lady Dorrian's Review. The court service has been making substantial progress in relation to those recommendations which do not require legislation. The creation of facilities to pre-record the evidence of children and vulnerable witnesses and the giving of evidence remotely is being accelerated. We now have designated facilities for commissions in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness and Aberdeen.

Earlier this month, I visited the Bairns' Hoose. The Hoose is designed to feel like a family home. It is based on an international model first developed in Iceland, called the Barnahus, which brings together justice, health, social work and recovery support for children in one location. The Hoose is, in essence, a comfortable and safe space in which children can give evidence, receive medical care, take part in decisions about their protection and obtain support to recover from trauma.

The Hoose is the first of its kind in Scotland. The Barnahus model was first advocated for in early 2016, as part of SCTS's Evidence and Procedure Review. I am very pleased to see it implemented into the system, and I hope that we will see more of them developed in due course.

The Civil Courts: Technology and Transparency

On the civil side, there have been a number of notable technological improvements this year.

The importance of making the people's courts as accessible as possible cannot be understated. The advent of new technology means that we can implement new, more efficient and convenient ways to do this. In June, we officially launched Court of Session Live, a new streaming service for Inner House proceedings. I thank Lord Pentland, and his cross-departmental task force, for their hard work in getting this up and running.

Alongside Court of Session Live, we are publishing information about, and summaries of, upcoming appeals much earlier than we have ever done before. We hope that this will enable those who are interested in viewing proceedings, whether online or in person, to make plans to do so.

We launched the new and improved Civil Online portal in May and have significantly expanded the level of service which the portal offers. In Simple Procedure cases, court users can now raise and respond to actions through the portal.

We secured funding from the Scottish Government to start developing a new case management system for the Office of the Public Guardian. The new interface will provide a more accessible and broader range of online services to the public.

Many of our Tribunals are experiencing growth in the volume of business. The work of the Social Security Chamber is expected to increase significantly. The new Local Taxation Chamber has inherited over 40,000 cases from its predecessor, the Valuation Appeals Committee. We are working closely with the Government to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to support this. Reform of the Tribunal system generally also continues, with the further expansion of the General Regulatory Chamber's jurisdiction, and the potential transfer of the MHT into the First-tier Tribunal during 2024.

The court service are in discussions with the Faculty about the re-establishment of the practice of making justiciary and session papers available to the Advocates Library. This will enable advocates and, via the National Library, members of the public, to view them.

We are working hard to deliver these improvements, but, as ever, we can only do as much as resources allow. We will continue to do what we can within budgetary constraints. I ask only that the government continues to support us by providing us with sufficient funding to continue to deliver core services, as well as these improvements to the system.

Ends.

Earlier relevant coverage from this blog - of how the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act (2007) was deliberately mangled by the Scottish Government, and Scottish Parliament – which allowed lawyers to continue to regulate themselves to the current date, can be found here: The Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007

TARGET BENEFITS: As Scots politicians raid public cash to prevent unwanted headlines - Law firm clients claim SNP Govt Social Security Scotland Agency are unfairly targeting & delaying PIP payments to disabled, long term sick, abuse victims & Covid victims

Devolved SNP Benefits powers face misuse claims. AMID a series of headlines relating to Social Security Scotland mishandling certain benefits considerations and unexplained lengthy delays in payments of Cold Weather Payments, and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) to the long term sick, disabled, victims of abuse and Covid victims - a law firm has contacted journalists with cases revealing delays, perceived attrition to delay or make difficult applications and appeals, and even cases where disabled claimants feel they are being subtly questioned on their politics.

Journalists have been given access to several clients who told us of sudden, unplanned reviews to their PIP benefits claims including threats to cut off benefits payments to victims of long term disability - and lengthy, confusing telephone consultations in which searching questions were asked of claimants lifestyles and their politics.

In cases now being assisted by legal advice, claimants alleged they were made to fear information on their politics and voting intentions may end up being used as a condition to maintain their current benefits payments.

Material ingathered by claimants - which journalists have now had sight of within their legal representative’s office - does appear to support accusations the new devolved benefits powers - passed to the SNP Government by the Conservative Government at Westminster – are subject to a litany of delays, withholding of, or cancellation of payments and potentially motivated consideration of benefits payments to persons across Scotland in areas where some may consider a ‘target voter pool’ could make a difference in what may become a bitterly contested Scottish General Election in 2026.

Noting the material provided by claimants in just two of Scotland’s local government areas – none of the allegations raised with journalists by solicitors and their clients appear to have been explained by Social Security Scotland in any reasonable way to claimants – who include terminal cancer victims, very seriously disabled persons unable to walk, victims of serious sexual abuse and several long term Covid victims – all of whom claim they are being treated worse than under the DWP system when Personal Independence Payments and related benefits were reserved to Westminster.

And in several cases, journalists have been able to speak with Local Authority staff who backed up issues relating to lengthy delays in payments and unreasonable withholding of benefits.

One Local Authority source said “claimants are being unfairly targeted because of who they are because they are too weak to fight back and we don’t have the staff to help all cases”.

A solicitor representing a PIP claimant said: “People are being seriously let down by Social Security Scotland.”

Information on cases where compensation cash for victims of abuse has been raided by politicians to fund pay rises to stave off strike headlines, and political ventures and other PR related issues which have already been aired in the media.

Several abuse victims who have spoken to journalists now fear their PIP payments may also end up going the same way and “into the hands of desperate politicians trying to cling to power” as one victim told us.

Journalists understand the law firm’s clients are being assisted by an MSP on cases of irregular reviews and unwarranted withdrawal of PIP benefits claims and payments under the SNP Government’s Social Security Scotland.

Solicitors representing the claimants requested journalists not publish material currently in their hands, as they feel clients – particularly those in receipt of Legal Aid - could be maligned in their access to legal advice – until such time more fuller scrutiny and assistance can be provided.

However Justice Diaries has been asked to publish a short list of recommendations to any benefits claimants who feel they may (and should) require to keep careful notes on any interaction or contact whatsoever with Social Security Scotland.

1. Maintain “careful notes” of any contact via phone or personal visits, interviews or consultations regarding your benefits claims.

2. Ask for and note down the names and role of anyone from Social Security Scotland whom you are speaking with and ensure you have an accurate record of what was said.

3. If you are in need of assistance or any form of help for any benefits issues relating to Social Security Scotland – seek out help from your Local Authority benefits team immediately and do not delay.

4. If you feel your benefits claim or PIP payments under the SNP Scottish Government rules are being subject to unwarranted interference or intimidation, you may require to contact a solicitor and seek legal advice without delay.

5. If you are required by Social Security Scotland to attend interviews or consultations, take a witness or someone to assist you.

In the case of “Careful Notes” readers may interpret that recommendation as to how you record information via any means.

It may also be helpful for you to ensure a witness is present to ingather a verbatim, word-for-word account of any telephone interview or consultation you are required to attend.

Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government were not contacted for comment on this report, as Scottish Government agencies now often ignore or issue delays to media enquiries then ultimately refuse to respond.

However, material scrutinised by journalists – does appear to corroborate claimants experiences now being dealt with by legal representatives, Local Authorities and Disability support groups.

If readers have any similar experiences with Social Security Scotland or concerns about how they are being treated and wish to find help, the advice is to contact your Local Authority Benefits Team and any Disability support groups and your area MSP immediately – and if you feel the need – contact a reputable qualified solicitor who may be able to provide legal advice and representation.

Additionally, it’s always good to contact any Scottish newspaper journalists via their respective news desk or contact details with your story as these are national issues affecting all Scots.

And of course keep journalists informed of related issues you experience in matters addressed in this article at Justice Diaries via our email: scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Be informed everyone - and inform others to help others, and get the help you need.

POLICE SCOTLAND: Non Disclosure Agreements, whistle-blower witch-hunts, £Ms paid to silence victims, institutionally discriminatory & corrupt – The Scottish Govt Policing PR machine & lawyer-led Scottish National Police service that simply ran out of lies

Outgoing Chief Constable Iain Livingstone. FOR FIVE YEARS and despite publicly aired views of former senior Police officers against his appointment - Scotland’s National Police service has been lawyer-led by a Chief Constable - who was once accused, then ‘cleared’ by a Tribunal composed of male Police colleagues - of FIVE allegations of serious sexual assault made against him by a female Police officer.

On 23 February 2023, just days after Nicola Sturgeon announced her resignation as First Minister on 15 February 2023 - Chief Constable Iain Livingstone announced his own resignation and intention to ‘retire’ from leading Police Scotland – with a lengthy departure date of August 2023.

However, in the weeks which followed the Chief Constable’s long goodbye to Scotland’s decimated national Police service - Mr Livingstone took the opportunity to brand Police Scotland as Institutionally discriminatory, institutionally sexist and instructionally racist.

What followed was a very scripted set of headlines involving public inquiries, SNP politicians praising the outgoing Chief Constable, and gangland representing lawyers seeking their own ego boosting headlines in what many came to realise was a carefully orchestrated exercise in press releases and organised spin.

However – Chief Constable Iain Livingstone was certainly not wrong in his accusations against his own Scottish National Police service.

Indeed, across five years of presiding over Police Scotland, the outgoing Chief Constable – who was branded unfit to lead Police Scotland by former Assistant Chief Constable Angela Wilson, and a host of public critics & campaigners – must shoulder some of the blame for a dysfunctional Police Service which – at low points – assisted the Lord Advocate & Crown Office in fitting up prosecutions against persons whose crimes did not exist – most notably the Administrators & Accountants of Rangers Football Club.

However, fitting up prosecutions on a £100 Million scale with the cooperation, orders even – of Scotland’s top law officers, top prosecutors and even with the evidenced involvement of the judiciary itself in the plot to lock up a few accountants for events which were mostly made-up – are but one entry in a long list of greed, avarice & corruption within Scotland’s National Police service and across key stakeholders in Scotland’s justice system – from the Crown Office to the Scottish Government itself.

But lets not kid ourselves everyone. We knew it all along, right?

The Scottish Government and it’s slavishly political, critic & media hostile - intensive Civil Servant-Special Adviser Policing group – were hell bent on control of almost every facet of Policing in Scotland and were grimly determined to ensure Scotland’s National Police Service drifted into the same chasm of control freakery, public relations and spin as the SNP Scottish Government live by each day and eek out their grim control over public life until the next week and the next scandal.

Few surprises there - as control freakery, PR and spin is so typical of the way the Scottish Government and every public organisation and regulator in Scotland operates – when faced with questions and scrutiny of the level of wrongdoing & dishonesty in whichever public authority is under the microscope that particular day.

To back up Iain Livingstone’s scripted admission of institutionally everything-wrong at his own five year grip on power Police Scotland, a series of senior officers were paraded on television to support the Chief Constable’s claims – with absolutely not one sounding believable in any of their responses.

And, to round off the increasingly diversionary campaign of ruining the reputation of Policing in Scotland to take the cameras and attention away from high profile political resignations and investigations into political funding – which appear to be more focussed on what they cannot prove rather than going after actual events and a rather complicated set of – lets call it “Heather Capital” type activities – the Chief Constable’s sexist, discriminatory & institutionally corrupt Police Service scandals were capped off with an arranged slew of new female officer appointments and the appointment of a female Chief Constable to replace Mr Livingstone.

If only it would be advantageous to publish the chat apps content of senior lawyers, civil servants and others on these few weeks of a dodgy Scottish National Police Service, and the dodgiest of dodgy Scottish Governments, ever.

Lets return to some of those issues in the headlines.

Non Disclosure Agreements at Police Scotland under Chief Constable Iain Livingstone – have seen millions of pounds in public cash paid out to victims of wrongdoing, corruption, sexism and misogyny during Livingstone’s five year grip on power at Scotland’s lawyer-led National Police Service – and millions of pounds more of public cash in the five years preceding Livingstone’s appointment as the preferred Scottish Government candidate of Chief Constable in 2018.

For years – cases of wrongdoing in policing – from the time of Scotland’s eight forces to the creation of Police Scotland by the SNP Scottish Government in 2014 – have been looked at by blog journalists.

The numbers are big, the pay-outs to victims even bigger, the wrongdoing, corruption, sexism, misogyny, vendetta witch-hunts of sources to journalists, pursuit of police officers who lodge legitimate grievances on issues relating to their service - and targeting of whistle-blowers has been – and remains to this day – off the scale.

It should not surprise readers that private law firms, solicitors, ‘leading’ members of the Faculty of Advocates & even some members of Scotland’s judiciary – have also collectively gained millions of pounds of public cash over the past decade in burying scandals for Police Scotland and forcing victims to sign Non Disclosure Agreements to prevent anyone talking to the media, public, their families and friends - or even their elected political representatives and the Scottish Parliament.

Readers can view earlier Freedom of Information disclosures obtained by blog journalists here Police Scotland - Non Disclosure Agreements FOI - 2019 which give some idea of the scale of pay-outs and a very limited understanding of the level of institutional wrongdoing at Police Scotland.

More than 20 victims of discrimination and wrongdoing who received financial compensation from Police Scotland were gagged from speaking publicly and the FOI material reveals Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) were used in at least 21 cases in which pay-outs totalling £677,389 were made to police officers, civilian staff and members of the public.

At least ten police constables, an inspector, a sergeant and four civilian workers were found to have signed Non Disclosure Agreements, involving a variety of discrimination disputes on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, disability and age.

Other Non Disclosure Agreements involving Police Scotland related to wrongful arrest, personal injury and unfair dismissal and a whistle-blower was required to sign an NDA.

In the figures which go up to the year 2019 – Scotland’s National Police service paid an additional £203,380 to cover victims’ legal fees – bringing the total cost to taxpayers to £880,769 over six years.

Initially – and as is routine with all Scottish Public Authorities – Police Scotland refused to identify the law firms which received public cash in relation to Non Disclosure Agreements. The data was only obtained after requests for FOI Reviews were lodged – naming the following law firms in figures: Clyde & Co solicitors £50,782.20, Morton Fraser Solicitors £72,162.56, Thorntons Solicitors £4,910.40.

And in an additional refusal by Police Scotland to identify law firms involved in Non Disclosure Agreements – again for figures up to 2019 – the same law firms were again identified in an FOI review disclosure – Morton Fraser Solicitors £22,208.80, Clyde & Co solicitors £41,460.01

Police Scotland’s key role in the malicious prosecution of the Rangers Administrators has been well documented on this blog PROSECUTION ADVOCATE: Conflicts of interest, failure to recuse & judge swapping in court - Rangers Admin malicious prosecution case illustrates why Scotland’s Prosecutors & Judiciary must be required to register, declare & publish all their interests - and publish all details of judges’ recusals from court hearings, and more widely in the media.

There also remains no further disclosure by Police Scotland into the allegations of five serious sexual assaults against the outgoing Chief Constable Iain Livingstone – information which Police Scotland refused to release to Freedom of Information requests by blog journalists in an article reported earlier here: TOP COP SECRETS: Transparency lacking at Police Scotland as spy scandal cops refuse to disclose files on complaints & historical sexual assault case details involving Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone

Curiously, in the past year – several media publications published articles identifying outgoing Chief Constable Iain Livingstone as a “Frontrunner” for the positions of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service for London , and “Frontrunner” for the post of Director of the UK National Crime Agency.

As readers will be well aware - both positions were filled by other candidates.

Interestingly and perhaps coincidentally - INTERPOL – the International Police Agency recently announced – apparently after much lobbying – the annual Interpol General Assembly is to be held next year in Glasgow, 2024.

The choice, which would be as odd as a group of environmental campaigners choosing to hold their gathering in the middle of an oil refinery – is coincidentally slated for the same year to which candidates for the 2025 Interpol Presidency will begin lobbying for their chance to follow several well known – and even some later jailed figures – to become the new Interpol President in 2025.

A previous example of Interpol Presidency candidates cite the following:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-20/debates/59705E54-A997-4F64-AFCA-2D4200158A62/InterpolPresidencyElection

The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)

Interpol is currently holding its general assembly in Dubai, and a UK delegation, led by Lynne Owens, the director general of the National Crime Agency, is there at the moment. Interpol is electing a new president at the general assembly after former Interpol president and Chinese Vice-Minister of Public Security, Meng Hongwei, resigned from the position on Sunday 7 October after Chinese authorities confirmed that he had been detained and is being investigated on anti-corruption charges.

Two candidates have formally declared for the post and remain in the running as candidates. They are current acting president South Korean Kim Jong Yang and Russian vice-president—one of four vice-presidents—Alexander Prokopchuk. Members of Interpol at the general assembly will vote on the next president on Wednesday. We do not speculate on the outcome of the election, but the UK supports the candidacy of acting president Kim Jong Yang.

Sir Vince Cable

Can the Minister confirm that the British Government are doing all they can to campaign against the candidacy of Mr Prokopchuk? Will she confirm that, until recently, he was head of the central bureau in Russia and was directly responsible for the issuing of red notices, which have been abused and used against opponents of the Putin regime—such as Mr Bill Browder, the proponent of the Magnitsky sanctions? Does she not agree that if this Russian gentleman were to become head of Interpol, it would be an absolute insult to the victims of the Salisbury incident?

Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to pursue their own pursuit of red notices in Russia with that gentleman in this post? Does she not accept that, if this gentleman were to succeed in his election, this would be a massive propaganda victory for the Putin regime, just ahead of a vote in the European Union on fresh sanctions? Would it, in effect, not amount to accepting that Interpol has become a branch of the Russian mafia? I use my words carefully when I say that. Finally, does this not underline the absolute folly of undermining in any way Europol at a time when Interpol is becoming totally dysfunctional and potentially corrupted?

Harriett Baldwin

The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. The central point is to clarify for the House the role of the secretary general of Interpol, who, of course, is the German Jürgen Stock. He has the executive role of day-to-day responsibility for the conduct of Interpol, and the UK confirms that it has a very good working relationship with him.

The right hon. Gentleman also raises the question about the candidacy of the current vice-president of the organisation. The UK, as I said in my opening remarks, will be supporting the candidacy of the acting vice-president, Kim Yong Yang. We always seek to endorse candidates who have a history of observing standards of international behaviour.

With regard to the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the potential for misuse of Interpol, red notices are a very important point. He will be aware of the systems that are in place to protect individuals’ rights and, indeed, of article 3 of the Interpol constitution, which forbids any organisation to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. Of course, there need to be safeguards, and this Government take any misuse of Interpol notices very, very seriously.

Interestingly, the lobbying – both at National UK level and in Scotland – for a UK/Scotland candidate to ensnare, be ‘elected to’ or assume the Interpol 2025 Presidency - is highly reminiscent of recent attempts to place certain Scots figures in policing positions outside of Scotland – none of which appear to have succeeded given these individuals pasts.

The lobbying between administrations resorted to embittered strings of emails and Chat app platform communications, including claims several detailed reports in newspapers of officers pasts “had been withdrawn and therefore should be discounted in considering applications” and that “a segment in a television interview was misinformed and contained patently false information”.

The exchanges between advisers, media communications officers & administrations on lobbying attempts, currently cannot be published for legal reasons - however the attempts by some within government, at Scotland & UK level to engineer candidates for jobs without serious interviews, and deploy comms officers, even politicians to brief against the media in what became an increasingly bitter recruitment process and ultimately concluded in all parties engaging in infighting – are certainly of public interest in terms of who is appointed to which role in the UK, and why.

Historically, when it comes to any form of transparency and accountability for Police Scotland and policing organisation in Scotland – every effort appears to be expended to ensure secrecy on all fronts remains the case as this blog has previously reported: FOI PROBE: Holyrood Committee hear Scottish Information Commissioner backed off promise to bring Freedom of Information to Scottish Police Federation - even after Info. Tsar knew England & Wales Police Fed. already complied with FOI legislation

And finally – Three sourced tips in relation to stories being looked into.

An audio file submitted to a number of journalists reveals a recently retired policing figure and frequent user of sauna shops - boasted of holding information in relation to politicians and a financial scandal relating to cash and goods - to which the existence of this information was used to gain political lobbying and favours. A crime journalist confirmed the identity of persons in the audio.

An opportunity for that person or others with knowledge of this matter exists to contact journalists and answer questions on why this policing figure’s organisation felt it could play politics and gain favours - in relation to information clearly accumulated as a result of investigations – and why ageing, named former politicians were paid to lobby for, and attack journalists, critics - on behalf of this policing organisation.

Long running enquiries into court cases and complaints investigations revealed the use of Scotland based Private Investigator firms recruiting former Police Officers to utilise in-person surveillance on litigants, solicitors and journalists. Certain of these cases saw persons working for PI firms gaining entry to offices and litigants homes, images of which were recorded on camera equipment. Blog journalists are open to hear explanations from these firms and any employees in relation to their activities.

A long running investigation of digital surveillance employed by organisations in Scotland – which began with the Emma Caldwell case – turned up evidence of a highly organised cyber-hacking ring – which appears to have involvement of former Police Officers from a UK force other than Scotland, England & Wales which continues to snoop on newsrooms and identified journalists, and others including what appear to be opposition politicians.

Emails between lawyers & identified former officers revealed these ex cops regularly offer their services to law firms and any organisation which will hire then. To put it bluntly, these former officers boast of their technical proficiency in defending against cyber-attacks and taking the surveillance and cyber war back to those who whichever entity or organisation perceive as an enemy.

One of the lawyers boasting to clients of how they can deploy ex Police professionals to hack their way through opposing clients and legal representation’s files – sits on committees formed by Scotland’s current top judge – making the link between the judiciary and this surveillance enterprise as clear as was the case in the Emma Caldwell case. If anyone wants to talk, get in touch.

Lastly – Chose your method of giving tips to journalists carefully. Major social media platforms owned by a variety of anti-transparency vested interests - are a no-go area as your Direct Messages and similar are often read before the intended journalists gain sight of it – as a Digital Media employee from a political party recently confirmed in lengthy chats with example communications provided to journos.