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

FACULTY RESIGNATION: Gordon Jackson resigns as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - after video footage reveals top QC named two of his client’s accusers in train while talking about Alex Salmond sexual assault trial

Gordon Jackson steps down as Dean of Faculty of Advocates. SCOTLAND’S most senior QC has stood down from his position as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates after video footage published by the Sunday Times revealed remarks he made about his client Alex Salmond - and his accusers.

Gordon Jackson QC said on Friday last week, he was standing down as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - because he is now under investigation for professional misconduct after he ‘self-referred’ his actions to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).

In a statement published by the Faculty of Advocates on their Twitter feed, Mr Jackson said: “I have intimated my decision to resign as dean of the Faculty of Advocates, with effect from 30 June, at the latest.”

“It would not, however, be appropriate for me to remain as Dean at a time when the Faculty was considering disciplinary proceedings regarding my conduct.”

“Accordingly, if, before that date, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission remits the recent complaint for consideration by the Faculty’s Complaints Committee, I will stand down as Dean immediately. I do not intend to make any further comment.”

It is thought the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will eventually send the complaint to the Faculty’s Complaints Committee for consideration - as has previously occurred in complaints made to the SLCC against advocates.

However - the SLCC’s complaints process are known to many as biased, toothless and tediously slow - and it is still possible Jackson may survive as Dean of the Faculty until the 30 June date offered in his resignation statement unless he steps down of his own accord as is reflected in his statement.

The position as head of the Faculty of Advocates is one of the most coveted and influential roles in Scotland’s legal system - bringing with it responsibility for discipline of all Advocates, influence over how legislation is framed by the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament - and what many perceive as an ‘ownership’ of the selection process for Scotland’s top prosecutor – the Lord Advocate.

Gordon Jackson QC succeeded Scotland’s current top Law Officer Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC to the role of Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in 2016.

Gordon Jackson - once a Scottish Labour MSP, member of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee, and who has represented among others, members of Scotland’s criminal underworld, and politicians - will continue working as a QC after stepping down as dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

In the video footage published by the Sunday Times - Alex Salmond, the former SNP leader and client of Gordon Jackson - was referred to as “a sex pest” and an “objectionable bully” - before being acquitted of all charges in his sex offences trial last week.

During the video footage, Gordon Jackson also names two of the women who alleged sexual assault by Salmond, despite strict rules that protect the anonymity of women in alleged sexual offence cases.

During the filmed conversation, Jackson mentioned his strategy for cross examination of one woman in the trial of Mr Salmond as being "All I need to do is put a smell on her."

On March 29, Rape Crisis Scotland issued a statement in connection with media reports of Mr Jackson’s comments:

A spokesperson said: “Protecting the anonymity of all people who report sexual crimes is of critical importance and is one of few reassurances that can be offered as part of an otherwise daunting and intimidating process. For this to be undermined by such a senior lawyer in a public place in such a high-profile trial is horrifying and completely unacceptable.

Jackson is Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and we cannot see how this behaviour – caught on film – is in keeping with the Faculty of Advocate’s own guidance on conduct. There should be an immediate investigation.

One of the most chilling aspects of this is Jackson’s statement about his strategy for the cross examination of one of the women in the trial: “All I need to do is put a smell on her.” This statement alone confirms the fears of many, many survivors who do not report for fear of what would be done to them in court. Trials should be based on evidence, not on smears and attacks on character. We need an urgent overhaul of how these cases are dealt with.”

INQUIRY OF THE CROWN: Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee launch inquiry into crime fighting ability of ‘institutionally corrupt’ Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service

Crown Crooked – MSPs to quiz £112m-a-year Scots prosecutors. OFTEN DESCRIBED as the most corrupt public body in all Scotland - the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) – is to face a major investigation of it's purpose and role in prosecuting crime - by the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee who want to hear from you by Wednesday 19 October 2016

Accused of being a haven of deceit, institutionally racist, sectarian, bigoted, prejudiced, corrupt, woefully incompetent and staffed with prosecutors who will - with ease - lie to victims of crime, misrepresent the facts in court, twist evidence of victims, witnesses and accused alike - this collection of swaggering lawyers and Crown Counsel who are paid a staggering £112.5 million of public cash this budget year to go after criminals - will now face questions on their own gangster-like existence in the annals of Scots Law.

The inquiry – which will take evidence in public during sessions of the Justice Committee over the coming months at Holyrood - will focus on the core role and examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the Crown Office, how well it works with its stakeholders, and the support it provides to witnesses and victims of crime.

The Committee will also examine its responsiveness to new challenges and opportunities, such as the evolving nature of crime and advances in technology. As part of the inquiry it will examine the role and function of the independent Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland.

Beware however – this is an enquiry which appears to focus more on questions of whether the Crown Office has enough resources – or the budget – to be effective at ‘fighting crime’.

Hands up those of you (not vested legal interests please) who believe £112.5 million of public cash a year - as part of an ever increasing budget - makes the Crown Office under budget or under resourced.

MSPs have also clarified the Justice Committee inquiry will not consider two other roles of the Crown Office – relating to establishing the cause of sudden, unexplained or suspicious deaths or investigating allegations of criminal conduct against police officers, except in relation to the general issue of whether the COPFS has the resources it needs to carry out its purpose.

This is a Crown Office gone bad – a prosecution service so rotten - the Scottish Government was forced to remove the law on double jeopardy to allow incompetent, often strange prosecutors – some with their own secret criminal histories - to bring persons before the court time and time again until convictions are eventually secured in front of increasingly worn out judges and juries.

The same Crown Office which shredded statistics on sectarian crime principally against Catholics and other religious minorities in Scotland shredded - to avoid being asked questions by MSPs considering the hated Offensive Behaviour at Football Matches & Threatening Communications Act and the impact of Scotland’s criminal justice system’s oh-so-obvious endemic religious bigotry.

The same Crown Office run by Prosecutors who present the deceased on witness lists at criminal trials.

The same Crown Office staffed by Prosecutors & employees who themselves have secret criminal records – on everything from assault, threats & perverting the course of justice to drugs offences.

The same Crown Office compromised by criminal informants among staff who leak details to crooks targeted by Police Scotland and other law enforcement agencies.

The same Crown Office who pride bonuses, junkets and higher salaries before obtaining justice for victims of crime.

The same Crown Office whose Advocate Depute did a runner from the High Court in 2007 during a major trial which resulted in the collapse of the first World’s End murder trial.

The same Crown Office run by a Lord Advocate who called into question the state of the judiciary in order to distract the public from Crown Office failures over the collapse of the same World’s End Trial -Top judge accused Lord Advocate of undermineg the judiciary in statements Angiolini made to the  Scottish Parliament.

The same Crown Office which campaigned for the removal of Corroboration - one of the cherished few safeguards of Scots law which cuts across every and all criminal cases and evidence presentation in our courts and helps to guard against miscarriage of justice.

And by removing corroboration - not, for any lofty aim of upholding justice and protecting the public - mind you.

The singular vested interest of the Crown Office in removing corroboration from the justice system was, and remains simply because - the Crown Office are so inadequate at prosecuting crime, they must have multiple chances to parade people in court to secure convictions, no matter how much it costs taxpayers, the reputation of Scots law.

Enter the man - no less than the ex Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - James Wolffe QC - who wanted - and was handed the job of Lord Advocate - tasked with steering, spinning and manipulating the Crown Office through the choppy murky waters of Scotland’s criminal empires, and not forgetting his own staff’s secret criminal pasts.

The accompanying fanfare and typical public relations exercise of Wolffe’s appointment to succeed former Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, came with the usual fluff of a new broom to sweep away crime and criminality.

Yet Wolffe himself was - only a few months before his new commission of protecting Scots from big time crime barons - fretting with Scottish Ministers over his precious Faculty of Advocates spending of £320,000 on parts of Parliament House it had occupied without recorded title - yet somehow gained ownership of, reported here: WOLFFE HALL: Papers reveal Council’s legal action ‘abandoned’, £320K Faculty refurbishment of Laigh Hall.

And Scotland's criminal justice system is so tipped against the rights of victims and accused - as the legal eagles waft in and out of jobs, earlier this week - Wolffe's replacement as Dean at the Faculty of Advocates - Gordon Jackson QC - a leading lawyer who has rightly represented some of Scotland's most hardened criminals and gangsters - lectured the Lord Advocate on the creeping rights of victims in an open letter to the press.

Mr Jackson expressed his concern that the “admirable principle” of an independent prosecution service, acting in the public interest, “is being eroded in practice”. Advocates depute and junior fiscals alike, he writes, are seen as reluctant to make decisions but refer cases to their superiors, and prosecutors have admitted to him that they are not following their own judgment on what can be proved “because of the family's position” – referring to the now common practice of meeting victims' families.

So now you know the views of the legal profession – picture the following - for it could, or may have already happened to you.

Your loved one has been brutally, mercilessly murdered by a criminal – a criminal perhaps not unknown to the authorities.

Or a victim of crime or has fallen to an untimely end at the hands of deceitful public servants or an unscrupulous business more interested in profits than the safety of their workforce.

Now - right in front of you- you face someone from the very same Crown Office talking at you - not to you - or with you

As you may begin to observe – they ask you questions – often the wrong questions - depending on their scheming ahead to figure out if they can secure a conviction or a grubby plea deal spun out by their public relations department as a win for justice. They may even tell you something in a meeting, face to face, then lie about it later. A big fat lie of a lie. No matter. The Lord Advocate will cover it up.

They claim they are going to put away the killer, the murderer, the fraudster, the crook who ruined your life, wiped someone’s very existence from life - yet you just know - that same Crown Office career monger has liar written all over their face. Unmissable, isn’t it – like a house on fire.

You’ll know it was all true - when the killer, crook or villain gets seven years and out in two.

Are you a victim of crime? Are you a victim of a miscarriage of justice? Are you a solicitor performing the testy task of representing accused persons against a prosecution service gone mad?

All of you have an interest in making your voice heard to this inquiry. Don’t leave it to vested interests, or the legal profession or those who cloak themselves in good deeds while concealing crime.

Make your voice heard – in writing – to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee by 19 October 2016.

Those submitting are invited to restrict their submission, if at all possible, to the equivalent of approximately four sides of A4. Evidence should be submitted in electronic (preferably MS Word) format by email to justicecommittee@parliament.scot

Organisations and individuals who do not have access to a PC and the internet may submit a hard copy to: Clerk to the Justice Committee The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH991SP

For further information on this inquiry please contact the committee clerks by email at justicecommittee@parliament.scot or by phone at 0131 348 6241.

MSPs TO INVESTIGATE CROWN OFFICE:

The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee has agreed to hold its first major inquiry of this session into the role and purpose of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), with this remit:

The COPFS is Scotland’s independent prosecution service, acting in the public interest to help bring offenders to justice.

The core role of the COPFS is to consider reports about crime from the police and other agencies, to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute them, and, if so, to deploy the resources that are necessary to help ensure that justice is done.

The Committee’s inquiry will focus on this core role, examining in particular—

The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee has agreed to hold its first major inquiry of this session into the role and purpose of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), with this remit:

"The COPFS is Scotland's independent prosecution service, acting in the public interest to help bring offenders to justice. The core role of the COPFS is to consider reports about crime from the police and other agencies, to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute them, and, if so, to deploy the resources that are necessary to help ensure that justice is done. The Committee's inquiry will focus on this core role, examining in particular—

• The effectiveness and efficiency of the COPFS, and how well it works with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system;

• Whether the COPFS has the resources and skillsets it needs to carry out its core role;

• The COPFS's responsiveness to new challenges and opportunities including the evolving nature of crime in 21^st century Scotland, advances in technology, and changes in the delivery of court services that may affect access to justice;

• How the COPFS protects and supports witnesses and victims of crime.

The Committee will also take evidence on the role and function of the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland. (The IPS is the independent inspectorate for the COPFS.)

The inquiry will not consider the COPFS's two other roles of establishing the cause of sudden, unexplained or suspicious deaths or investigating allegations of criminal conduct against police officers, except in relation to the general issue of whether the COPFS has the resources it needs to carry out its purpose."

Questions to consider:

Organisations and individuals are invited to submit written views to the Committee in relation to the inquiry. Those submitting views should feel free to address issues raised in the remit in whatever manner they prefer, but it would be particularly appreciated if they could aim to address some or all of the questions set out below, providing specific examples, data or other evidence to back up their views whenever possible—

1. Please outline your views on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the COPFS in its core role of considering reports about crime from the police and bringing prosecutions. Are there ways in which the services provided by the COPFS could be improved - for instance, through increased use of technology, further reforms to criminal procedure, or better case management? If so, do those changes also bring risks, in terms of the overall interests of justice or of access to justice (bearing in minds the differing needs of people across Scotland; urban and rural communities, economically disadvantaged people, vulnerable groups, etc)?

2. Please outline how well you consider the COPFS works with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system, so as to provide a "joined up" and complementary service that helps meet the ends of justice. Other stakeholders might, for instance, include the police, defence lawyers, the courts, the prison service, criminal justice social work, and third party organisations working with victims or offenders.

3. Does the COPFS as presently constituted have the resources and skillsets it needs to carry out its core role effectively? And is it appropriately "future-proofed" - for instance to deal with new technologies available to criminals, changes in the overall profile of crime in 21st century Scotland, or withdrawal from the European Union? If not, what additional capacities does the COPFS need?

4. How well does the COPFS respond to the needs of victims of crimes and to witnesses (especially vulnerable witnesses) in criminal cases and meet its legal obligations towards them?

5. The Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland is the independent, statutory inspectorate for the COPFS. What is your awareness of the existence and role of the IPS and of its effectiveness in carrying out that role? How effective has it been in carrying out its role? Does it appear to have the resources it needs?

Committee convener Margaret Mitchell MSP commented: “The Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service is absolutely fundamental to the operation of an effective justice system in Scotland. This is why this committee has chosen to make it the focus of its first major inquiry.

“MSPs on the previous Justice Committee raised several concerns about the additional pressures that the organisation faced in recent times – including an increase in complex historic sex abuse and domestic abuse cases and new requirements required by legislation.

“The COPFS’s responsibilities towards victims and witnesses have also been increasing – and rightly. This has all taken place against a backdrop of tight budgetary settlements in recent years.

“It is likely these significant pressures will continue, so fundamental to this inquiry will be to determine if the COPFS has the resources it needs to bring offenders to justice, and is 'future proofed' to deal with new challenges.”

If you feel the Scottish Parliament should be asking many more questions of our prosecutors, don’t forge to make your views known to your own MSP, even ask them to go along to the hearings and make your issues more aware to the Justice Committee.

For previous articles on the Crown Office, read more here: Scotland's Crown Office - in Crown detail

DODGE GUIDE FOR ADVOCATES: ‘Independent’ legal regulator launches guide for Faculty of Advocates - on how to deal with allegations of poor legal services & dodgy court performances

Regulator's guide for advocates written by advocates.. ADVOCATES who face complaints over poor provision of legal services & sub par performances in Scotland’s courts now have a new weapon in dealing with complaints - in the form of a ‘help guide’ on how to deal with dissatisfied clients.

The nine page booklet, issued yesterday by Scotland’s ‘independent’ legal regulator – The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) - was developed with the co-operation and input of the advocates own lobby group - the Faculty of Advocates.

SLCC CEO Matthew Vickers welcomed the guide, saying: “Improving standards of complaint handling and service is an important part of our work. We’re pleased to see the interest shown by members of the Faculty of Advocates in the guide we’ve produced.”

The guide, published below, covers six basic principles of complaints handling and three steps to effective complaint handling.  It also includes an example of a model complaint handling process for Scotland’s highly paid, mega earning advocates.

However the guide’s references to transparency & fairness appear far from the reality of how the legal profession deal with complaints against its own in the environment of self regulation – where on occasion, advocates have used law firms to threaten clients who make complaints about their conduct. In at least one instance known to the media, an advocate even used Police Officers in an attempt to escape a complaint.

The guide states: At the outset, the approach to the complainer should be empathetic and not defensive - a defensive response will usually prove counter-productive. Try to see the complaint from the client's perspective and engage openly, demonstrating an understanding of the issues which the complainer has raised. Bear in mind that it may have been difficult for the complainer to raise the matter by way of a complaint, particularly where they are emotionally involved.

It then goes on to claim: To achieve and maintain credibility it is important that the complaints process is transparent and fair. Complaints should be dealt with in a consistent approach which is, at the same time, proportionate to the complaint. The response to the complaint should be based on the facts surrounding the matter complained of rather than on assumptions. Each individual advocate is responsible for handling any complaint against him or her, but communications may be passed through Counsel's Clerk. Guidance can also be obtained from a Faculty Office Bearer or from the Dean's Secretariat.

A list of ‘dos and don'ts’ to advocates on the run from complaints contain the following suggestions:

• Be alert to any expression of dissatisfaction which should be regarded as a complaint, or at least a potential complaint, and treat it as such. Remember that this could be received by your Clerk or a member of FSL staff dealing with an outstanding fee.

• Engage with the client to understand the issue at hand. Do this through your Clerk if you wish to maintain some distance.

• Be empathetic with the complainer, be aware of the impact which the issue may have had on the complainer, including the emotional impact of bringing the matter to your attention.

• Don't avoid the problem or hope that it will go away; always respond to a complaint.

• Don't delay dealing with the complaint - the last thing you want is an additional complaint about concerns not being dealt with in good time.

Finally, don't ignore complaints from third parties - the SLCC can accept complaints from parties other than a practitioner's own clients and you need to treat these as seriously as a complaint from your own client, although it is important to bear in mind any confidentiality issues

Commenting on the guide, former MSP and now Vice-Dean of Faculty Gordon Jackson QC said: “As the SLCC indicated in its most recent annual report, there are very few complaints about advocates. As a result, it is helpful to have been able to produce a guidance document for those members who may not have had to deal with a complaint," said Gordon Jackson, QC, Vice-Dean of Faculty.

"The Faculty is and always has been committed to promoting the provision by its members of the highest quality legal services. It is important that the public should know that if an advocate receives a complaint, it will be handled properly and in accordance with standards approved by the SLCC. We have therefore been pleased, in the course of revising our complaints and disciplinary procedures, also to have worked very closely with the SLCC to prepare guidance for our members on complaints handling."

Vice Dean Mr Jackson - who once lost a £50K claim for slipping on ice covered pavements on Johnston Terrace in Edinburgh after temporary judge Gordon Reid QC said he had no relevant case against Edinburgh City Council – also sought to reassure the public over how complaints about advocates are handled.

He said: “The Faculty is and always has been committed to promoting the provision by its members of the highest quality legal services. It is important that the public should know that if an advocate receives a complaint, it will be handled properly and in accordance with standards approved by the SLCC.”

The guide was formally launched at an event on 8 January at the Faculty of Advocates by the SLCC’s Head of Oversight and the Dean of Faculty.  The guide follows a previous guide for solicitors.  Both guides are available on the SLCC’s website at Guidance and Advice for Practitioners pages.

Have you had a bad experience with an advocate, or made a complaint about an advocate and found the regulation system failed to deal with it? Tell us about it at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com