Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.
Nigel Don MSP (SNP) said Petition should not be closed until Parliament scrutinises Sheriff Court plans. During the Petitions Committee’s Tuesday session, Committee member Nigel Don said progress was being made ‘very fast’ and expressed his gratitude to the Lord President for introducing McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s Court of Session. Mr Don went onto say the ”Sheriff Court Rules are being dealt with but they seem to have gone a little bit slower” and said he believed Petition 1247 should not be closed until the rules for the use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts are “in the public domain” and the Petitions Committee has a chance to see & comment on the Sheriff Court Rules Council proposals.
Mr Don’s comments came after the Petitioner, Perth based law reform campaigner Mr Stewart MacKenzie had written to the Petitions Committee urging members to contact the Sheriff Court Rules Council for a clearer timescale for the completion of the implementation of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts, bearing in mind the Court of Session and the Lord President had managed to complete the process in around five weeks.
Petitions Committee Convener Rhona Brankin MSP concluded the discussion on Petition 1247, by continuing the petition until the Committee receive more information.
Petitions Committee 7th Sept. 2010 - Nigel Don : Parliament should have a chance to see & comment on the Sheriff Court rules for McKenzie Friends before petition is closed.(click image below to watch video)
While party litigants in Scotland’s Court of Session have been able to apply for a McKenzie Friend to assist their case since mid June of this year, party litigants in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts, where most hearings in which McKenzie Friends will have a ‘helping hand’ take place, will have to wait until the Sheriff Court Rules Council formalise their plans for rules governing the use of lay assistants in Sheriff Courts before being able to apply to a Sheriff for lay assistance.
A spokesperson for the Sheriff Court Rules Council stated : “I can advise that the Sheriff Court Rules Council is still considering the procedure for McKenzie friends within the Sheriff Court and, in particular, is considering whether the approach by the Court of Session is appropriate in the Sheriff Court. At this stage, I am not able to advise when the provisions will be commenced.”
Scotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton. The rules governing the use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts, which are set to come into force by the end of June of this year, have finally been published on the Office of Public Sector Information website, confirming that for the first time in Scotland, some four decades after McKenzie Friends came into existence in the now famous English court case McKenzie v McKenzie (1970), the internationally acclaimed non-lawyer courtroom helper will finally be available to unrepresented party litigants in Scottish civil courts.
However, while the Act of Sederunt, signed last Tuesday by the Lord President will finally allow McKenzie Friends to be used in Scotland, the terms of the Lord President’s language in the guidance have confirmed the fears of many that the usage of the internationally acclaimed non-lawyer courtroom helper will be subject to strict conditions & restrictions in Scottish courts, apparently after demands from representatives of the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates to limit the spread & availability of McKenzie Friends in civil law cases.
Scotland’s legal establishment are thought to have intervened against the full implementation of McKenzie Friends out of fear that law firms would lose business to the much cheaper, and sometimes free non-lawyer McKenzie Friend, or as the Lord President prefers to use in Scotland a “Lay Assistant”, after Lord Hamilton claimed Scots were too ignorant to understand the meaning of the term “McKenzie Friend”.
It has emerged from the published guidance the Lord President intends to forbid McKenzie Friends in Scotland from receiving any payment for their service, this despite the fact that case law exists in England & Wales, allowing a McKenzie Friend to receive remuneration for their services. This issue had come in for severe criticism by campaigners, consumer organisations, experienced McKenzie Friends from English courts, and even MSPs at the Scottish Parliament, where recently, the SNP’s MSP Nigel Don (North East Scotland) criticised Lord Hamilton’s protectionist block on McKenzie Friends receiving payment for their services.
Nigel Don MSP criticised Lord President over ‘non-payment’ of Scottish McKenzie Friends. As I reported in an earlier article on the latest Petitions Committee debate of the McKenzie Friend petition, Committee member Nigel Don criticised Lord Hamilton’s restrictions over paying McKenzie Friends, saying : “… the Lord President's letter of 19 February states immediately thereafter that the McKenzie friend—or lay assistant, as we should perhaps now describe him—is "to receive no remuneration for his or her services in any form.I can quite understand why the Lord President should take that view, but there is good reason to believe that that might not be the best view.”
Mr Don continued : “Given that many of those who might act as lay assistants might be paid by a charity such as a citizens advice bureau to help those who need help, it seems a step too far to assert that the lay assistant should receive no remuneration from anywhere. I can well understand that the Lord President and his colleagues do not want, as it were, second-class lawyers hawking themselves around as McKenzie friends, but I am slightly concerned that the suggested rules go a bit too far.”
During the same Petitions Committee hearing, another thorny issue arose, over the Lord President’s apparent hostility to using the term “McKenzie Friend” in Scottish Courts, which has resulted in Lord Hamilton’s published rules using the term “Lay Assistant” instead of “McKenzie Friend”.
Nanette Milne MSP (Scottish Conservative) Nanette Milne, the Conservative MSP member of the Petitions Committee criticised the Lord President’s refusal to use the term McKenzie Friend in Scotland, instead preferring to apply the term “Lay Assistant. Nanette Milne said :“In addition, the petitioner obviously still has concerns about the terminology of "lay assistant" rather than "McKenzie friend". Given that Which? magazine and Consumer Focus appear to use only the term "McKenzie friend", can we perhaps press for the retention of that term ?”
A third, even more restrictive condition has also made its way to the published Act of Sederunt which has already resulted in significant criticism from consumer groups, that of requiring a potential McKenzie Friend, or “Lay Assistant” to sign a certificate and give details about themselves which are generally not required in most other jurisdictions where McKenzie Friends operate.
Lord Hamilton’s Act of Sederunt – Overly restrictive and forty years too late. The terms of the Act of Sederunt, allowing McKenzie Friends to operate in Scotland’s Court of Session are as follows : 12A.1.—(1) At any time during proceedings a party litigant may apply to the court for permission to have a named individual assist the litigant in the conduct of the proceedings by sitting beside or behind (as the litigant chooses) the litigant at hearings in court or in chambers and doing such of the following for the litigant as he or she requires—
(a) providing moral support; (b) helping to manage the court documents and other papers; (c) taking notes of the proceedings; (d) quietly advising on— (i) points of law and procedure; (ii) issues which the litigant might wish to raise with the court; (iii) questions which the litigant might wish to ask witnesses.
(2) It is a condition of such permission that the named individual does not receive from the litigant, whether directly or indirectly, any remuneration for his or her assistance.
(3) The court may refuse an application under paragraph (1) only if—
(a) it is of the opinion that the named individual is an unsuitable person to act in that capacity (whether generally or in the proceedings concerned); or
(b) it is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the efficient administration of justice to grant it.
(4) An application under paragraph (1) is to be made by motion and accompanied by a document, signed by the litigant and the named individual, in Form 12.A-A.
(5) Permission granted under paragraph (1) endures until the proceedings finish or it is withdrawn under paragraph (6); but it is not effective during any period when the litigant is represented.
(6) The court may, of its own accord or on the motion of a party to the proceedings, withdraw permission granted under paragraph (1); but it must first be of the opinion that it would be contrary to the efficient administration of justice for the permission to continue.
(7) Where permission has been granted under paragraph (1), the litigant may—
(a) show the named individual any document (including a court document); or
(b) impart to the named individual any information, which is in his or her possession in connection with the proceedings without being taken to contravene any prohibition or restriction on the disclosure of the document or the information; but the named individual is then to be taken to be subject to any such prohibition or restriction as if he or she were the litigant.
(8) Any expenses incurred by the litigant as a result of the support of an individual under paragraph (1) are not recoverable expenses in the proceedings.”.
Lord President’s proposed certificate to be signed by McKenzie Friends - “Too Protective”. A Scottish Parliament source said that members were unhappy with the tone of the Act of Sederunt, considering the amount of meetings the Petitions Committee had devoted to the McKenzie Friend Petition. Among the questions asked on the certificate are payment, relationship to the applicant, legal experience, and confidentiality : “Does the named individual have relevant experience (e.g. acted as authorised lay representative in the sheriff court, acted as a McKenzie Friend in England and Wales, legal qualification, experience as a lay adviser on legal matters)? If so, please briefly describe that experience.”
Those wishing to apply to the court to assist a party litigant as a McKenzie Friend in Scotland must also declare whether they are related or not to the litigant, or whether they have a financial interest in the outcome of the case, also confirming they are not receiving remuneration from the litigant, directly or indirectly, for their assistance and will not receive any such remuneration. Additionally, they must accept that documents and information are provided to them by the litigant on a confidential basis and undertake to keep them confidential.
One Holyrood MSP dubbed Lord Hamilton’s plans “Too protective of the courts system and designed to put members of the public at a disadvantage when using a McKenzie Friend against experienced legal teams.” He went onto criticise the focus on ensuring a McKenzie Friend received no payment , saying “it looked like the legal profession had played their hand to protect their business interests.”
A senior official with one of Scotland’s consumer organisations said the plan to force the signing of certificates would put many people off being a McKenzie Friend and queried whether this was the intention all along. The official said : “This requirement of a certificate will limit McKenzie Friends from developing into a service which Scots consumers could use or rely on where they cannot secure often costly legal representation. There’s no reason why Scots court users shouldn’t have the same exact rights for a McKenzie Friend as are used in England. This proposal should be dropped.”
An experienced litigant condemned Lord Hamilton’s restrictions over Scottish McKenzie Friends, saying : “It is absurd to require a person to give details of any previous legal experience, qualifications or family relationships, and I see that Lord Hamilton is still insisting - regardless of existing case law - that no payment (not even expenses) can be claimed. I hope and expect that the Justice Committee will be pushed to see the necessary amendments included.”
It was indicated today Lord Hamilton’s Act of Sederunt will not be the final word on bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland, as the Petitions Committee have indicated they will look again at the issue later in the year, and there are still plans by the Scottish Government to bring an Amendment to their beleaguered Legal Services Bill at its Stage Two hearing at the Scottish Parliament.
Holyrood Committee’s exchanges with Lord President questioned.QUESTIONS have been raised over the outcome of Tuesday’s Petitions Committee hearing on Petition 1247 (McKenzie Friends for Scotland) after it emerged late yesterday that while two members of the Petitions Committee had raised important points to be clarified with Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton, over the proposed Act of Sederunt to allow McKenzie Friends in Scottish courts, the actual letter sent from the Petitions Committee to the Lord President simply stated "Could you provide an update to the Committee once the Act of Sederunt has been brought into force".
This latest extraordinary turn of events in the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts, a non-lawyer courtroom helper which unrepresented party litigants have been successfully using in England & Wales for the past forty years, comes after last Tuesday’s Petitions Committee hearing concluded its latest deliberations on the McKenzie Friends petition by stating on the Scottish Parliament’s Petition 1247 web page : “4 May 2010 : The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President of the Court of Session seeking a response to specific points.” after two of the Petitions Committee members, MSPs Nanette Milne & Nigel Don raised the thorny issues of the usage of the term “McKenzie Friend” and the question of whether a McKenzie Friend could be remunerated for their services – both key points the Lord President has proved highly resistant to discuss or implement.
Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee 4 May 2010 : McKenzie Friends should remain McKenzie Friends in Scotland(click video to watch)
Nigel Don MSP (SNP) Nigel Don, member of the Petitions Committee & Parliamentary aide to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill raised two significant points the Lord President had failed to resolve over the year long battle to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts. Mr Don initially praised Lord Hamilton “for getting on with things”, going onto firstly tackle the question of a ‘certificate’ which Lord Hamilton initially proposed should be required for all potential McKenzie Friends to sign prior to their acceptance by the court – a move heavily criticised by politicians, law reform campaigners and even several consumer bodies including Which? & Consumer Focus Scotland.
Nigel Don said :“I am probably not the only one who feels slightly confused about where we have got to. The issue seems to be moving so fast that I am not sure on which side of the net the ball has ended up. However, we should commend the Lord President for getting on with things and for explaining, in his most recent letter, some points that we did not get round to discussing during our previous meeting due to shortness of time.
“I want to raise two points about the suggested rules in the Lord President's letter of 19 February, which predates our previous meeting. Paragraph 5 of that letter states: "The certificate should ... confirm that the lay assistant has no interest in the case".
“I get the impression from the Lord President's subsequent letter that he sees no problem with the lay assistant being a family member or friend of the litigant. Therefore, I draw the conclusion that the suggestion that the lay assistant should have "no interest" should be translated as "no greater interest than the litigant". That is what I would have expected, so I have no problem with that. However, I thought that I had better put that on record in case I am wrong.”
Mr Don went onto raise the equally thorny issue of whether a McKenzie Friend can be paid for their services, an issue I reported on in mid-April, revealing actual case law from the English Family Courts division, which supports a McKenzie Friend’s entitlement to charge for their services. Nigel Don at the April hearing appeared to support the Lord President’s resolute position that no McKenzie Friends should receive money for their services, however Mr Don now appears to have changed his position substantially.
Nigel Don continued : “Secondly, the Lord President's letter of 19 February states immediately thereafter that the McKenzie friend—or lay assistant, as we should perhaps now describe him—is "to receive no remuneration for his or her services in any form".
“I can quite understand why the Lord President should take that view, but there is good reason to believe that that might not be the best view. Given that many of those who might act as lay assistants might be paid by a charity such as a citizens advice bureau to help those who need help, it seems a step too far to assert that the lay assistant should receive no remuneration from anywhere. I can well understand that the Lord President and his colleagues do not want, as it were, second-class lawyers hawking themselves around as McKenzie friends, but I am slightly concerned that the suggested rules go a bit too far.”
“Can we ask the Lord President to consider that point, so that those with experience of the subject who could well help people are not required to act completely for nothing when a charity might support them ?”
Nanette Milne MSP (Scottish Conservative) Nanette Milne, the Conservative MSP member of the Petitions Committee joined the debate, raising the highly contentious issue of the Lord President’s stubborn resistance to using the term “McKenzie Friend” in his plans for bring in the Act of Sederunt to allow, “Lay Assistants”, as Lord Hamilton would rather call “McKenzie Friends” into Scottish courts. Nanette Milne said :“In addition, the petitioner obviously still has concerns about the terminology of "lay assistant" rather than "McKenzie friend". Given that Which? magazine and Consumer Focus appear to use only the term "McKenzie friend", can we perhaps press for the retention of that term ?”
Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton. Lord Hamilton’s hostility against using the term “McKenzie Friend” – which is accepted in most international jurisdictions where the McKenzie Friend is used, has left many involved in the Scottish debate on McKenzie Friends questioning why the Lord President apparently feels even after forty years, that Scotland should, not join the rest of the world in allowing what is a uniquely named and internationally recognised courtroom helper to assist the growing numbers of unrepresented court users in Scotland who find themselves unable to obtain legal representation.
Which? reported that 85% of Scots would like to see McKenzie Friends allowed in our courts. In an earlier report on the McKenzie Friend petition, I revealed the Lord President had put forward several reasons to the Petitions Committee why he felt the term “McKenzie Friend” should be swapped with the term “Lay Assistant”, where Lord Hamilton alleged Scots were too ignorant to know what a McKenzie Friend actually is, this despite research & polls taken by consumer organisations such as Which? who reported that 85% of those questioned during recent research carried out by Which? on Scottish Legal Services thought it would be a good idea to allow McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts.
Petitions Committee Convener Frank McAveety attempted to draw the debate to a close with a continuance of the petition, although one important issue raised by the Committee Clerk remained, namely that of whether the Committee “should push the Lord President to defer consideration of the issue.”
Nigel Don said : “My instinct is not to defer anything at all. I am sure that the Lord President has the good of the system at heart, as people do not get to be Lord President without having a pretty good idea of what goes on in the courts. I think that we should trust him to get on with it. If, one way or another, he and others come to the conclusion that they did not get it quite right first time round, I suspect that the speed with which he is now acting demonstrates that he will be swift to amend things. I do not think that we should defer anything for the sake of it.”
The Committee agreed to continue Petition 1247, and write to the Lord President on the issues raised during the hearing, however as revealed by Holyrood insiders late yesterday, the Committee had apparently changed their mind and simply asked Lord Hamilton to update them once the Act of Sederunt has been brought into force, leaving many questions over whether the Lord President had amended any of his ‘overly protective’ plans announced in February, which have formed the bunk of debate & criticism since being proposed by Lord Hamilton as a way forward.
Mr MacKenzie, the petitioner said this afternoon : “I find it strange the Committee has proceeded in this way, apparently letting the Lord President off the hook on some very serious points of contention. They are not asking for a response to the specific points raised by the two MSPs on the Committee last Tuesday and their own minutes confirm that is indeed what was agreed to be done.”
A Holyrood insider also joined in criticising the Petitions Committee, expressing concern the Lord President had not been called in to be questioned on the issue. He said : “It appears the Committee said one thing then did something completely different. Not a very satisfactory outcome given the Lord President is to act on the McKenzie Friend issue at Monday’s Court of Session Rules Council meeting.”
He continued : “I would also have to say for what is a fundamental shift in the rights of court users to have a McKenzie Friend accompany them as never before in Scotland, it has been a significant failure of the Petitions Committee not to have invited Lord Hamilton in to be questioned over the issue. People must be left wondering why Lord Hamilton or the Petitions Committee have dodged such an open debate on the issue, preferring to exchange what can only be described as series of bizarre exchanges by letter.”
No one from the Scottish Parliament was available for official comment late yesterday, nor were enquiries acknowledged on exactly what the Committee had asked of the Lord President after their meeting last week.
Lord Hamilton dubbed ‘too protective’ of Scottish courts. MCKENZIE FRIENDS FOR SCOTLAND moved a little forward on the road to progress at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee earlier this week as independent MSP Margo MacDonald expressed the views of many consumer organisations & campaigners that Lord Hamilton’s plans as announced earlier in February to impose strict conditions on the appearance of McKenzie Friends(courtroom helpers who assist unrepresented party litigants by taking notes, suggestion questions to be asked, and quietly advising on court procedures, points of law) were “too protective”, ignoring the decades of English legal experience in McKenzie Friends appearing in courts south of the border.
Margo MacDonald – Lord President is being too protective and ignoring English experience on McKenzie Friends (click to view video) :
Margo MacDonald MSP. Margo MacDonald, speaking in support of Petition 1247, which aims to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, said : “I should put on record I have sympathy with the Lord President of the Council’s desire to try and ensure that the Scottish Courts system is as professional and as equitable as possible but I think he perhaps is too protective and he is ignoring the evidence of thirty years practice of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales McKenzie Friends in the court and I think the case is proved although its not within our own jurisdiction I don't think we would behave much differently in the situation which is what I imagine the Lord President is concerned about.”
Also, the question of a McKenzie Friend being an “absolute right” of any unrepresented court users came up for debate once more. Margo MacDonald said : “I think there should be a strong presumption of a McKenzie Friend and that should be enshrined in primary legislation. I think though that there should not be an absolute right to this and that a judge or sheriff should retain discretion to determine whether or not the normal conduct of the court is going to be hindered of harmed in any way it should be enhanced by having a McKenzie Friend there.”
Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend. The case that broke the forty year mould on McKenzie Friends in Scotland, Martin Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others saw Lord Woolman grant Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session in mid November 2009, albeit forcing the McKenzie Friend to sit behind the party litigant, Mr Wilson in one of Scotland’s longest running civil damages action cases. You can read more about this in an earlier article, here : First use of McKenzie Friend in Scotland as Court of Session sweeps aside 40 years of lawyers monopoly over public access to justice
Bill Butler MSP (Labour). Petitions Committee member Bill Butler MSP commented : “We should write to the Lord President of the Court of Session asking for a response to the concerns raised in the submission by Which? magazine’ specifically paragraphs 4-7 the petitioner particularly points to point 1.1 & 1.2 and Consumer Focus Scotland I also think we should ask the Lord President will each of these concerns be addressed and in the forthcoming Act of Sederunt that he intends to bring forward and if not why not.”
However, progress on the issue took a slight left turn as expected, Nigel Don, attempted to talk down the already announced plans of the Lord President, Lord Hamilton to force hopeful McKenzie Friends to sign absolute certificates with strict conditions before they are even allowed to appear in a Scottish court to assist & take notes for their party litigant
Nigel Don MSP (SNP): Petitions Committee member & Parliamentary liaison to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Nigel Don, speaking on the thorny point of Lord Hamilton’s plans to impose a certificate on those appearing as a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish Court, announced in February which I reported on earlier HERE, said “I think its fair to say the certificate as I see it is not a certificate it is anything other than as I understand this is an an important place to be and I understand I am in court and there are some responsibilities of receiving information and how I conduct myself equally people seem to be suggesting the experience is a kind of textbook exercise if you have not got enough experience you cannot be there.”
In England & Wales, and most other jurisdictions where McKenzie Friends have been used in courts around the world for up to forty years, there are apparently no such requirements of the forcible signing of certificates for those wishing to appear as a McKenzie Friend, who is simply there to assist an unrepresented party litigant by taking notes, suggesting questions and giving quiet advice on court procedures or acts of law.
Sources say the Act of Sederunt, which Lord Hamilton announced in February with his intention to bring forward for May 2010 is mostly finished, and remains of the view there be strict requirements of a certificate to be signed before a party litigant can use the services of a McKenzie Friend in Scotland’s courts. Apparently drafts of the Act of Sederunt floating around show there to be no flexibility on this issue of the certificate, despite Mr Don’s less than convincing argument the certificate issue will not be an absolute …
Mr Don also appeared to support the Lord President’s apparent hang up on whether McKenzie Friends could be paid for their time in a Scottish Court. Mr Don said : “I do know that the Lord President is suggesting the lay assistant should not be paid in any way at all and it seems to me if that is a line he wants to maintain people will find a way around it and I want to make sure we bring that to his attention as well.”
Margo MacDonald interceded, commenting that it has been suggested by Consumer Focus that a simple question asked by the judge or sheriff are you being paid for this if the person ‘tells a porky’ he can be put away for perjury.
Oddly enough, Consumer Focus Scotland are against McKenzie Friends receiving payment for their services to party litigants, this despite the fact McKenzie Friends in England & Wales, and many other international jurisdictions have for years been able to charge for their services without much dispute from courts.
However, today, some who have acted as McKenzie Friends in England & Wales questioned why Lord Hamilton has such a hang up over the issue of whether a McKenzie Friend can receive remuneration for their services.
While the Scottish Parliament & consumer groups argue over whether a McKenzie Friend can or cannot receive payment for their services, apparently on the ludicrous possibility of penalty of jail time, there is now case law in the English courts family division to support the right of a McKenzie Friend to charge for their services, where Mr Justice Munby, ruling over a case of costs arising from contentious contact and residence litigation between unmarried parents [N (A Child) [2009] EWHC 2096 (Fam)] concluded the child’s father's McKenzie Friend "is entitled to charge, if he can find clients willing to pay his fees, at an hourly rate which can hardly be said to be extravagant when contrasted with the fees one frequently finds being charged to privately paying clients in family cases".
One English solicitor of 30 years experience who in his spare time has appeared as a McKenzie Friend for an unrepresented party litigant said : “Lord Hamilton’s apparent desire to send any McKenzie Friend who asks for or receives money for their services in Scotland to a firing squad at dawn seems itself to be an obstruction to the many unrepresented party litigants even being able to obtain a McKenzie Friend in the first place. I think the Lord President’s hang-up over a Scottish McKenzie Friend receiving a fee for their services is more to do with lobbying from the legal profession rather than an interest in how well the conduct of the court proceeds.”
He continued : “I think it comes down to the fact that a McKenzie Friend might end up charging £30 an hour for his services, while solicitors and full legal teams can cost anything up to £5,000 an hour in Scotland’s Court of Session. Its not rocket science to work out the Scots legal profession are worried they are going to lose a lot of revenue if clients chose the unrepresented party litigant approach to court cases and employ a much cheaper yet effective McKenzie Friend than hiring an expensive legal team which might cost a lot but not win the case anyway. As I see things, it is this factor which is the real opposition to a McKenzie Friend being paid or not, not the actual smooth running of the court.”
Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend. The case that broke the forty year mould on McKenzie Friends in Scotland, Martin Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others saw Lord Woolman grant Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session in mid November 2009, albeit forcing the McKenzie Friend to sit behind the party litigant, Mr Wilson in one of Scotland’s longest running civil damages action cases. You can read more about this in an earlier article, here : First use of McKenzie Friend in Scotland as Court of Session sweeps aside 40 years of lawyers monopoly over public access to justice
Clearly as I have thought all along, the issue of bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts comes down to competition, and the fears of the legal profession they will lose business. Well, as far as I’m concerned, that's a good thing. If expensive legal teams are so expensive and so poor quality as we are forced to expect on a daily basis in the Scottish courts that they will often drag a case out for years, take it to all the courts in the land and achieve no success while presenting the litigant with bills for tens of thousands of pounds, then the legal profession deserve to lose the business.
The prospect of lost business for lawyers should not factor into the Lord President’s decisions on when and under what format to allow McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts, especially since the legal profession have been so effective at excluding McKenzie Friends from Scotland for the past forty years, simply, due to … greed.
What is your response to each of the concerns raised in the submission by Which? magazine, specifically in paragraphs 4 to 7 (PE1247/AA), the petitioner (PE1247/EE), particularly points 1.1 and 1.2 and Consumer Focus Scotland (PE1247/FF)?
Will each of these concerns be addressed in the forthcoming Act of Sederunt you intend to bring forward? If not, why not?
However, as has been noticed by many observers, the Lord President has already refused to answer the Petitions Committee’s earlier questions, put to the Lord President on 9 February 2010, where the Committee asked :
What is your answer to the concerns of the petitioner (PE1247/V) regarding the lack of awareness of the Court of Session about the existence of such a facility? How will this be addressed and when?
Can you confirm that there is a presumption in favour of a “McKenzie friend” to assist a party litigant, unless deemed unsuitable by the Court?
Now we must await to see whether the Lord President will this time, answer the Parliament substantively, or simply respond with plans which end up leaving more questions than answers, while also leaving the rights & entitlements of Scottish court users at a major disadvantage compared with our English colleagues …
Lord President Lord Hamilton.LORD HAMILTON, Scotland’s chief judge is to be asked by Parliament to ensure guidance and information is available to members of the public seeking to use a McKenzie Friend in Scottish Courts, after it emerged today that two months on from Lord Woolman's Court of Session ruling during November 2009 in Martin Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & others,granting the first use of a McKenzie Friend in Scotland, members of the public are still being given contradictory from the Courts Service on whether they can or cannot use a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish court.
Currently, there are only two recorded uses of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s civil courts, with both being forced to ‘sit behind’ the party litigant who requested their help & assistance, and no guidance yet exists on the Scottish Courts Service website or within Scottish court buildings, where litigants can find out how to request and use the services of a McKenzie Friend. Indeed, several reports have come in from individuals claiming many of Scotland's regional courts know nothing of the McKenzie Friend issue, in some instances court officials claiming McKenzie Friends are not allowed, while others say its possible but not yet written into law.
The Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, during its latest hearing on Petition 1247, McKenzie Friends for Scotland, debated the information provided by the Scottish Government, who claimed that information that a “mechanism of a supportive friend is already available in the Scottish Courts, in most cases, most of the time”, claims which were disputed by the Law Society, the Scottish Courts Service & Consumer Focus Scotland who all referred to the fact a “supportive friend” (a McKenzie Friend) had yet to be introduced to Scotland’s courts.
A Scottish Government insider claimed his colleagues in the Justice Department were reluctant to use the term “McKenzie Friend” as they had been caught short on the issue, after enquiries to the Scottish Courts Service revealed no such “supportive friends” (McKenzie Friends) had ever been used in civil cases in Scotland prior to Lord Woolman’s November ‘09 ruling, this coming after McKenzie Friends have been successfully used in England & Wales, and many other international jurisdictions for forty years.
He said : “There is no doubt about it. This 40 year gap where McKenzie Friends have effectively been kept out of Scotland by successive administrations and the legal profession, looks bad for all concerned. The Justice Secretary and Lord President who started this ‘supportive friend’ business both look a bit foolish for claiming something exists when clearly it does not and never has.”
McKenzie Friends for Scotland debated at Holyrood once more :
Margo MacDonald spoke further on McKenzie Friends. At last week’s Holyrood hearings on the McKenzie Friend petition, independent msp Margo MacDonald spoke further on the issue, saying : “The petition and the back-up material are self-evident. An opinion poll has been conducted and, although we should take the results with a pinch of salt, there is a consistent level of support—66 per cent—for the idea of McKenzie friends. We have had word from the bench—from on high—that it has always been open to litigants who defend themselves in Scottish courts, but there does not seem to be one view from the bench on the matter."
Margo MacDonald then went onto criticise the current regime in the Court of Session, which requires a McKenzie Friend to sit behind the party litigant they are in court to assist. Margo MacDonald said : “The view that figures in our papers has it that "a McKenzie Friend must sit behind" the person in court. That is of no use at all, as anyone knows, because people need someone beside them. It seems a nit-picking point, but it is a matter of whether the support or information that can be given to the person pleading their own case is functional or dysfunctional. I personally think that it is self-evident. We should just do it.”
Murdo Fraser MSP (Conservative) also attended the hearing in support of the McKenzie Friend petition, commenting on the level of support in Scotland for the introduction & use of McKenzie Friends saying : “I will briefly expand on that. Margo MacDonald has referred to the Which? survey. To be precise, I think that 85 per cent of Scots who were surveyed said that it would be useful to have a scheme whereby those who could not afford or find a lawyer could have a knowledgeable friend sitting beside them—that shows the level of support for the McKenzie friend.”
Petitions Committee heard that a survey from Which? showed 85% support in Scotland for McKenzie Friends. Murdo Fraser went on to criticise responses from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on the issue, which apparently avoid explaining the points under discussion. Mr Fraser continued : “I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the matter before Christmas, and I got a reply on 31 December, which considered the idea of legislation to amend the current rules so as to allow lay representatives rights of audience. That misses the point. Mr Mackenzie is not looking for rights of audience for McKenzie friends; he just wants them to have the right to sit beside the litigant in court, not behind them. That is the point that Margo made well. All that requires is a change in the court rules. The procedure is simple, and I am not aware of any serious policy objection to such a change happening—it just needs to happen.”
Clearly, as in England & Wales, McKenzie Friends could easily exist in Scottish courts, with a mere change in the court rules, rather than the elaborate proposals of a legislative amendment to the Legal Services Bill, currently under consideration by the Scottish Parliament. However, as the Scots legal establishment have proved, and are still proving resistive to change, including the introduction of McKenzie Friends as they are used in the rest of the UK, legislation may well be required to ensure the public get the right to use a McKenzie Friend, rather than leaving the issue to be decided at a judges discretion on a case by case basis, which of course, the judges appear to prefer at this time.
Margo MacDonald raised the question of a McKenzie Friend being a right, rather than being left to the judge. Ms MacDonald said : ”As I should have mentioned earlier, there is also some debate as to whether we want the judge to have the determining voice on the matter. Should it be a right? I am not quite sure about that. I cannot see anything about that aspect in the papers that have come back to us.”
Nigel Don MSP (SNP). Nigel Don, the Parliamentary Liaison to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill appeared to criticise the Lord President for presenting two meanings of a McKenzie Friend, i.e. the “supportive friend” which has led to much confusion inside & outside the Parliament on this petition. Nigel Don said : “The papers that are before us are interesting, and they demonstrate that certain people have got the wrong end of some sticks. There is clear confusion as to what on earth a McKenzie friend is supposed to be. I thought that the Lord President put it kindly, saying that there are two meanings of the term. Actually, there was only ever one, but some people did not bother to find out what it was before deciding to call it something else. We now have two meanings, and that is not helpful.”
Mr Don continued, attempting to resolve the Lord President’s dual terms on McKenzie friends, saying : “If we go back to the original meaning, which is a friend who sits beside the person in court and helps them through, it is not difficult. I think that the Lord President is saying that he thought there was no reason for the possibility not to be there, but the rest of the papers seem to indicate that it was actually never there. However, that seems to have changed within the past few weeks. We should take it that there has been a step in the right direction, and we should not worry about why exactly that happened. It might be coincident with what is happening with the petition.”
Mr Don continued, saying : “If we can persuade our legal brethren and the gentlemen and ladies on the bench that it would be a good idea for the friend to be allowed to sit beside the party litigant, that would help—as I am sure judges would agree.”
On the subject of the Scottish Government’s proposals to make an amendment to the Legal Services Bill, giving McKenzie Friends a right of audience, Mr Don was less than enthusiastic, indicating the plan may well be dropped in favour of allowing McKenzie Friends to operate in Scotland as they do in all other jurisdictions.
Mr Don said on the rights of audience matter : “We need to be careful in the Parliament not to start telling judges what to do. Parliament has given, and the courts have acknowledged, rights of audience for lawyers. It would be very difficult to start deciding what the rights of audience should be for people who are not qualified as lawyers. It rightly belongs to the judge on the bench to decide what is helpful in that respect and what is not helpful. We must be careful how to phrase any recommendations on that point.”
“The other meaning—or rather, misuse—of "McKenzie friend" involves extended rights of audience for lay folk in certain circumstances. I suggest that, however important that point is, that is not what the petition is about, and it never was about that. That is a substantial issue that will have to be addressed in its own right at some point if we think that it is important to do so. I suggest that we cut that issue off from the clear purpose of the petition.”
Bill Butler MSP (Scottish Labour) also supported the drive to allow McKenzie Friends to sit beside their party litigant in court, saying : “I think that we should write to the Scottish Government and to the Lord President of the Court of Session to ask whether they will recommend that McKenzie friends should sit beside, rather than behind, the litigant. Perhaps we can ask them to respond to the petitioner's concerns about the Court of Session's lack of awareness of the existence of such a facility. I take Nigel Don's point that the facility is always at the court's discretion, and we do not want to tell the Lord President what to do, but it seems that the Lord President is more than amenable to the system. We need to disseminate the information among those who hold court.”
After further suggestions from Margo MacDonald, Murdo Fraser supported the Committee's intentions of seeking clarity on the McKenzie Friends issue, saying : “Nigel Don made a fair point in suggesting that things seemed to be happening; I would like to think that that is the case. However, it would be better to have some clarity, so that anybody who turns up in court with a friend knows that they will not suddenly be told by the presiding judge, "No, your friend cannot sit beside you—I don't like the look of him. He will have to sit at the back of the court." I am inclined to agree with the course of action that Bill Butler proposes.”
The Scottish Government states in its submission (PE1247/S) that the “mechanism of a supportive friend is already available in the Scottish Courts, in most cases, most of the time” however, the submissions from the Civil Justice Committee of the Law Society of Scotland (PE1247/I), the Scottish Court Service (PE1247/K) and Consumer Focus Scotland (PE1247/H) still refer to the introduction of such facility rather than it already existing. Will it/the Lord President therefore encourage a more widespread use of a “McKenzie friend” when appropriate to “assist a party litigant and, with the court’s permission, to address the court”, as recommended in the Lord Gill's Civil Courts Review and how it will do so ?
Will it/the Lord President recommend that such “McKenzie Friend”should sit beside a party litigant and not behind them? If not, why not?
What is its/the Lord President’s answer to all the points raised by Murdo Fraser MSP and Margo MacDonald MSP during the discussion?
Lord President of the Court of Session—
What is your answer to the concerns of the petitioner (PE1247/V) regarding the lack of awareness of the Court of Session about the existence of such a facility? How will this be addressed and when?
Can you confirm that there is a presumption in favour of a “McKenzie friend” to assist a party litigant, unless deemed unsuitable by the Court?
So really this all boils down to getting the seating arrangements in order – just as everyone else in the world enjoys their McKenzie Friend sitting next to them, instead of the peculiarly & utterly useless Scottish solution currently in place where the McKenzie Friend sits behind their party litigant, and of course, ensuring there is a presumption of the right to have a McKenzie Friend assist a litigant, rather than the matter being left at the court’s discretion on a case by case basis.
You can find out more about the English courts guidance on using McKenzie Friends, HERE and read my earlier reports on bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland, the story so far
The facility of having a McKenzie Friend by one’s side in court has worked well in the rest of the world for decades. Surely we in Scotland can manage the same, even with the Law Society and Faculty of Advocates still shaking the bananas from the trees in protest ?
Holyrood’s Justice Committee heard regulation must be taken away from the Law Society of Scotland.THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING has told the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee the Law Society of Scotland should be stripped of its regulation role, to give better consumer protection in any reformed legal services market, after constant revelations in the media and in consumer groups investigations & public surveys of the legal profession’s constant habit of covering up complaints against the rising numbers of ‘crooked lawyers’ working in Scotland’s many law firms.
Office of Fair Trading & Which? call for independent regulation of legal services in Scotland.
The OFT, and Which? both reiterated their points that a separation of the Law Society’s regulatory role from the Society’s main function, which is to represent its member solicitors & law firms .. usually against the interests of clients and consumers, when a complaint arises challenging the conduct or service of a solicitor or law firm.
Sue Aspinal, team leader of the professions team at the OFT, said in reply to a question from Cathy Craigie MSP on the separation of the Law Society’s regulatory role : “From the evidence, we know that we are talking about public perception. If a body were to try to further the interests of both its membership and the public, tensions—even conflict—will arise. The best way in which to avoid conflict is to have a separation of the two roles.”
Julia Clarke, of consumer group Which? commented further on the issue, saying : “Which? believes that there should be a separation between the two functions. The system does not work satisfactorily, so it cannot be said that it is perfect. At the very least, particularly in terms of public perception, separating the two functions would be an improvement.”
Ms Clarke continued : “Obviously, the proposal for a lay majority and a lay chair is good news. That is progress, but our view is that there should be complete separation between the two functions. If that cannot be done, the proposed committee to advise the Government on future regulation is a way forward. It is important that its membership should be drawn from beyond the legal profession. It should certainly have a lay majority and a lay chair. It should be a statutory body because it is proposed that the Government will regulate the regulators. That is not ideal but, if it is to happen, it is important that we have a strong advisory body.”
After an additional question from Cathy Craigie MSP on whether consumers might benefit from more than one regulator in Scotland’s reformed legal services market, Sue Aspinall of the OFT replied : “Competition should normally have benefits for consumers unless there is a particular market in which it is best to have only one provider. The OFT's position is that approved regulators have an important role to perform in the way that they license and we hope that, if there is demand for a choice of approved regulator, that will develop the number of licensed legal services providers coming through, which will mean that there will be more such firms for consumers to choose from.”
Nigel Don MSP ‘ill informed’ over lack of client’s access to advocates. Justice Committee member Nigel Don MSP, also Parliamentary liaison to the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, entered the debate on the question of the Faculty of Advocates being left out of legal services reform, apparently putting forward Mr MacAskill’s own view that regulation of legal services by judges of the High Court, rather than consumer watchdogs, would be a preferable model. Mr Don also went onto make an outlandish, unsubstantiated claim that “0.5% of the population were not able to work through a solicitor to get the right advocate …”
Clearly Mr Don hasn’t spent much time with actual members of the public trying to pursue cases through the courts which require the services of an advocate. If he had, he would know his fantastic claim is well out ….
Nigel Don enquired : “I am told that 460 advocates practise in Scotland. That is a fairly small bunch of professional, highly qualified people. Do we really need a complicated structure for the regulation of 460 people who are regulated by the court anyway ?”
Julia Clarke, of Which"? replied : “The consumer principles are the same wherever people live in the UK. People are entitled to the same level of transparency and the same protections in the industry with which they are dealing. If services do not modernise, the consumer has no way of demanding their modernisation—they are just presented with what is available. If there is no opportunity for choice, the consumer cannot make their needs felt and must keep taking whatever is delivered. Unfortunately, that is the case at the moment.”
Nigel Don further added : “Would you not prefer to have a service—especially a legal one—that is regulated by the judges of the High Court rather than by some consumer watchdog? If I want lawyers, whose business is speaking to a court, to act professionally in my interests and the interests of justice, would I not much prefer them to be guided and regulated by the Lord President rather than by another organisation ?”
Julia Clarke of Which? replied : “I cannot see what is wrong with independent regulation that is properly regulated and comes with all the necessary safeguards. I think that everyone was keen that that should be in place and, by and large, that is what is proposed in the bill.”
Even some solicitors think Law Society is now ‘too crooked itself’ to be trusted with regulatory role. A solicitor described Mr Don’s comments this morning as ‘ill informed’, saying : “Mr Don should come in and ask some clients if he can follow their cases all the way to court. If he did he would realise that obtaining the services of an advocate is not like turning on a tap to get water.”
He went on : “We as a profession can fool ourselves as much as we want about who trusts the Law Society to regulate solicitors, but the fact is the public do not trust self regulation, nor do they have a reason to trust self regulation, certainly going by the numerous bad examples set by the Law Society. Putting the Lord President in charge, as Mr Don suggests, would probably only make matters worse from the public’s perspective, given the fact that even the Lord President was once himself, a lawyer.”
Over the next few days, more will be reported from the Justice Committee hearings on the Legal Services Bill, including coverage of Professor Alan Paterson’s evidence, and sessions with the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, and other sections of the legal profession who attended Parliament.
Scotland's Lord President Lord Hamilton.FORTY YEARS after McKenzie Friends entered into the English Courts system, Scotland's Chief Judge Lord Hamilton, the Lord President, is to be asked by the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee to implement McKenzie Friends in Scotland's courts, after growing calls from MSPs were made at this week's public petitions hearing on Petition 1247 (McKenzie Friends for Scotland) in support of implementing the long held right in England & Wales for courtroom assistance for unrepresented litigants.
Scottish Judge Lord Woolman claimed McKenzie Friends were a matter for Parliament, not the Court. However, while Lord Hamilton is to be asked by Parliament on the implementation of McKenzie Friends in his own courts, I can exclusively reveal the first test request of a McKenzie Friend since the publication of Lord Gill's Civil Justice Review last week FAILED after High Court judge Lord Woolman rejected a request for a McKenzie Friend last Friday, made by a party litigant in a 'high value' damages case. It transpires this was the second refusal by the Court to allow the request of appearance of a McKenzie Friend in the same case, the Court claiming on this latest occasion that this was a matter for, and currently being discussed by, the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Gill’s recommendations on McKenzie Friends were tossed aside by fellow judges the day after publication. The courts resistance to allowing a McKenzie Friend, even apparently against the recommendations of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review, sets the scene for an extraordinary tussle between the Scottish Parliament and Scotland's Judiciary over the Courts responsibilities to ensure fair & equal access to justice for both sides, with, on one side, the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee seeking to persuade Lord Hamilton to introduce McKenzie Friends in Scotland's Courts, and elements of the Judiciary on the opposing side, claiming it is a matter solely for the Parliament, and nothing to do with the court.
While it appears Scotland's judiciary, along with the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, and even the Scottish Government are all opposed in some way or another to the introduction of a McKenzie Friend to assist party litigants, the English courts introduced the McKenzie Friend facility without much problem some forty years ago.
The English legal system, along with their courts and legal services market, did not collapse into anarchy, as the Scottish legal profession seem to be claiming will happen if McKenzie Friends were introduced in Scotland. Rather it appears the driving force behind objections from the Scottish legal establishment to the introduction of McKenzie Friends, are solely based on the fact solicitors will lose fees if the public decide to take a McKenzie Friend along with them to court, instead of a costly 20,000 plus solicitor & legal team who may very well end up ruining their case as the statistics seem to indicate in Scotland's currently poorly served legal services market.
Now, to the report of this week's Petitions Committee hearing.
Holyrood's gem, Margo MacDonald speaks in support of McKenzie Friends petition, joined by the petitioner's constituency MSP, Murdo Fraser.
Margo MacDonald spoke of a McKenzie Friend 'being a right' in England & Wales. Margo MacDonald attended this week's Petitions Committee hearing and spoke further on the advantages of allowing McKenzie Friends in Scotland's courts. Margo MacDonald said : "This is a system of support for litigants in courts which has been running successfully in England for a long time. It seems to offer a greater level of support and a feeling of security for many people going into court to plead for themselves. The McKenzie Friend does not plead directly for them, the McKenzie Friend offers advice quietly given perhaps hands over relevant papers at the relevant time perhaps back up work"
"I’ve looked at the response from Lord Gill because it was referred to the Faculty of Advocates who said 'we will wait to see what Lord Gill's review says' and he's not all that keen, but I think most parts of the Scottish legal establishment are not all that keen on having lay people in court and they are very very careful about it"
"Now I think they do so for reasons I approve of in they want to maintain their very high standards of advocacy and protection of the client in the Scottish courts but in this one i think we could take a leaf out of what happens in the English courts and add a greater level of support for litigants who may be rather overawed by court procedure"
Margo MacDonald also reminded the Petitions Committee that having a McKenzie Friend in England & Wales was a right, and not something which should be under the sole approval of a Sheriff or the court, stating : "Lord Gill I think suggests it should be up to the sheriff to decide whether or nota McKenzie Friend would be allowed to be alongside the litigant whereas in England I think they have a right to be there"
Scottish Conservative Murdo Fraser MSP also supports the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland. Murdo Fraser, attending the Petitions Committee in support of the McKenzie Friends Petition said "Mr MacKenzie is a constituent of mine and I'm happy to be here to support the petition because I actually agree with everything Margo MacDonald has just said."
He continued :"Can I say I think the proposal from Mr MacKenzie is a very reasonable proposal and makes a sensible suggestion. The McKenzie friend is there to provide assistance to a party litigant. It was interesting to read the response on the Civil Courts Review which very much majored on the issue of whether the McKenzie Friend should be given rights to be heard in court. Now as I understand from Mr MacKenzie that is not the issue. He is not actually seeking for the McKenzie Friend to be heard in court. All he is seeking is the right of a party litigant to bring somebody with them to sit beside them and provide them with assistance."
"There is nothing I read in the representations that really strongly argue against that. The proposal is supported by Which?, the Scottish Consumer Council and Money Advice Scotland. I think it would be a fairly simple thing to introduce and I think it would be very much to the benefit of party litigants and improve the justice system."
Nigel Don MSP, Petitions Committee member and Parliamentary liaison officer to Kenny MacAskill Nigel Don said "Can I first recognise that previous contributors have brought out the distinction between those who are there as a friend and those who are there as a right of audience which is one I wanted to make sure we covered."
He continued : "It does seem to me from everything so far that I've heard this is something the court could introduce themselves. I don't think it took Lord Gill to say it would be a good idea. In fact I think he has gone beyond McKenzie Friend as you said, and therefore I wonder whether in fact the first person we should write to is actually the Lord President because it is he who runs the courts and ask him whether there are any plans within the courts system to alter their practice because it is he who presides over them as the government doesn't actually deal with this."
"We might secondly want to write to the government asking its attitude but I think we should start by asking the Lord President if whether he feels there is something he can do. I think he can but he is the judge of that and whether he is minded to do so."
By way of response to that, Margo MacDonald pointed out the precedent of having a McKenzie Friend in Scotland may have already been established in the Scottish Land Court
Petitions Committee member Bill Butler MSP (Scottish Labour). Bill Butler said "Just to say I agree with everything that been said. We have some quotes from Lord Gill's review where he's very careful with the phraseology he uses or employs, he's for it and in certain circumstances a person being able to address the court on behalf of a party litigant. I do think we should follow Nigel’s suggestions and write to the government asking if they will come on board."
While the Petitions Committee has agreed to write to Lord Hamilton in the terms specified, in all honesty I do not think Lord Hamilton will budge on the issue of McKenzie Friends, or indeed many of the other reforms in Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review, which appear to be on the ‘watering down list’ at the Scottish Government’s Justice Department. Even if the Lord President does manage to do something on McKenzie Friends without the need of a legislative push, we can be assured there will be a set of intolerable conditions that no English court, or indeed any court in other national jurisdictions where McKenzie Friends exist, would accept.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill blamed Lord Hamilton for delays in rights of audience approvals. We only need to look back to how the Lord President and the Scottish Government handled the introduction of wider rights of audience, via Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Scotland Act 1990, where after about ten years of the Association of Commercial Attorneys filing applications for rights of audience, a blame game broke out between Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and Lord Hamilton over who was delaying longer than the other, which I reported on earlier, here : Justice Secretary MacAskill blames Lord President for delays in ‘access to justice’ applications row and which you can watch via video clip, here :
The Blame Game : Kenny MacAskill piles blames for access to justice delays on Lord Hamilton.
McKenzie Friends for Scotland should be introduced without further delay. However, given the continuous resistance from the legal profession and the courts system itself, I feel there must be legislation to ensure there are proper rules laid down on the use of McKenzie Friends, and the right of an individual to request and receive the services of a McKenzie Friend laid down in no uncertain terms to the court, a right that people in the rest of the United Kingdom enjoy.
You can read my earlier reports about McKenzie Friends and the campaign to introduce them to Scotland's courts system, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland
