Talk of Judicial Reforms enters Scottish Election as Labour claim the high ground on Justice system

One area of rather noticeable neglect in the recent spate of election articles all over the Scottish media - is that of which party will do what with our failing legal system.

An unimportant issue then perhaps ? Certainly not. If we don't have an effective and honest legal system in our own country, then we don't have much, do we ...

The first party to jump on this issue, has been Labour, with announcements from Cathy Jamieson, the Justice Minister, and First Minister Jack McConnell that recent ideas such as the "Judicial Appointments Board" actually turn into reality .. although from what we saw last year, the opposition from the Judiciary itself will be considerable to any perceived interference in it's current 'old boys club' operation.

Well, while we are waiting to hear from the other political parties on this issue, I'd have to say one thing - Labour do have a track record in this area - we did, after all, get the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act (2007) Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act (2007) ... which I have a feeling no other political party would have given us.

Download a full copy of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 in pdf format HERE

Yes of course, we didn't get everything we wanted with the LPLA (Scotland) Act ... and there are still a few loose ends where the legal profession have more control over matters than they really should - but it was a start, and that is definitely to be built on, as the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission takes shape and begins operation.

I would like to say the SNP would also have given us such legislation, but my attention has been drawn to various outbursts from Kenny MacKaskill (the future SNP Justice Minister) who regards victims of the legal profession in rather worrying derogatory terms .. to the point I would hope Alex Salmond would take note of and appoint someone with more neutrality to the post of Justice Minister, if the SNP do win in May.

Would the LibDems do anything positive for the Scottish legal system ? I think not.

Actually, LibDem peers from the House of Lords were brought in by the Law Society of Scotland to defeat the LPLA (Scotland) Act, threatening court action against the Scottish Parliament itself if legislation was passed making complaints against lawyers an independently scrutinised process ...

LibDem peer Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC was intent on arguing it was against the Human Rights of crooked Scottish lawyers to be independently investigated ! .. so I don't think we can expect anything positive from the LibDem party .. who after all, took funding from a convicted criminal and didn't hand it back ...

The Conservatives may do something positive for the Scottish legal system them ? .. well perhaps they may, but the tories don't stand a chance of power, and with the likes of David McLetchie still in the party, I think the tories would be more intent on repealing the LPLA (Scotland) Bill, like the LibDems .. than helping the victims of injustice ...

As for the rest of the parties in the election, well, we can certainly trust Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers to do something about the Judicial system .. and you can find out more about their policies and candidates here Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers

Following article reporting on pledges on reforming Judges comes from the Daily Record, links in the headlines... and before anyone accuses me of being a Labour supporter - remember my politics are neutral - I'm reporting on the facts and events, not here to promote anyone over the other. If you want me to run stories on the other parties and their plans for tackling injustice or legal reform - send them in please.

WE'LL BOOT OUT THE DUD JUDGES

McConnell in election pledge
Exclusive by Magnus Gardham

LABOUR will today unveil plans to sack out-of-touch judges.

Jack McConnell will promise tough powers to discipline and dismiss judges if he is still First Minister after May 3.

The move follows public outrage over lenient sentences.

McConnell will pledge to beef up the Judicial Appointments Board, set up to end secrecy surrounding judicial appointments.

The independent board, who include lay people, will be given statutory powers to discipline and sack badly performing High Court judges, sheriffs principal, sheriffs and part-time sheriffs.

At present, judges can be sacked by the head of the judiciary in Scotland, the Lord President - but the process can take years.

The proposed powers would be set out in a Bill within the first year of a new Labour government.

The move will be controversial - the legal establishment has hit out before at what it sees as attempts to undermine judges' independence. But a source close to McConnell said: "The public can lose faith in the legal system when they see decisions that are not credible, mainly because judges have been too lenient."

In one of the most infamous cases of recent years, sex beast James Taylor, of Grangemouth, was jailed for just five years for raping a baby and taking pictures of the attack.

The source added: "We want a system where judges can be held to account and disciplined for poor performance.

"Judges will still be free to be independent but the wider public interest has to be taken into account too."

The move will be announced by McConnell and Cathy Jamieson as they highlight Labour's commitment to fighting crime.

It comes after a poll showed Labour had overtaken the SNP. The Scottish Opinion poll for a Sunday paper said 35 per cent of voters backed Labour compared with 32 per cent for the Nats.

But a poll a week ago gave the SNP a 12-point lead and reaction to the latest findings was cautious.

JUDGES SHOULD ALSO BE JUDGED

TOUGH powers to sack out-of-touch judges are on the cards if Labour win on May 3.

The move is designed to make them more accountable and put the power to dispense with them back in the hands of politicans and public opinion.

To be fair, Scotland's judges are more in tune than their colleagues down south.

There have been outcries over lenient sentences in recent times.

And there is no reason why judges should not face the same scrutiny as senior civil servants, head teachers and others with highly responsible public sector jobs.

The move will no doubt be seen by the legal establishment as an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

But under the existing format, it can take years to get rid of a poorly performing judge.

The recently created Judicial Appointments Board, who will exercise the new powers, were greeted with suspicion when they were set up.

But they work well and have now been accepted. They ensure the legal old boys' network can no longer hire judges over a G&T at the golf club.

If Labour get their way, the board will bring the same spirit of openness to ensuring judges continue to be up to scratch.

Small claims limits in Scotland restricted to £750 for the last 18 years by the legal profession for their own interests.

The question of a raise in the limits in small claims actions from the £750 it has been for the past 18 years, to a proposed £1500 has long been on the cards .. but why the big delay ?

What could be holding up the issue of a rise in the limit of damanges you could claim in a small claims action against the likes of a crooked builder, or even a crooked lawyer ?

Just why, should the limit for small claims in Scottish Law, be restricted to £750, which it has been for 18 years, when in England & Wales, the limit is £5000 and has been since 1999 ?

It's all about the control freakery of the Scottish legal profession - wishing to protect it's business and restrict who gets into court on what types of cases.

It's not about honesty, it's about the corrupt power politics of the legal profession. and a few of it's allies in high places, which is holding up the progress of the rise in limits of small claims actions ... and those prominent in the obstruction of this issue progressing further, in the public interest, is Digby Brown Solicitors, and Thompsons.

Digby Brown are well known for their political affiliations, particularly to the Labour Party, where former partners such as Douglas Alexander sit in Government .. and many other former partners have attained promotion to Sheriff under in some instances, what could be called, questionable circumstances ...

A more little known issue relating to some of the partners of Digby Brown .. is the partners complaints records .. where it seems some of those at the firm, have had very serious client complaints made against them .. which of course, have been whitewashed by the Law Society of Scotland ... strange it may seem, that some partners who have been accused of various actions against clients, including things which would see ordinary people locked away for a spell in jail, would go on to be Sheriffs ... judging others who have been up to the same thing .. but who haven't had the advantage of their own regulatory body to wipe their records clean and bury evidence & client complaints against them ...

Some of the other opponents of higher limits to small claims, include trade unions, who have been invagled into the debate against giving the consumer more power in this area, alleging that more radical redress would deny legal redress to thousands of Scots by taking them out of the legal aid net.

What legal aid net is that ? Try and make any kind of a claim against the likes of a crooked accountant, a crooked lawyer or another crooked professional, and ask for legal aid, invariably, the claimaint will have their chances of legal aid ruined by that professional's governing body. The Law Society of Scotland are pretty famous in this regard .. and many other regulatory bodies ensure that most damages claims made against their members which require legal aid .. are killed off.

The lawyers may argue that it will take people out of the legal aid net - that's rubbish. Anyone who has a controversial claim and needs legal aid - gets their application for legal aid challenged by the lawyers & their allies - and the case never makes it to the court ... plenty examples of that - and remember, even the Scottish Legal Aid Board is staffed by solicitors who are members of the Law Society of Scotland - and some of those lawyers over at SLAB are pretty crooked themselves ... having on-the-side meetings with crooked lawyers & legal firms whose names appear in negligence actions of clients making applications for legal aid funding.

I think we all need to campaign on this issue, and ensure the limit for small claims in Scotland matches the rest of the UK.

Don't listen to those parrots of the legal profession & their allies, telling us it's better for Scotland to have a small limit on the small claims process. That's nonsense. All this does is restrict who can get into court on such cases, and keep most of the business for the lawyers.

Scottish law is certainly not better than English law.

We have to get this idiocy out of our system here in Scotland.

Simply being told that Scots law is better than English law by a bunch of crooked lawyers and their allies, doesn't make it so, and time & again, we have seen that anyone who tries to take on big business or crooked professions who have their own powerful self regulatory bodies in Scotland, get nowhere. So, where is the great Scots law then ? - nowhere.

Read on for the bitter struggle ofconsumer organisations & campaigners seeking increases in the limits of small claims in line with the rest of the UK, while the selfish, corrupt, Scottish legal profession put the brakes on yet more reforms designed to help the consumer, keeping limits of small claims in line with it's own interests, protecting it's own business empire and ensuring only those get to court who don't pose a threat to it.

Link from The Herald, at : http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/69760.html

Higher threshold for small claims is still a long way off
PAUL ROGERSON September 11 2006

The prospect of a long-promised increase in Scotland's low threshold for small claims before next year's Holyrood elections appears remote. Deputy justice minister Hugh Henry last week declined the opportunity to pledge he will produce proposals to raise the current £750 limit before the polls in May.

By then it will be two years since Henry promised to act "sooner rather than later" and eight years since the justice minister recommended that the limit be lifted to £1500.

Scottish consumer groups continue to despair that for people wanting compensation from a supplier of shoddy goods or services without the expense of hiring a lawyer the effective maximum is £750 – less than the cost of a plasma TV.

That limit has been frozen for 18 years, whereas in England and Wales the small claims ceiling is £5000 and has been since 1999.

Consumer body Which? describes the current system as a "charter for cowboys" and has come across examples of Scots pursuing their cases in the English courts.

So why the inertia? Is this yet another example of the daunting power of the lawyers' lobby?

Perhaps not. Opponents of higher limits, which include trade unions, allege that more radical redress would deny legal redress to thousands of Scots by taking them out of the legal aid net.

"The issue is not about whether there should be an increase but what the levels should increase to," Henry told The Herald. "I accept that progress has not been speedy but we want to get this right. We also want to ensure that any changes have the clear support of Parliament. We have to look for a balance between the level of claim and the number of people able to access justice. Quite simply, the higher the small claims limit is set, fewer litigants will qualify for legal aid – because legal aid is not payable in small claims. This is not an easy balance to strike."

Among those in frequent contact with the Justice Department on the issue have been the personal injury firms Digby Brown and Thompsons, both of which have had close links with the Labour Party and trade unions and are or have been party donors.

Personal injury claims are to be excluded from increases in the small claims threshold if and when the executive acts. This is good news for firms specialising in this area, which will in consequence be able to continue reclaiming their expenses, a state of affairs which makes 'no-win, no fee' cases a paying proposition.

In the small claims court, expenses are capped at £75.

Henry said: "Exclusion of PI actions from small claims has been executive policy for some considerable time.

This was the stated policy when the subject was debated in the Parliament in 2001, when Jim Wallace MSP was Justice Minister."

He added: "PI actions are often complex to pursue and to prove, both legally and because there is often a need to obtain and rely on medical evidence to establish a case. Small claims procedure is designed to be quick and efficient, encouraging resolution of disputes without the involvement of lawyers and without legal aid being available. For that reason expenses are capped at £75.

"Small claims can often be a useful means of pursuing relatively straightforward disputes over, say, defective consumer goods. PI actions are very different and are not always appropriate for the more informal procedures which are suitable for small claims. For those reasons we accept that an exception should be made for PI actions."

Digby Brown and Thompsons have continued to lobby the executive on the issue of small claims, even though it is understood that the exclusion of PI cases has long been a done deal.

Thompsons' Patrick McGuire said: "We totally accept the logic of increasing small claims limits for consumer cases like a row over a plasma screen TV. But personal injury claims must be excluded from any increase or the right to justice of millions of trade union and other injury victims will be destroyed.

"Personal injury legislation is a hugely complex area of the law which must be heard in the Court of Session to ensure consistency and justice. Unless personal injury claims are excluded they would end up being heard in the lower courts and that would lead to inconsistency and massively undermine the protection health and safety legislation provides for trade union members and other workers.

"It is simply nonsense to suggest that there is any correlation between the level of damages and the complexity or importance of the legal issues involved in personal injury claims."

"If small claims limits are raised, Scotland must follow England's example where the limit is £5000 but personal injury cases are excluded."

Digby Brown could not be reached for comment.

Scottish lawyers resort to virtual terrorist tactics to blackmail more legal aid money from the Scottish taxpayer ...

Scottish lawyers are shocking and disgraceful ... and should be ashamed of themselves ... words from Jack McConnell .. the Scottish First Minister.

Well, Mr McConnell is of course, correct ..., and Peter Cherbi and the thousands of clients of Scottish lawyers who have known this and much more, for decades would agree too - so my message to Jack McConnel would be something like - put on the steam and get the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill through it`s stages with some more thought for the public rather than this gang of lawyers who have controlled reform of the legal system for so long in Scotland and have now sunk to virtual terrorist tactics to try and gain more loot for their merriement .. by threatening to allow the likes of sex offenders to go unpunished to get their wicked way with more of the taxpayers legal aid money to prop up their personal offices and spending habits .. which are still heavily subsidised by either embezzling client`s finds or ripping off and overcharging clients all over Scotland for shoddy work.　

Of course, this current boycott of sex cases by Scottish lawyers has to be viewed as part of the overall plan by the legal profession to resist ANY reform to their activities and business markets which lawyers have enjoyed for far too long in Scotland - unfettered by any form of proper independent regulation ... and with the upcoming planned reforms of the legal profession in the new "Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill" .. which will introduce much higher fines for crooked lawyers, and independent complaints procedures ... the legal profession, managed by the Law Society of Scotland, feels that it could be getting too tough for it`s members to defraud clients and steal their money - just as they have been doing for decades.

It is therefore not much of a surprise, we now have a slippery slope of planned action taking place by the legal profession - to blackmail the Government into stalling or abandoning pro-consumer reforms ... and this latest tactic by the various Bar Associations .. is little more than that ... of course - the Bar Associations would deny this .. and of course, the Law Society of Scotland would stay out of any blame of organising such a devious and despicable campaign of terror against pro-consumer reforms ... but those of us in the know - like me, are well aware of the lengths the legal profession will go to protect their established business practices ... - remember people, we are talking about business markets worth hundreds of millions of pounds and more, annually .. so who would want to give this up ? and who would want to let go of taxpayers money which is also provided for legal work (except suing a crooked lawyer of course).

Just think of it .. if the Scottish Executive were to announce that legal aid for clients trying to sue negligent lawyers was to be cut to a few pounds ... do you think that all the Bar Associations would stop representing clients in other cases with public threats in pet newspapers ?, or jam up the courts system with delaying tactics, no shows, protests to the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Scottish Executive, and Scottish Parliament ? no, they surely wouldn`t ... instead .. it would all go off with a whisper .. because of course, it`s not in any lawyers interest to sue another lawyer just because they have ripped off a client .. and as is often the case .. the lawyers who do take on clients who are suing crooked lawyers .. often rip off the poor client again, because they know the Law Society of Scotland wont do a damn thing against them.

Of course, I would admit - I know of a few lawyers in Scotland who do a lot of good work to represent their clients ... about 5 .. . perhaps there are a few more、. but not many more by the looks of the complaints statistics of 5000 + complaints per year against less than 10,000 Scottish lawyers !

So, reforms of the legal aid system are good - because the truth is - thousands of lawyers in Scotland have been milking the legal aid system for years .. as well as milking their clients funds at the same time ... so we shouldn`t really have any sympathy at all for this lot - and if they don`t think they are getting enough money .. well .. they can always go and do something else .. but then again .. what other job or profession has so many benefits where they can steal and rip off clients funds to their hearts content and nothing is done about it ? ... think about that !

Read on for the articles, from "The Scotsman". link at :http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=850322006

McConnell raises the stakes with furious attack on solicitors
MICHAEL HOWIE

JACK McConnell yesterday launched an astonishing attack on the "shocking and disgraceful" stance of lawyers who have voted to boycott sex crime cases - accusing them of risking public safety and saying they "should be ashamed of themselves".

The First Minister spoke out in the Scottish Parliament as the pledge by lawyers to refuse to take sex cases in a row over legal aid payments threatened to spread across the country.

Bar associations in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Hamilton and Dumbarton, representing more than half of Scotland's legal aid lawyers, will boycott cases from 1 August unless a settlement can be reached with the Scottish Executive over payments.

Lawyers spearheading the move angrily rejected the First Minister's criticism and accused the Executive of "arrogance" by ignoring requests to meet to discuss their concerns.

Last night, The Scotsman learned several other bar associations, including Paisley, Elgin, Dumfries, Falkirk and Greenock, are expected to back the boycott, which is targeting sex offence cases because those accused of such crimes are not allowed to cross-examine witnesses in court; without a defence agent, trials cannot go ahead.

Mr McConnell told MSPs an interim pay rise of 8 per cent for court work and 5 per cent for other work was on the table and ministers were ready to discuss the "considerable" offer with the Law Society of Scotland.

He said fees for solemn criminal work - the most serious cases which go before a jury - were increased in 2004 by 15 per cent for advocacy and by above-inflation rates for other areas of work.

"With such substantial increases already delivered and on offer, I think it is shocking and disgraceful that, in order to heighten public concern and scare the public into putting pressure on us, the lawyers in the Glasgow Bar Association have particularly threatened to create chaos in the prosecution of sex offences," Mr McConnell said.

"They should be ashamed of themselves. They should call this off and they should get round the table and discuss this with the justice department officials and then with the justice ministers to reach a solution."

If sufficient lawyers join the boycott, it raises the possibility that those accused of serious sex crimes may not be able to appear in court within the legal time- frame and so could walk free without a trial. Mr McConnell said contingency plans involving public-sector lawyers would be put in place if the "irresponsible threat" were carried out.

"I can see no justifiable reason for legal professionals to put public safety at risk," he said.

Lawyers say the pay offer is derisory, given there has been almost no increase in criminal legal aid since 1992. Solicitors receive ￡66.40 an hour for court appearances and ￡44.20 for preparation and for waiting in court for cases to be called.

But they say they are left with only a fraction of this once overheads are covered, and they are demanding that the Executive delivers on a pledge made four years ago for a revised pay structure for the most serious cases.

Gerry McClay, the president of the Glasgow Bar Association, said: "Mr McConnell says the offer on the table is considerable. But that offer amounts to ￡2 an hour to deal with murders, rapes and other sexual offences. That's not acceptable."

Vincent McGovern, of the Hamilton association,claimed the deputy justice minister, Hugh Henry, had ignored repeated requests for a meeting.