Lockerbie ruling on disclosure may see Scots stripped of their lawyers in controversial court cases.

Its not often I cover aspects of criminal law but the care of the Lockerbie bombing as it was held under Scots Law has once again reared its head to affect the rest of us five million Scots who also have to depend on the law and live with it.

Yesterday in the Herald newspaper, there was a report of an alarming development in the Lockerbie case, where the Lord Advocate will go to Court to have special "security vetted' advocates represent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi in the hearing to decide if confidential documents are to be made public which may have a significant bearing on Mr Megrahi's conviction for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

From the Herald story :

"The Crown Office will ask judges to bypass the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and appoint special security-vetted advocates to represent him in a court hearing to decide whether a previously confidential document should be made public.

If the bid for a closed-door session is successful, it would be the first time in Scotland that such a step has been taken in a criminal case"

Such a move does indeed appear to be a first in Scots Law ... but all things being equal these days, such a power granted to the Crown to remove an accused's legal representation in favour of one it feels 'comfortable with' could so easily be used at will in attempts to stall or simply close down cases which involve serious injustice.

It boils down to this - If the Lord Advocate gains the power to strip a defendant's lawyers in favour of Crown "vetted" or appointed legal agents, any defendant in a case subsequently before the court in a criminal matter could face the possibility to lose their legal team simply on the basis that issues contained in their case are not in the public or Crown's interest to be examined with any regard to a person's right to a fair hearing and once that power is granted, it is there to be used any time, as the Lord Advocate feels applicable.

So ... Crown doesn't like your lawyer, but you might stand a chance of winning a case or perhaps an appeal against a wrongful conviction, showing the Crown case up or proving evidence is withheld ... Crown applies the procedure to you, you lose your own lawyer and one, perhaps less willing to push your case is appointed.

Civil law could also be affected where perhaps you are suing the NHS, a local Council, perhaps a Chief Constable, or another arm of Government for negligence, damages, breach of human rights, etc...

When it looks like your legal team is about to win your case, or reveal embarrassing evidence in Court which proves your position, the other side comes along and applies successfully to remove your own lawyers with a selection of their own due to the nature or effect that embarrassing evidence' in your possession will have on public perception of the law or possible revelations the arm of Government you were taking to court was much less than honest to you and a great many others, like for example, in the contaminated blood products scandal which still has no resolution in sight ...

Oh yes, I've heard the excuse - 'It's only for this case ... don't worry, we won't apply it to anyone else..' but in these times where laws & powers are used for anything and a great many issues completely outwith their original intention, can anyone really be sure the temptation to use this 'great power' of removing a legal team from a controversial case may not be used again ?

I think all told the evidence from society in general suggests that rights to a fair hearing could certainly be in danger if on a whim, your lawyers are taken from you just because the other side fear you will win ...

Such is the strength of this issue, I would have expected a comment from the Justice Secretary given the fact there are another five million of us in Scotland who need to depend on the law other than just the Mr Megrahi, that the issue merits a statement on what exactly is going on and what impact it will have on the rest of us and our use & access to justice in Scotland.

Surely Mr MacAskill's 'hands-off & no comment' approach to such major issues affecting the Scots legal system is not in our national interest ? It is perhaps, the very distance the Justice Secretary is generating by his lack of comment & action which may very well be allowing the Crown Office to do as it pleases in case after case, not simply the issues affecting the Lockerbie trial.

I would also have expected a little bit more comment, dare I say .. protest ... from the likes of the Law Society of Scotland on this matter, who profess to be one of the great defenders of the public interest in Scotland, but who seem to go awfully quiet when it doesn't suit them to say or do something.

To save the day, we might have to rely on the judiciary themselves who have spent most of this year so far arguing for judicial independence.

Would a judge or judges agree it is in the best interests of the law and the rest of us that someone be deprived of their own lawyers if it looks like they are actually going to win their case ? ... Some may say that is a simplistic view of the situation perhaps, but it is accurate and to the point.

Remember, we all have to live with and depend on Scots Law. It cannot be twisted simply to suit the aims of some who do not wish their actions or inactions examined in the full glare of court which may have caused injustice or miscarriage of justice to one or a great many of us ordinary Scots ...

The Herald reports :

Bid to ban Lockerbie lawyers in secrets hearing

LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter

Prosecutors will next week attempt to throw an unprecedented veil of secrecy over the appeal of the Lockerbie bomber.

The Crown Office will ask judges to bypass the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi and appoint special security-vetted advocates to represent him in a court hearing to decide whether a previously confidential document should be made public.

If the bid for a closed-door session is successful, it would be the first time in Scotland that such a step has been taken in a criminal case.

However, the tactic will fuel suspicions that the Crown is going to unusual lengths to preserve the UK's current diplomatic relations with other nations.

The paperwork, which originated in an unknown foreign country, is thought to contain vital information about the electronic timer which detonated the bomb that killed 270 people in the skies over Lockerbie.

It is not known if political pressure has been exercised directly on the Crown, but there have been previous instances in the Megrahi case where Britain's changed attitudes to foreign states since 1988 have played a key role in the legal process.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has already said the document should remain confidential.

It was uncovered during the three-year investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which resulted in the case being referred back to the courts for a new appeal last summer. The commission concluded the failure during the original trial to disclose the document could constitute a miscarriage of justice. Although the Crown allowed the commission to see the material, it has refused to disclose it to Megrahi's defence team.

The Crown's latest move is expected to anger further his lawyers, who believe the failure to disclose the document calls into question the ultimate right to a fair appeal.

The request will be made on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal when the decision on whether to grant the defence access to the document is to be debated.

The Crown is expected to ask for the hearing to be held behind closed doors in the absence of the defence, who would be represented by special advocates. Public Interest Immunity hearings of this kind in criminal cases have previously been held only south of the border, where there is a statutory system in place, and a list of special advocates.

Megrahi's defence team has made it clear that it needs to see the document in order to proceed with the appeal, and has accused the UK Government of "interference" in the appeal.

If the prosecution denies access to the paper, Megrahi's lawyers are expected to argue that the conviction should be quashed because, without it, their client's right to a fair trial would be breached.

One legal expert said: "This is entirely unprecedented in Scotland."

A spokesman for the Crown Office said the court hearing is to be from from May 27 to 29 in Edinburgh. "It is not possible to provide further comment," he said.

Injustice campaign ends in death of victim Stuart Gair as questions remain over Crown Office failings

For some in the legal system this week, it will be a time of celebration, as Mr Stuart Gair, a victim of a terrible injustice sadly died before receiving compensation for false imprisonment or a true accounting of why he went to jail and who was to blame for his injustice.

Mr Stuart Gair, who was jailed in 1989 for a murder he did not commit, died earlier this week of a heart attack, after spending 17 years protesting his innocence, and successfully seeing the Court of Appeal quash his murder conviction and the Judges attack the failure of the Crown Office to disclose witness statements to his lawyers.

A quote from the Scotsman newspaper article :

Jailed for life, he served 12 years but protested his innocence from day one. He was released in 2000 pending an appeal, but it took a further six years before his conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh in July last year. He insisted he had been the victim of a police frame-up.

Mr Gair, originally from Alloa, was cleared after it was ruled he had suffered a miscarriage of justice. In the judgment delivered by the Appeal Court, Lord Abernethy said it meant "the defence were deprived of a powerful argument on the crucial issue of identification".

Failure to disclose ... a common tactic of the Crown in many prosecutions has become an almost common factor in cases of injustice in the criminal legal system these days, and still the Scottish Executive Government have done nothing with regard to reforming laws on disclosure, although as recent reviews recommended reforms, we have yet to see any movement in the slow area of Scots Law on this issue.

I said earlier there would be celebrations in some quarters over the untimely death of Mr Gair, and I'm not just being cynical, I'm speaking from experience.

Those who caused Mr Gair's injustice, to be locked up in jail for a crime he didn't commit, will most likely be using his untimely death as an excuse to counter any call for a substantive accounting of their actions in this case - it happens all too often, a victim dies, and that is the end of the story, the people who are truly guilty escape justice and injustice continues with the silence of the dead, no longer able to question those who for their own ends altered the course of justice to injustice, a now familiar term in Scots Law.

Those who thrive on injustice, profit from injustice and cause injustice, can never be allowed to escape their crime, and those responsible in the case of Stuart Gair, should for all our sakes, and that of the Scots legal system, be held accountable for their actions of depriving an individual of his freedom, on the premise of a lie.

Articles from the Scotsman & Herald follow :

Innocent man jailed for 12 years dies just months before £1m compensation

TANYA THOMPSON AND EAMONN O'NEILL

THE victim of one of Scotland's most shocking miscarriages of justice has died, months before he was to receive £1 million in compensation.

Stuart Gair, who was jailed in 1989 for murder, died yesterday at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary following a heart attack.

Mr Gair, 44, who spent 17 years protesting his innocence, was last year cleared by appeal judges who attacked a failure to disclose witness statements to his lawyers.

Jailed for life, he served 12 years but protested his innocence from day one. He was released in 2000 pending an appeal, but it took a further six years before his conviction was quashed at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh in July last year. He insisted he had been the victim of a police frame-up.

Mr Gair, originally from Alloa, was cleared after it was ruled he had suffered a miscarriage of justice. In the judgment delivered by the Appeal Court, Lord Abernethy said it meant "the defence were deprived of a powerful argument on the crucial issue of identification".

John McManus, co-ordinator for Glasgow-based Mojo, the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, said he was with Mr Gair when he died.

He added: "This is a tragedy. Stuart had been waiting for compensation and the whole thing had put him under a lot of strain. He had suffered dreadfully, and had only just started to get some counselling."

In 1989 after a five-day trial at the High Court in Glasgow, Mr Gair was found guilty of murdering Peter Smith, a former soldier, who was stabbed in Glasgow city centre.

Mr Gair denied murder and put forward a defence of alibi, insisting he was in another part of Glasgow at the time. But he was convicted on a majority verdict.

He protested his innocence and campaigners rallied to his cause. Eventually, his case was sent to the Appeal Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Mr Gair had petitioned the Scottish Secretary over his case and was freed on bail in 2000. Identification was the key issue at the trial and lawyers acting for Mr Gair argued that, crucially, the Crown failed to disclose important information to his defence.

During the trial, a witness, Brian Morrison, who was 19 at the time, identified Mr Gair as a man he saw come out of public toilets and go in the direction of North Court Lane, where the attack happened.

In an initial statement, he said he would definitely be able to identify the two men he had seen and that one of them had threatened him.

But later, he told officers: "A lot of what I have already told the police is not the truth. I made up some of it to attract attention."

Mr Gair's defence counsel, Gordon Jackson, QC, argued that if this information had been available to his lawyers Mr Morrison could have been cross-examined in such a way as to show the jury they could not trust a word he said.

A note had been attached to Crown papers for the trial which said that at one point Mr Morrison had signed himself into a psychiatric hospital. It went on: "Morrison and his vivid imagination certainly set the police off on the trail of a red herring initially."

In the Appeal Court judgment, Lord Abernethy concluded: "In these circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the non-disclosure of these police statements and other information resulted in a miscarriage of justice."

Sources close to Mr Gair said that, had he lived, he would have received about £1 million in compensation.

and now for the report from the Herald :

Miscarriage of justice victim Gair dies

LUCY ADAMS. Chief Reporter

Stuart Gair, the Scot who spent 17 years waiting to prove he was wrongfully convicted of murder, has died of a heart attack just 15 months after clearing his name.

Mr Gair, 43, suffered the attack on Friday while being filmed by Donal McIntyre, the investigative journalist. He was taken to hospital but died yesterday afternoon.

Last night, friends paid tribute to the man who spent 12 years in prison, wrongfully accused of murder.

Mr Gair was only 25 when, by a majority verdict, a jury convicted him of the brutal murder of 45-year-old Peter Smith during a knife attack in Glasgow city centre.

Mr Smith, a former soldier of West Plean, Stirlingshire, was stabbed in the chest at North Court Lane on April 11, 1989, and died later from his injuries in hospital. Mr Gair denied committing the offence, but was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

He had put forward a defence of alibi, maintaining that he was in another part of Glasgow at the time of the murder, which occurred near toilets at St Vincent Place.

His fight to clear his name attracted a number of high-profile campaigners. His case was referred back to the Appeal Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review in 1999.

In 2000, he was freed on appeal, and began a lengthy series of court hearings.

The question of identification was the key issue at the trial and lawyers acting for Mr Gair argued that, crucially, the Crown had failed to disclose important information to his defence at the time of the trial.

During the trial, a witness, Brian Morrison, who was 19 at the time, identified Mr Gair and his former co-accused as two men he saw come out of the toilets and go in the direction of North Court Lane, a well-known hang-out for homosexuals.

He said he had a good look at the two men and studied their faces carefully. But in previous statements to police, he had given conflicting information.

During an initial statement, he said he would definitely be able to identify the two men he saw and that one of them had threatened him.

But later he told officers: "I have to tell you that a lot of what I have already told the police is not the truth and I made up some of it to attract attention to myself."

Last year when Mr Gair's conviction was overturned he said he was relieved but "shattered".

John McManus, of Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Mojo), said the stress of being wrongfully locked up had killed Mr Gair. "All we can do now is hope his death will prevent other people having to go through the same circumstances without any support or trauma counselling.

"He was released without any support whatsoever. People have no idea of the level of stress this puts people under.

"Like all of those who have been wrongfully convicted, he was suffering from severe post traumatic stress and he hadn't even received his financial compensation.

"There has to be better support put in place to help people in these circumstances."

Mr McManus said he died at 12.40pm yesterday. It is thought the funeral will be organised by Mojo.

Changes in small claims & disclosure law mask real needs of reform to Scotland's legal system

An interesting week in the annals of Scots law for most,to be sure ... the collapse of the World's End murder trial, accusations from all quarters except those which matter that the Crown Office is incompetent & in bad need of reform, or better still replacement, the intervention of a Police Chief in an attempt to cancel promised inquiries into the McKie scandal, and the little matters of Lord Coulsfield's recommendations on the laws of disclosure while the Scottish Government decided to finally raise the small claims limit, after 19 years.

The World's End trial collapse, along with all it's publicity, is a well timed example of just how poor the workings of our legal system are. A good reminder to anyone that while we may live in the 21st Century, our legal system is stuck in the dark ages, run largely by itself, in an unaccountable, rather dishonest, and almost dictatorial way, where no one is allowed to have a say on any changes which may alter the way of doing things which lawyers have been so used to for decades - making plenty money out of it too.

The Lord Advocate's statement to Parliament on the failure of the World's End murder trial, carried little of substance, being rather an attempt to control criticism of the legal system and the unbelievable way the Crown Office had acted in the case against Angus Sinclair, and while Elish Angiolini made her statement, many in the Parliament sat around like cabbages, either too stupid to take in the issues, or too cowardly to call for such significant change to Scotland's prosecution service as to affect their own political careers ...

Surprisingly, or not, we did have a couple of breaks this week, where Lord Coulsfield, in his independent review on the laws of disclosure of evidence in criminal cases, recommended there be a Disclosure Law, or at least rules on Disclosure which the Crown Office of course should obey and adhere to.

If the Crown Office ever adhered to justice and fair play, that would certainly be a first, so why on earth would anyone think they would change their way of doing things just because of a change in the Law ?

Wouldn't it be better to reform, and perhaps, replace the Crown Office with an institution which is actually transparent & accountable ? or is the idea of a workable justice system simply too much for some people in Government and in the Parliament to achieve ?

The issue of small claims limits, also surprisingly got some action, after 19 years, where Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced a rise in the limits of a small claims action to £3,000, from the measly £750 which the Law Society of Scotland and legal firms had lobbied to be held so low for the past two decades - simply to force people to use a lawyer and pay exorbitant fees for trying to recover anything more than a £750.

I covered the reasons why the small claims limit had been kept artificially low for the last 19 years here : Small claims limits in Scotland restricted to £750 for the last 18 years by the legal profession for their own interests.

Howsoever, Scotland again fails to come up the standards of the rest of the UK, where the limit of small claims actions is £5,000. Why then, has the Scottish Government disadvantaged the Scottish public in this matter with a lower limit ? What is so different about us that we can't go in to court ourselves for a higher amount ? Could it be perhaps, more lobbying from the legal profession, who again are alarmed their business will be lost because people could simply do the work themselves ?

If you wanted to recover for instance, £2,000 you might have to spend £3,500 on a lawyer and court action to get it ... those are the kind of economics the legal profession loves, take your money for anything, and you lose every time. It's no wonder that even a sitting Lord Advocate tried to repeal legislation which was intended to open up the legal services market 20 years ago

On the subject of Lord Hardie's influence over the delay of the implementation of wider access to legal services legislation, surely there should be an inquiry into why the sitting Lord Advocate of the time, was allowed to influence and delay the implementation of sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, even going as far as to suggest, in his most powerful position, repealing those parts of legislation - or is this an issue perhaps our shiny new Scottish Government has been told not to touch by the ever so threatening judiciary ?

To round the week off, and to show yet again, how twisted the political system still is, our ex Justice Minister & Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, went off to the House of Lords, after suggesting the idea himself .. probably in fear of perhaps not getting the appointment ...

Mr Wallace, as Justice Minister, bears a significant measure of responsibility for the ills of the Scottish Justice system today, presiding over scandal after scandal, and keeping things working very smoothly for the legal profession, while ensuring it's victims, and the country at large, saw no reforms in the public interest whatsoever. In fact, Mr Wallace voted against reform time & again - and voted against the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, being brought in on the side of the Law Society of Scotland to do his damndest to kill off the prospect of the Law Society losing the right to fiddle complaints against crooked lawyers ...

One of Mr Wallace's other poor examples public service, is the Judicial Appointments Board - which was supposedly a try at an independent & transparent appointments system, but in reality only amounts to yet another screening process for the legal profession to keep any potential scandal or dark past secret, of those who rise to the judiciary in Scotland. Taking a look at who actually sits on the Judicial Appointments Board, noting the usual suspects who proliferate themselves on a number of other Committees, does nothing to inspire trust or public confidence ... but .. where are the SNP on this ? how about some reform there too ?

Tinkering with the fringes of the legal system does nothing for reform .... so how long do we have to wait to see the right stuff with our politicians getting to grips with wholesale reform of Justice and cleaning up it's sins & injustice of the past ?

Following articles from the Herald on small claims limits and hopeful changes in the laws of disclosure :

Small claim limit rises to £3000

DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor

Legal disputes over small amounts of money are to be made easier under changes announced yesterday by the Scottish Government.

The limit for legal wrangles over goods, house repairs, holidays or bank charges to be settled through the small claims system is being raised four-fold, so that more of them can be heard without having to hire a lawyer.

Since 1988, the upper threshold for a small claim has been set at £750. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced yesterday that it will be raised to £3000 from January, while there will also be increases for other types of civil action.

Personal injury claims are to be removed from the small claims procedure, meaning all such claimants will require medical evidence and legal representation.

The raised threshold was welcomed by the opposition and consumer groups. They have long argued that there should be the easiest possible method for a broader range of such disputes to be handled in the relatively simple, quick and easy procedures, without having to take a risk on paying a lawyer and going to open court. However, there was disappointment that the threshold has not been raised further.

Mr MacAskill said: "Hard-working Scots who have perfectly valid claims are being denied accessible justice due to the existence of an artificially low small claims limit. It is now 19 years since the limits were last increased and I believe the time has now come to set more realistic limits.
‘This tackles the cowboys who move on after a botched job’

"These new limits will mean that many more people will be able to make use of the less complicated small claims system within the sheriff court to resolve such claims. People who in the past were prevented from pursuing a claim against a business or individual will now be able to do so without having to employ a lawyer with all the extra expense that entails."

The limit for action to be raised in the sheriff court instead of the Court of Session has been raised from £1500 to £5000. Above that level, disputes can go into the higher court.

The move was welcomed by the Scottish Consumer Council. Martyn Evans, its director, said: said: "We are delighted the Scottish Government has taken this decisive step to increase access to justice for people who buy goods and services. Every day people in Scotland buy computers, holidays, three-piece suites and other items that cost much more than £750. Now they will be able to seek legal redress against businesses which do not comply with the law, without having to face the choice of suing for less money than they are owed or paying a solicitor to go to court."

Julia Clarke, of the consumer lobby group Which?, said: "People will be able to claim for more of their cases of dodgy holidays or badly-built kitchens. This tackles the cowboys who move on after a botched job with no redress against them."

She said the English legal move, in recently raising the threshold for small claims from £750 to £5000, would have been preferable. The difference until now has meant some Scots taking their cases south of the border, using the law that lets individuals claim against companies in that firm's home town.

Opposition support for Mr MacAskill's announcement included Liberal Democrat Mike Pringle, who had been campaigning for nearly four years for the raised threshold. He also said it should be raised further to the level set in England of £5000.

Labour justice spokeswoman Margaret Curran said: "Labour welcomes the limit increase for small claims. The justice system must be accessible to everyone in society"

Amazing comment from Labour there ... since it was Messrs Digby Brown, a well known supporter of the Labour party, and the same legal firm involved in the downfall of First Minister Henry Mcleish over the officegate renting scandal, who had lobbied for many years as the media had previously reported .. to prevent any raising of the small claims limit ... now, onto the story on Lord Coulsfield's 'independent review' .. if those two words actually do mean something in Scots Law these days ?

Call for prosecutors to provide full details to defence lawyers

CALUM MacDONALD

Criminal prosecutors should be legally bound to provide full information to defence lawyers in advance of a trial, the Scottish Government was told yesterday.

The call came from a retired judge who said the information should include material favourable to the accused, even if it weakens the Crown case.

The call came from Lord Coulsfield in a report commissioned from him last year by the previous administration.

Lord Coulsfield, who retired in 2002, was one of three judges who presided at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. He was asked by the previous administration to review the law in the light of a 2005 ruling by the Privy Council which overturned the convictions of two men, James Holland and Alvin Sinclair, on the grounds of "non-disclosure".

His findings include a recommendation for legislation requiring the prosecution to have regard to "the over-riding requirement of a fair trial".

The legislation should provide a definition of a duty of disclosure, and require prosecutors to disclose to the defence "all material evidence or information which would tend to exculpate the accused whether by weakening the Crown case or providing a defence to it," said the judge.

This already happens in England and Wales and Lord Coulsfield said: "I do not see that there is any practicable alternative in the short or medium term."

Non-disclosure by the Crown is a major issue in some of the most high-profile cases in Scotland, such as that of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi who earlier this year was granted leave to launch a second appeal against his conviction.

Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said: "The government welcomes this positive and helpful report. Disclosure is vital because it is essential that the defence have all the necessary information available to ensure a fair trial.

"Effective disclosure also contributes to a more effective criminal justice system and to earlier resolution of cases. I am indebted to Lord Coulsfield for his careful analysis. We will shortly publish a consultation paper to invite further views."

Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate, said: "The report marks a significant step towards achievement of the required degree of clarity in this complex area of law and practice."