Scottish electorate finally hears of Justice priorities from political parties - Justice for some, Injustice for others

It took long enough for the issue of Justice to come into the election campaign, and finally the various political parties have come forth with their policies on issues of Law & Order.

Predictably, the issue of Injustice has skipped the mind & PR spin doctors of the major parties in the coming election, but there are tell tale signs of what we can expect.

Labour - would certainly seem to be wishing to tackle issues of injustice, with their track record of introducing & passing the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007.

SNP - they certainly want to tackle some issues of injustice - Alex Salmond has claimed he wants a public inquiry into the Shirley McKie case .. but of course, whether there ever will be, is another matter - as one inquiry into an injustice may give rise for calls for many more.

LibDems - Injustice is a low / non existent priority in their policies - and we can expect bargains between the criminally funded LibDems to sweep away any talk of consumer reforms to the likes of dealings with the legal profession etc ...

Conservatives - fancy dealing with the devil now do we ? ... well, many would say the Conservatives have a strong Justice policy - but that only relates to Law & Order in the area of Criminal Law ... nothing to do much with injustice or correcting the past wrongs of the likes of professionals ripping off their clients in all walks of life .. so nothing doing here either I'm afraid.

The rest ... well, the following Scotsman article makes for good reading and a good summary of what we can expect .. so here it is, with the link :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=620302007

Laying down the law and order priorities

CRIME, and the fear of it, always figures highly in the priorities of voters and political parties. On one level, the debate over law and order in the forthcoming election can be boiled down to one question - which party will make Scotland a safer place?

On that front, the Labour-Lib Dem pact claims already to have provided some answers. After all, crime, or at least crime recorded by the police, is falling.
Advert for scotsman.com's football briefing

But while the numbers may be heading in the right direction, there were still more than a million crimes committed in 2005-6 and many communities remain plagued by drugs, violence and disorder. And latest figures show the number of killings has risen.

So there are myriad law-and-order issues over which the main parties are competing fiercely for your vote.

What to do, for example, about Scotland's high reoffending rate? Nearly half of all convicted criminals commit more offences within two years of receiving their punishment, leading Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, to admit that the system, for some, is little more than a "revolving door".

The parties agree that prisons, for many, do not rehabilitate and that chronic overcrowding only makes the problem worse, which is why sentencing policy - while not necessarily a headline grabber - figures large in many of the manifestos.

Then there is the problem of youth crime. The last administration failed to reach its own targets on cutting the number of hardcore young offenders. In fact, the numbers have risen.

Labour will reform the overworked children's hearing system and the SNP has pledged to clamp down on underage drinking and reinstate the Airborne "boot camp" initiative. The Lib Dems believe early intervention is needed while the Tories want to expand youth courts.

Antisocial behaviour remains one of the biggest, and most controversial, issues, with Labour's proposal for "instant ASBOs" and naming and shaming the worst offenders attracting plenty of comment. The threat posed by sex offenders also features prominently in several party manifestos.

The smaller parties' proposals address a number of controversial issues. The Scottish Socialist Party, for example, is pledging to allow free heroin on prescription to registered addicts and give prisoners the vote, while the Greens have promised steps to address Scotland's low conviction rate in rape cases.

POLICING

LABOUR
Establish a community police team in every area in Scotland. Introduce new police powers to tackle gangland criminals by allowing more cross- Border sharing of intelligence. Build Crime Campus to bring law enforcement agencies under one roof.

SNP
Recruit 1,000 extra community police officers, with at least two community officers in every council ward. Increase links between neighbourhood watch schemes and local police.

LIB DEMS
Recruit 1,500 more police officers. Work with chief constables to cut police red tape. Increase accountability by making police publish community crime statistics.

TORIES
Recruit 1,000 more police officers and encourage chief constables to focus extra resources on community policing. Create Serious Crime Taskforce, with police investigations supported by dedicated prosecutors and specialists.

GREENS
Place more emphasis on community policing and integration between police and social services.

SSP
Replace “ toothless” joint police boards with new community, regional and national boards, to improve the accountability of police.

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

LABOUR
Double the number of community wardens to more than 1,000. Name and shame people who cause chaos in their neighbourhoods. Invest more from the proceeds of crime in community activities and CCTV. Introduce instant ASBOs, allowing police officers to take immediate action.

SNP
Roll out community reparation orders across the country. Make more use of restorative- justice panels.

LIB DEMS
More accountable police will encourage zero tolerance towards vandalism, graffiti and other forms of antisocial behaviour.

TORIES
Review and improve the working of the ASBO system, including consulting on giving revamped community councils a greater role in the process of applying for antisocial behaviour orders.

GREENS
End the “ obsession” with ASBOs – such orders should be used only as a last resort. Encourage police to focus resources on areas with high levels of antisocial behaviour.

SSP

YOUTH JUSTICE

LABOUR
Build culture of early intervention among teachers, health workers and social workers, to identify problem behaviour early. Establish youth panels, allowing peers to help change bad behaviour. Put more resources into diverting young people from crime.

SNP
Create community youth forums across Scotland to identify what amenities are needed in each local area. Ensure local youth facilities are run by young people.

LIB DEMS
Reform the children’s hearing system to deal more effectively with persistent offenders. Expand the use of electronic tagging for the most serious cases. Build three new youth courts in Kilmarnock, Paisley and Dundee.

TORIES
Ensure that persistent offenders aged 14 and 15 go to dedicated youth courts. Give children’s hearings the power to issue drug treatment and testing orders.

GREENS
Clamp down on under- age alcohol sales: culprits will lose their licences and buying alcohol for under- 18s will lead to prosecution. Extend crackdown on irresponsible drinks promotions in clubs and pubs to the off- licence trade. Reinstate the Airborne Initiative.

SSP
Provide more resources for the children’s hearing system. Invest in facilities for young people and revive youth work.

PRISONS AND SENTENCING

LABOUR
Ensure prisons are used appropriately by utilising supervised attendance orders for fine defaulters. Examine what further steps are needed to tackle drugs in prison and reoffending. Create Sentencing Guidelines Council to set out clear guidelines for judges and courts to bring more consistency to sentencing.

SNP
Replace Scottish Prison Service with new Scottish Custody and Rehabilitation Service. Replace prison sentences of three months or less with community sentences. Pilot new dual sentences, where judge sets community part of sentence at end of jail term.

LIB DEMS
Build an extra prison, allowing prison staff to spend more time on rehabilitation of inmates. Scrap early release. Introduce “ three strikes” system, with threat of longer jail sentence for repeat offenders.

TORIES
Create Scottish Sentencing Council to provide guidelines for judiciary. Have a presumption against custodial sentences of less than six months in favour of community- based punishment. Retain Peterhead jail.

GREENS
Replace “ very short” prison sentences with community disposals. Use prison only for offenders who pose genuine risk to public. Give courts power to force those convicted of environmental crime to pay for restoration.

SSP
Reduce prison population by expanding alternatives for low- level offenders. Introduce system of accountability for judges and sheriffs. Allow prisoners to vote in elections. Expand prison rehabilitation. Reverse privatisation.

SEX OFFENDERS

LABOUR
Improve process of offender release to “ rebalance” interests of public safety and rehabilitation. Introduce new arrangements for publicising identities of predatory sex offenders. Act on recommendations of Scottish Law Commission to tackle “ unacceptable” low levels of rape convictions.

SNP
Release the names and photographs of dangerous sex offenders who go underground to the community. Introduce traffic- light system to alert people when sex offender’s behaviour causes concern.

LIB DEMS

TORIES
Require sex offenders to undergo polygraph tests to check behaviour. Monitor their movements through satellite tracking.

GREENS
Will “ address” the low conviction rates for rape, sexual violence and sexual abuse.

SSP
Require every convicted sex offender to undergo a treatment programme either in the community or in prison. Provide more police resources to monitor and supervise sex offenders. Create secure units for the most dangerous offenders.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

LABOUR
Expand the public defender scheme to cover the whole of Scotland by 2011. Improve criminal and civil legal aid so that it provides equal access to the law.

SNP
Improve access to legal advice in rural areas. Provide more grant assistance to help people access advice through Citizens’ Advice Bureaux.

LIB DEMS
Carry out root- and- branch review of legal aid system to ensure people across the country have access to representation.

TORIES

GREENS

SSP
Extend legal aid to cover workplace and consumer disputes.

MISUSE OF DRUGS

LABOUR
Provide free heroin on prescription to registered addicts. Expand rehabilitation and detox facilities.

SNP
Spend £ 100 million a year on drug rehabilitation. Ensure suspected drug dealers are tried at indictment level. Suspend visitation rights for prisoners found with drugs. Reintroduce random drug testing in jails.

LIB DEMS
Set up National Drug- Free Lives Unit to drive policy. Improve drugs education, including the use of former drug users in schools. Provide rehabilitation places specifically for mothers with children so they can be cared for during treatment.

TORIES
Extend drug treatment and testing orders to district courts. Double funding for drug treatment. Create national register of drug services.

GREENS
Increase spending on drug rehabilitation by 20 per cent.

SSP
Create more specialist secure rehabilitation facilities for prisoners who want to end drug use.

MISCELLANIOUS

LABOUR
Introduce corporate homicide legislation to place duties on individual directors.

SNP
Retain DNA samples and the fingerprints of all crime suspects.

LIB DEMS
Ensure victims of crime are regularly briefed by police and the Crown Office.

TORIES
Introduce new restrictions on the sale of firearms, with an attempt to transfer powers from Westminster.

GREENS
Bring in a fast- track appeals system to deal with suspected miscarriages of justice.

SSP
Bring in maximum s e v e n - y e a r combined custody and community sentence for possession of a knife.

Dean of Faculty attacks legal aid & regulatory reforms as a threat to lawyers independence as prospect of political meddling by legal profession looms

Politics is alive & well in the legal profession it seems, with Roy Martin QC, the Dean of Faculty, using a recent admissions ceremony for new solicitors entering the Scottish legal profession, to attack the reforms of independent regulation brought forward in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, as well as having a rant at the drying up of the legal aid river of money flowing into his colleagues pockets.

Mr Martin, QC, is, of course,quite upset that the traditional practice of lawyer covering up for lawyer, has been thrown on it's head by the recently passed but long over due LPLA Bill, given that around 5000 plus complaints a year are made against solicitors in Scotland by clients on everything from embezzlement to fraud to theft of property, negligence, inflated accounts, falsified work, and just about every other crooked practice one could think of.

Unlike Mr Martin and his colleagues, those who don't have the convenience of professional self regulation' would normally be facing criminal charges and jail sentences on many of those complaints made by clients to the Law Society & Faculty of Advocates, but the convenience of self regulation by the Faculty & Law Society has certainly been successful over the years in protecting the many crooked lawyers in the profession from justice, while also making sure the client who has lost out at the hands of their legal representatives, gets little or no compensation .

The right to sit in judgement on one's colleagues & friends, to make sure they only get a slap on the wrist when caught with their hands in the till, is of course, why Mr Martin & his colleagues in the legal profession have for so long, fought tooth & nail to protect their self given right of self regulation - which the legal profession sought & gained from governments long ago.

We all saw, in the following examples of previous articles, how the legal profession & it's 'leading lights' attacked the proposed LPLA Bill, to make dealing with legal agents much fairer for the consumer, and we also saw how the Chief Executive of the Law Society, Douglas Mill, went one step further & threatened our Scottish Parliament with a Court challenge should the LPLA Bill not be amended to it's liking (although Mill actually preferred the legislation be killed off completely).

Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

Law Society of Scotland & Lord Lester QC challenge new legislation to protect Scottish public against crooked lawyers

Scotsman responds to Peter Cherbi and the Herald with a living eulogy of Douglas Mill

Law Society of Scotland claims success in gagging the press over Herald newspaper revelations of secret case memos

Scottish legal profession campaigns against open debate in Scottish Parliament on independent regulation of complaints against lawyers

Who is a greater threat to the Parliament in that one then ? the public, or the legal profession ? ... seems the lawyers can even get away with threatening court action against our elected representatives, while any such attempt by a member of the public is laughed off ...because of course, the public would never be able to secure legal representation to actually take on such a case against the Parliament & win ...

However, Roy Martin's blast at the LPLA Bill may be more than just the rant of an upset lawyer because he didn't get his way ...

I understand several on-the-side meetings have been held between some members of the legal profession and some of Scotland's Political parties, with ideas being raised regarding limitation of the implementation of the LPLA Bill and scaling back of some of it's provisions - in exchange for possible donations & political support .. and no doubt some favours down the road .. such as those sticky secret mortgages on the side which quite a few ministers of the current Scottish Executive enjoy, paid for by us, the taxpayer, through their Parliamentary expenses allowances.

Two Scottish Executive Ministers revealed to be charging mortgage interest payments to the public

Scottish Labour Politician rents his own son's flat for £7000 a year, charging it up to taxpayers

I wonder if the major political parties involved in the Holyrood elections may wish to comment on that one ?

Could this be a fundamental shifting of the power base perhaps in Scottish politics, where the legal establishment might just be setting out to make sure it's favored candidates get in after the elections, and that indeed ... all those promises contained in the LPLA Bill of independent regulation for lawyers & higher compensation payments to ruined clients, might just go the way of those provisions in the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Bill 1990, which were to open up the rights of Courtroom representation to the client and break the monopoly of solicitors & advocates - who are still the only authorised representatives of the public in our courts.

Scottish Executive thought to be blameworthy for allowing restrictive practices in legal services

Scottish Executive fails to block FOI disclosure on records of restricted access to Courts

We therefore have an example of that already in the above case ... so, no one can say it hasn't happened before ...

In an interesting development though, Roy Martin's tenure as Dean of Faculty proves yet again that nothing changes ... with only just last week, a complaints hearing against one of Scotland's most famous Advocates rigged so that the client wouldn't be able to attend ... certainly a sad indictment of regulatory practices as they stand .. and yet again more evidence, if required these people need to be left to educate their colleagues in the ways of honesty, transparency & competency, while someone else, outside the legal profession, handles the regulatory side of things.

A reminder to you all ... If you have experienced poor treatment from the Law Society of Scotland in a complaint or lost money to a crooked lawyer and nothing was done about it, Please sign Petition PE1033 and begin the campaign for redress and resolution to the way clients have been discriminated against by crooked lawyers & the Law Society of Scotland under their decades old prejudiced self regulatory complaints system.

Related article from the Herald newspaper with link :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1270776.0.0.php

Lawyers’ independence 'undermined by politicians'
DAVID LEASK March 19 2007

Scotland's top advocate has accused politicians of undermining the independence of his profession.

Roy Martin, QC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, warned of a creeping threat to lawyer's freedoms - just as they are needed most.

Mr Martin, in a hard-hitting message to Scotland's latest crop of young lawyers, fired a broadside against new regulation and legal aid funding problems eroding their time-honoured and cherished independence from the state.

He told an admission ceremony for newly-qualified solicitors at Edinburgh's Parliament House: "There is a danger that interests which do not properly recognise the importance in a civilised society of an independent legal profession are taking steps which have already undermined, and will continue to undermine, that independence. In a society where the individual citizen is increasingly subject to regulation and control by the state, what the lawyer does is unique because it is he or she who has the responsibility of standing between the citizen and the state in all its guises - and it is essential that the lawyer can do so, and be seen to do so, independently."

Mr Martin's speech, said to be the most controversial delivered at the event in a generation, summed up simmering discontent on what some lawyers see as interference from Holyrood, Westminster, and even Brussels.

The dean has already joined with other senior law figures in warning of what they see as a threat to the independence of the justiciary and attacking the executive's Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which, widely welcomed by lay people, will effectively end centuries of self-regulation.

However, a spokesman for the Scottish Executive last night dismissed any suggestion recent reforms would do anything to take away lawyers' freedoms.

He said: "The last four years have been a time of unprecedented reform in the justice system.

"New laws and procedures have laid the platform for a more efficient, more effective justice system that treats victims, witnesses and consumers with increasing care and respect."

Scottish media opinion being manipulated by legal profession against Parliamentary reforms of LPLA Bill ?

I wondered if Scotland on Sunday might be doing a piece on this week's battle at the Scottish Parliament over the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill .. so I emailed Murdo McLeod of Scotland on Sunday on Friday afternoon posing the question.

I got a response back from another SOS reporter, on Saturday, telling me they were, but after a lot of arm twisting that week, their article would be in support of the legal profession which made the reporter who contacted me, in their own words "sick" .. and who then went on to apologise for the conduct of his newspaper ...

Sad isn't it ... Scotland on Sunday was quick enough to seek me out for a comment on the Leslie Cumming attack story, after they had been briefed by Law Society officials that websites critisising the legal profession should be 'taken out' .. along with their authors .. goodness knows, there are a few in the legal profession who have even offered money to 'take me out' .. as one person who-should-know... put it recently but SOS was warned against printing anything else from me critisising the state of the legal profession with regard to regulatory matters ... so even though there are those who are consciencious enough to keep me informed of events on their staff .. the paper just can't let me have my say .. oh well .. bit sad for democracy there I suppose .. let the lawyers have their say but don't interview their victims...

Magnus Linklater as you can see from his "Wikipedia" entry (for all that's worth, as Wikipedia has been mostly in the news for fiddled entries by either special interests, politicians secretaries, companies, or lawyers with sex offence convictions) .. has had a long career in journalism, even being the editor of the Scotsman from 1988 - 1994.

So, it's a good thing, the frauds of the well known crooked Borders solicitor Andrew Penman of Crooked legal firm of Stormonth Darling Solicitors Kelso came after 1994 ... otherwise, in the light of Linklater's opinion in today's Scotland on Sunday .. my problems with the legal profession would never have been so extensively reported as they were.

Maybe Linklater's opinion would be different if he had been ruined by some crooked lawyers .. after all, one writes best, from experience .. so maybe he should write about the turmoil of house fires, as I read from his wikipedia entry .. pity ... wonder if he has a lawyer helping him with the Linklater House Fire damages fear for being underinsured

Linklater's wife is a libdem peer, according to the Wikipedia entry on Mr Linklater. We all know the LibDems support the legal profession & particularly, the Law Society of Scotland, as a party. They have stated so, as a party, many times in the past.

The Liberal Democrats have a collective party policy of denying assistance to constituents who report difficulties with the Law Society of Scotland & legal profession.. so judging by Linklater's article today, his isn't a friendly house to any proposed reforms intended to bring transparency, honesty and independence to complaints against crooked lawyers.

In fact, reading the article, and taking it's contents along with everything else we have read from the legal profession lately .. one could be forgiven for thinking Linklater is yet another one, dragged out on behalf of Scotland's desperate legal profession, who are out at any costs to thward the progress of the LPLA Bill.

After all, he does go on to mention the Law Society of Scotland dusting off Lord Lester of Herne Hill to give an opinion that "it infringed Article 6 of the convention because the complaints commission would not be "an independent and impartial tribunal".

Lord Lester of Herne Hill is a LibDem peer ... anyone made a connection yet ? .. What was that I was saying earlier about the LibDems supporting the legal profession AGAINST the public in these reforms ?

How many times have I read 'f*ck off' letters from LibDem politicians to constituents who have been ripped off and ruined by their lawyers, and the Law Society hasn't done anything about it ? .. some of those letters from very senior members of the LibDem party ..

To futher justify Linklater's article, he adds insult to injury of the people of Zimbabwe .. in referring to Sternford Moyo, former president of the Law Society of Zimbabwe's words of support for the Law Society of Scotland earlier this week .. where he claimed Scotland could be heading for a Zimbabwe style dictatorship if complaints against lawyers were made independent.

My my .. that's more than a little bit over the top, Mr Linklater .. it's a BIG bit over the top ... comparing the Law Society of Scotland's loss of control of complaints to the suffering of Zimbabwe and it's people under Robert Mugabe.

Indicentally .. I see there are people being deported back to Zimbabwe from the UK ... even though Moyo claims it's a dangerous dictatorship ..

What's up with these poor people's lawyers then ? aren't they doing their job well enough to prevent them being deported back to face possible torture & death, because they dissented from Mugabe's party line ?

Why isn't the Law Society fighting for these people's rights to stay in the UK if it is conveniently using the suffering of one of it's colleagues from the same country, earmarked as a dangerous dictatorship ? ... bit one sided, yes ?

Perhaps though.. Human Rights don't matter to those in the legal profession, unless of course, the situation can be twisted to support the power players of the Law Society's own ends.

Linklater goes on to bring out a host of others to defend the Law Society of Scotland quoting every major figure who has appeared in defence of the legal profession in the past few weeks .. even, ludicrously, dragging Sir Walter Scott into the debate .. but nowhere does there appear, the opinion of the public in his article .. and certainly nowhere, does there appear any opinions from the actual victims of the legal profession.

Linklater saves the last words of his opinion, to continue the attack of the legal profession on the alleged competency of the Scottish Parliament - for taking up the complaints of clients & the public against the Law Society .. with his reference to those in the legal profession who "... argued forcibly that the way the Scottish Parliament was handling the matter was inadequate, incompetent and possibly even unconstitutional. Those are harsh charges, but they deserve a serious response. At the heart of this debate lies not just the good name of the Scottish legal system, but the nature of Scottish democracy."

Indeed, Magnus, at the heart of this debate, lies not just the crooked name of the Scottish legal system - from McKie's faked fingerprint reports, to the 100 year secrets of a child murdering Politician friendly freemason, to a possibly faked up Lockerbie Trial verdict to suit political ends at the time, to many members of the legal fraternity whose names appeared in Operation Ore, but whose prosecutions were obstructed or dropped, to the conduct in both public & private life by members of the judificary & legal profession, who have used & abused their position for decades.

At the heart of this debate, Magnus, lies the effectiveness of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, our Scottish Democracy, to stand up to the dirty tricks and intimidation tactics of the legal profession & the judiciary, who are, a law unto themselves, and who use the law against anyone who would challenge their dictatorship.

That is why the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, must come into law, and there must be a completely independent system of regulating ALL complaints against Scotlands legal profession.

Whenever we see reforms of other laws called for by the media or politicians, or cases where a criminal doesn't get a deserving sentence, we see opinions from the family of a murdered victim, a grieving spouse over the death of a partner in medical care, or a victims support group or charity or even known victims of the same thing, give their thoughts & opinion printed ..

Not when it comes to the question of dealing with lawyers though .. oh no, ... only the opinion of the legal profession & those who have the most to lose from the new LPLA Bill, and reforms to the handling of complaints against lawyers, finds it's way into the press .

Magnus - Just ask any of those clients & members of the public whom the legal profession have tried to wipe out, just because they have filed complaints against a crooked lawyer - these victims, will tell you a very different opinion from that which you force upon others as 'fact'.

Link from Scotland on Sunday, at : http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1336222006

Opinion
Sun 10 Sep 2006
Law reforms threaten to shake foundations of our democracy
MAGNUS LINKLATER

THERE seems no good reason for the Scottish Parliament to be at loggerheads with the legal profession in Scotland. The parliament is pledged to uphold the integrity, independence, customs and traditions of Scots law. The Scotland Act of 1998 enshrined the separate status of the legal system. Strengthening that independence is meant to be at the heart of legislation currently being considered by the parliament, which debated it last week. Yet it all seems to be going horribly wrong.

Far from shoring up the system, the new reforms will, in the view of a majority of lawyers, fatally undermine it. From the appointment of judges to the setting up of a complaints procedure which will ultimately be controlled by politicians, there is a mounting impression that English reforms are being incorporated into the Scottish system, eroding the very values on which it is founded.

The anger of the lawyers boiled over at a remarkable conference convened last week by the Law Society of Scotland. It heard from some of Scotland's top legal minds. They did not mince their words.

Sir David Edward, one of the country's most respected lawyers, and formerly the sole British judge at the European Court of Justice, spoke of his "profound depression" at the provisions of the new Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which will set up a new complaints commission, giving power to Scottish ministers for the first time to pass judgment on the performance of the legal profession.

Far from strengthening independence, he said, "it has every intention of doing exactly the opposite". He said it represented "a slavish imitation of English innovations" and he quoted Sir Walter Scott, who had campaigned passionately against the Whig reforms of 1806, and had warned: "Little by little, whatever your wishes may be, you will destroy and undermine, until nothing of what makes Scotland Scotland shall remain."

Lord McCluskey, now retired as a judge, but as forthright as ever, said the appointment of a civil servant as solicitor-general, and the complicity of the Lord Advocate in allowing the steady erosion of judicial independence, was leading to "a lazy tendency to adopt English solutions", that the parliament's consultancy process was "a mockery", and that the reforms being introduced threatened "an unprecedented degree of government control".

To rub in the message, the society heard from Sternford Moyo, former president of the Law Society of Zimbabwe, who had served time in prison for attempting to defend judicial independence under Robert Mugabe, and who warned Scotland might be heading the same way.

Most outsiders might conclude that all this was a trifle over the top, and that lawyers are not necessarily the most objective critics when it comes to defending their own profession. But as the discussion became more detailed, some worrying aspects of the debate began to emerge. Perhaps the most disturbing concerns the competence of the Scottish Parliament's committee system to absorb, consider and refine complex legal reforms without a revising chamber. Both the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee have been involved, over the past few years, in considering reforms, and have heard evidence about serious concerns from lawyers. But thus far the central provisions of the Bill are unchanged.

The law society argues that the new commission, which will have the power to hear complaints against the legal profession, is not independent of government; that it will be a quango controlled by the Executive; that ministers will have the power to appoint and remove its members, and that it poses a direct threat to the rule of law. Those arguments have been ignored.

More damningly, when the society called in one of the UK's top experts on the European Convention of Human Rights to examine whether the Bill was fully compatible, he concluded it was not. Lord Lester of Herne Hill said it infringed Article 6 of the convention because the complaints commission would not be "an independent and impartial tribunal", and there was no external appeal process. This suggests that civil servants who drafted the Bill had simply not taken on board its wider implications.

Most of those speaking at the conference, representing both sides of the profession - solicitors and advocates - conceded that parliament had every right to consider legal reforms. They accepted, too, that there were legitimate concerns about the rights of the public when it came to challenging the competence or performance of lawyers.

But they argued forcibly that the way the Scottish Parliament was handling the matter was inadequate, incompetent and possibly even unconstitutional. Those are harsh charges, but they deserve a serious response. At the heart of this debate lies not just the good name of the Scottish legal system, but the nature of Scottish democracy.

Related topics Magnus Linklater
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1119
Legal Issues
http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=859

Scottish legal profession campaigns against open debate in Scottish Parliament on independent regulation of complaints against lawyers.

Just what is it, the Scottish legal profession fears so much about losing control of complaints against their members ?

Has the level of control freakery reached such a fever pitch over at the Law Society of Scotland, they must even talk of 'opening their wrists & lying in a warm bath' (as Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill laughably said in the Scotsman on 15 August) rather than letting control of complaints against colleagues go to a new independent body proposed in the forthcoming LPLA Bill ?

Is it such a bad thing to give the public such rights & expectations as transparency, honesty, and accountability in their dealings with lawyers ?

The latest twist in the legal profession's spin machine tactics against the prospect of independent regulation appears in today's Scotsman, with now, the appearance of Lord McCluskey, being reported by the Scotsman newspaper in the following terms: "Lord McCluskey said there had been a lack of serious consultation over the plans and politicians had yet to "grasp the essence of what it is all about".

Well, Lord McCluskey, it's nice to see your comments on this issue, but do you remember when I, Peter Cherbi, from Jedburgh, wrote to you at the Court of Session in October 1994, over what Borders Solicitor Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solciitors, Kelso, did to my family, plundering my dead father's assets for his own benefit.. and that the Law Society was sitting around doing nothing ?

I remember, because I have the letter - and I have your short, if to the point, response - which, was, admittedly, all you could have said at the time.

I would argue, your Lordship, with respect, that it is not the Executive or the Parliament who have yet to grasp the essence of what it is all about ... it is the legal profession - your colleagues, who have yet to grasp the basic concepts of honesty, transparency, and accountability to us, their clients.

What is it that your colleagues over at the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, or even, the serving members of the Judiciary, fear, about independent regulation ?

I don't think it is anything to do with so called fears of political interference ... it is all to do with losing control over one of the most important aspects of how one conducts business.

If that business has become reliant on ripping off clients for unjustified fees, keeping client complaints down, embezzling clients funds, taking posession of clients properties for personal gain, ruining lives, livelihoods, and businesses of clients, making sure that compensation payments are never made, or delayed for decades .. then, it is certainly time to lose control of it.

Lord McCluskey, could you condone a complaints system which sees thousands of complaints made a year against solicitors, with many not even being cagegorised as complaints, just to keep the statistics down ? or cases against crooked solicitors and financial claims for damages running for up to 22 years in one case quoted to the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee .., just because the Law Society of Scotland has a policy of undermining client complaints from the very start ? Is that good, or bad ? I think bad .. but you are welcome to differ ...

How do you feel, your Lordship, about a firm of lawyers filing false reports with the Benefits Agency, Inland Revenue, and Police, against a client & their family in order to intimidate them into withdrawing their complaints to the Law Society ? Maybe even that same firm intervening to find out a client's medical history & records, to use against them, again to intimidate them into withdrawing complaints against quite obviously crooked lawyers ?

If this happened to you, Lord McCluskey, I'm sure you would have something to say about it ... well, it happened to me, and it happened to many others .. so, if you want to gain more experience of the effects of your colleagues actions against their clients, clients whose lives, livelihoods, businesses, personal health & wealth, and even their families, have been totally ruined, then I would suggest, respectively, you make visits to these people. Want some names ?

Reading the Scotsman article further, I am honestly amazed at the former Zimbabwe Law Society President Mr Sternford Moyo's pro-Law Society of Scotland comments, given the experiences of people I know who have suffered at the hands of lawyers and the Law Society of Scotland.

Is the Law Society of Scotland so desperate to maintain control over it's crooked membership, it is willing to compare the loss of regulating the complaints process to the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe ?

Surely, that is an affront to the suffering of a nation's peoples under it's present 'Government', an affront to the very fundamentals of Human Rights itself... or does such a comparison promoted by the Law Society of Scotland and it's allies really show the extent of the Scottish legal profession's attempt at dictatorship itself - in trying to thwart a debate in an elected Parliament on the subject of it's workings ?

Mr Moyo, with all respect to your position, I have news for you - the legal profession in Scotland is run just as badly by it's leaders, as Zimbabwe is run by Robert Mugabe - and there are plenty within the ranks of the Law Society of Scotland, who feel just as intimidated by Douglas Mill & his colleagues, as you were in your position as President of the Law Society of Zinbabwe by Robert Mugabe.

It's odd, but I've had this same conversation with some lawyers here in Scotland, at one of the regional Bar Associations, who have compared the Law Society's bosses with Mr Mugabe himself .. you know .. giving Ministers expensive cars to keep their support, intimidating the opposition (and clients) to maintain power ... printing money to dig their way out of hyperinflation (sort of like the Law Society dishing out accreditation awards to those who might threaten it).

A good comparison, don't you think ?

Getting back to the debate later today at the Scottish Parliament, I hope the party whips and Parliamentary staff haven't been doing too much in the way of interference with msps in what they are going to say in the debate.

After all - remember, people, I have seen the levels of correspondence which msps receive from their constituents each year on problems with lawyers, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, the Crown Office, etc ... and even copies of all the representations msps have written on behalf of their constituents to, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Executivce, the Crown Office, etc ... so, not one msp can deny they haven't been involved in this matter previously.

I often wondered though, as I perused the volumes of correspondence between MSPs & MPs to the Scottish Executive (and it's various earlier forms) on the subject of constituents difficulties with complaints against lawyers and how the Law Society of Scotland had treated clients ... just why all those representations for all those different constituents, seemed to be .. well .. similar .. none of them really mentioning something like .. "What on earth is going on with the Law Society as I have 53 constituents now writing to me on the same thing and I hear my colleagues have similar or higher levels of cases" ..

A bit strange really ... but you know .. to me, well, I'm just a lay person you know, just an ordinary guy really .. but if people wrote to me as their elected representative, on an issue .. and well, there were many more letters from people on the same type of issue, I would put 2 & 2 together, to make 4, write a stinker of a letter and say - "I have 43 people writing to me on the same matter .. get something done about this, while I offer all of them the chance to contact ach other to compare their cases while I draw up a proposal for legislation" .. but as we know .. no one wants that, do they ... people talking to each other comparing similar problems with lawyers so something could be done about it .. that's why it's taken 16 years plus for some people to get something done ...

Peter Cherbi's message to the Scottish Parliament :

Please do something today for the people of Scotland - your constituents, and don't be intimidated by the selfish Scottish legal profession, no matter what dirty tricks they pull out of their hats against the LPLA Bill.

Give the public the right to expect transparency, honesty, and accountability in their dealings with the legal profession, and vote for progress in the LPLA Bill - but be careful of attempts at crooked amendments such as those proposed by ICAS - which are definitely against the spirit of independent regulation in the LPLA Bill as it stands.

Read on for the article from today's Scotsman, link at : http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1319742006

Former judges join call to reject legal reforms

MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

SENIOR figures from Scotland's legal profession yesterday mounted an unprecedented attack on ministerial plans to overhaul the way complaints against lawyers are handled, branding them a threat to the independence of the law and an attack on democracy itself.

Former judges joined the leaders of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates in an effort to persuade MSPs to reject some of the proposals.

The Scottish Parliament will today debate the Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill, which proposes to strip the Law Society of the authority to deal with "service" complaints against solicitors, creating a new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission whose members would be appointed by ministers.

The idea of ministerial appointment was savaged by a series of high-profile legal figures at the Balancing the Scales of Justice debate in Edinburgh yesterday.

Among those who spoke out were the former High Court judge Lord McCluskey; Sir David Edward, ex-European Court of Justice judge; advocate and former MSP Duncan Hamilton; and Roy Martin, QC, dean of the faculty of advocates.

They were joined by Sternford Moyo, a former president of the Law Society of Zimbabwe, who was arrested by Robert Mugabe's regime and accused of "subversive" activities. He said a new legal complaints quango controlled by ministers threatened to undermine the democratic principle of legal and judicial independence, providing legitimacy to dictators who sought to control the rule of law.

Mr Moyo said the legal profession ensured "good governance, accountability, observance of human rights and prevention of abuse of power", which demanded it "be free from any control by the Executive". He added that undemocratic regimes would look to learn lessons from legal reforms in Scotland and elsewhere.
Lord McCluskey said there had been a lack of serious consultation over the plans and politicians had yet to "grasp the essence of what it is all about". Duncan Hamilton added: "The legal profession is driven by the public interest but the Executive does not accept that."

But Hugh Henry, the deputy justice minister, insisted the body would safeguard the interests of clients. He added: "We are absolutely committed to the principle of a fully independent legal profession. We also want to see a legal profession which is properly regulated. Consumers need to be assured their complaints will be handled impartially and efficiently."

and the Herald version - probably better, since it exposes the fact that the event which Lord McCluskey was speaking at, was actually timed to put pressure on the msps in the debate on the LPLA legislation in the Parliament today, link from the Herald at : http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/69610.html

Lawyers condemn reform
DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor September 07 2006

The legal profession yesterday stepped up its onslaught against Scottish Executive plans to impose a complaints system on solicitors and reform the judiciary.

Some of the most respected figures in the legal establishment lined up to attack executive policy as a threat to the independence of Scots lawyers and judges.

A Law Society of Scotland event, timed yesterday to put pressure on MSPs ahead of a crucial vote on the issue today at Holyrood, featured a warning from one of Zimbabwe's top lawyers about the risks of letting the state interfere in the profession.

Sternford Moyo, former president of the country's law society who was arrested and intimidated by Robert Mugabe's regime and had his firm's offices raided, said the legislation would set an example on undermining lawyers' independence that would be welcomed by dictators in developing nations such as Mugabe's.

The theme was picked up by Lord McCluskey, a former Labour solicitor-general, who attacked the executive for "rushing into ill-considered, badly-evidenced, misconceived legislation…bringing the judiciary and the legal profession under an unprecedented degree of government control". He added: "The rule of law should not be treated in this cavalier and arrogant fashion."

Growing tensions between the profession and the executive were also stepped up with the release of figures yesterday that showed the large gap between legal aid payments for individuals and the amount the executive is willing to pay lawyers to do its own work.

The highest hourly rate for legal aid, paid to the best qualified solicitor, is £76, exactly the same as the lowest rate paid to a para-legal or trainee for carrying out work for ministers. The top rate for executive work is £180 per hour, and the bottom rate for legal aid goes as low as £21.

The profession complains that the legal aid system, also being reformed, has fallen so far behind that it is leaving "advice deserts" for individuals in need of legal help, where law firms refuse to take on work, particularly on civil cases.

Kenny MacAskill, the SNP's justice spokesman, secured the figures in a question to ministers, and said they showed there was "a two-tier justice system" for ministers and for poorer individuals.

The main thrust of the profession's complaints against current executive policy is that the new complaints commission will be controlled by ministers. They can appoint and dismiss members, while the bill would allow them to instruct the commission and set its funding.

A separate proposal is to unify the judicial system, putting the Lord President in charge of all High Court judges, sheriffs, and justices. A civil service department is to help him, but lawyers believe that will link the system too closely to government.

Yesterday's debate turned into more of a rally as lawyers expressed their exasperation that they had not been listened to. All MSPs and law officers were invited, but only two opposition MSPs turned up.

There were calls for an upper house at Holyrood to balance the parliament when committees fail to scrutinise issues adequately, and there was a clash with the head of the Scottish Consumer Council, who said claims of threatening legal in-dependence were exaggerated.

Professor Sir John Edward, a former judge in the European Court of Justice, said there was extreme concern and dismay about the judicial reform plans, and accused ministers of inappropriate and "slavish imitation" of English reform.

Lord McCluskey warned that the Lord Advocate, Lord Boyd, has lost his independence by sitting in the Scottish cabinet.