Scotland's corrupt justice system - worthy of a 'banana republic' and obstruction to independence.

Another fine week has passed for the Scots legal system, which began with the UN Observer to the Lockerbie trial referring to Scotland as having the reputation of a 'banana republic' for our legal system, due to the handling of the Lockerbie trial.

Hans Köchler is correct, but the failures of the Lockerbie trial run wide & deep in Scots Law, and have done so for many years prior to the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi at Camp Zeist for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, killing 259 people.

Quoting the Sunday Times article :

"It has been alleged that evidence relating to a timer device was planted by investigators to implicate the Libyan as responsible for the bombing that claimed the lives of 259 people when Pan Am flight 103 was brought down in 1988.

Köchler said he believed the Crown Office regarded Megrahi as a "headache" and wanted him out of Scotland to avoid further embarrassment.

"They would prefer to have him out of the country and have the entire legal case collapse without asking any further questions." he said.

"But I think it won't be so easy because there are still some people in Scotland who are committed to the rule of law and who do not want the country to appear like a banana republic because that is what it is, for me, after I have followed [the case] over so many years

Convenient for those in the legal system .. and some now in the Executive it would seem, that Mr Megrahi be shipped out of Scotland, and indeed, have no need to ask any questions of what actually took place .. and before you say, oh, the current Executive are going to hold an inquiry ... don't be too sure on that one. What politicians say, verses what they do, no matter who they are, are two very different things ...

Going even further, Hans Köchler took issue with the SNP call for independence, citing that Scotland needs a proper accountable judicial system before thoughts of independence should be progressed. Again, Mr Köchler is correct, and while the truth may be unpalatable to some, taking a country independent with a crooked corrupt judicial system, which is what we have currently in Scotland, will be in the worst interests of the public.

Referring back to the Sunday Times article once more :

"If they aspire to independence then they should show they can do things in the right way in the judicial domain, in devolved areas, and if they cannot do things in the right way and if they handle judicial proceedings like intelligence operations then in my view the aspirations towards independence are not very well founded."

If we cant get Justice right for our own people, we don't deserve independence - not until we clean up the acts of the Judicial & legal system which has been allowed to run itself for so many years, and influence politics & politicians to prevent reforms in the public interest.

Oh yes, some may argue that a fairer Justice system would come after independence, but do any of you really believe that ? I certainly don't, and I can assure you, if you need any assuring, the Judiciary and those within the legal system will have even more power to do what they want post independence, if we don't clean up their act before such a radical step for Scotland is taken ...

Here is the Sunday Times report on Hans Köchler and comments on the Lockerbie case, taken from here :

UN observer says Scots law is flawed
Mark Macaskill

THE United Nations observer at the Lockerbie trial, Hans Köchler, said that Scotland has the reputation of a "banana republic" because of its handling of the case.

The academic, who advises the European Commission on democracy and human rights, said Scotland does not deserve to be granted independence until it addresses the failings within its judicial system.

He was responding to reports that evidence that would have undermined the crown's case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the atrocity, was withheld from his defence lawyers. It has been alleged that evidence relating to a timer device was planted by investigators to implicate the Libyan as responsible for the bombing that claimed the lives of 259 people when Pan Am flight 103 was brought down in 1988.

Köchler said he believed the Crown Office regarded Megrahi as a "headache" and wanted him out of Scotland to avoid further embarrassment.

"They would prefer to have him out of the country and have the entire legal case collapse without asking any further questions." he said.

"But I think it won't be so easy because there are still some people in Scotland who are committed to the rule of law and who do not want the country to appear like a banana republic because that is what it is, for me, after I have followed [the case] over so many years.

"If they aspire to independence then they should show they can do things in the right way in the judicial domain, in devolved areas, and if they cannot do things in the right way and if they handle judicial proceedings like intelligence operations then in my view the aspirations towards independence are not very well founded."

Köchler's comments follow speculation that a US intelligence document, which disputes claims that Megrahi used a digital timer bought from a Swiss company and then planted the bomb on a flight from Malta to Germany — was shown to senior crown officials but never disclosed to Megrahi's defence team.

It is understood to be one reason why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which spent three years considering the safety of Megrahi's conviction, decided last June to refer the case to Court of Appeal.

"My most serious concern is about the timer, because if something was indeed inserted, that would have devastating consequences for the entire judicial and political system of Scotland and of the United Kingdom " Köchler added.

Sources close to the case have claimed that evidence was fabricated to implicate Mohammed Abu Talb, a Palestinian terrorist, before the focus of the investigation switched to al-Megrahi and Libya in 1989.

Doubts have also been raised over evidence given at the trial by Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who claimed he sold Megrahi clothing that was wrapped around the bomb. Last week, well-placed sources claimed that Gauci and his brother Paul were paid about £2.5m by the US intelligence services soon after Megrahi's appeal collapsed in 2002. Details of the alleged payment emerged in 2005 when one of Gauci's relatives sought legal advice in an attempt to claim a share of the money.

Köchler's intervention will be a blow to the Crown Office, which is still reeling from the collapse of the World's End murder trial. In August, the trial judge Lord Clarke threw out the case against Angus Sinclair ruling there was not enough evidence for the jury to reach a verdict.

An unseemly public row ensued between Lord Hamilton, the lord justice general, and Elish Angiolini, the lord advocate, after she insisted there had been a strong enough case to put to the jury.

"The whole Lockerbie affair has not been a good advertisement for Scottish justice but there is now the opportunity to rectify what went wrong," said Professor Robert Black from Edinburgh University, who brokered Megrahi's trial at Zeist in the Netherlands.

"Provided the lessons are learned then the experience could yet prove to be a beneficial one. Köchler cast doubts over the quality of the evidence after the trial. He wasn't taken seriously at the time but all credit to him, they are now coming to the surface," said Black.

Alex Salmond, the first minister, dismissed Köchler's remarks.

"The strength of the legal system is in the processes it adopts to ensure justice is done and seen to be done. The fact that the Lockerbie conviction is going before the Court of Appeal is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength in our legal system.

A spokeswoman from the Crown Office, said: "It would be inappropriate to comment while the case is yet to come before the appeal court."

Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

Kenneth Pritchard, Douglas Mill's predecessor as Secretary & Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, admitted as far back as 1994 in the media the Master Insurance Policy professional negligence insurance scheme was primarily "... there to protect the solicitor, his practice and his family...".

The Herald Wednesday August 17th 1994

Policy is to protect both says Law Society

Law Society secretary Kenneth Pritchard described as "utterly wrong" claims that solicitors professional indemnity insurance sets out to deny genuine claims for negligence and delay settlements to clients.

Mr Pritchard was responding to allegations made by Paisley house builder Iain McIntyre that solicitors insurance protects the profession at the expense of the client.

Mr Pritchard made it clear that he did not wish to comment on the conduct of any court action currently being pursued by Mr McIntyre and restricted his comments to the operation of the master policy for professional indemnity insurance operated by the Law Society.

"The master policy, in common with any other third party policy, is there to protect solicitors, but also to provide indemnity to their clients who have suffered loss. That is absolutely no different from any other third party type of policy, for example car insurance"

The Government has legislated that nobody can drive on the public highway without having third party insurance. The Law Society, in the interests of its members and the public, requires a solicitor in private practice to hold cover under the master policy before he gets a practicing certificate.

The only difference between third party insurance and the master policy is that it is imposed by the solicitors own body and not by the Government.

"Of course it's there to protect the solicitor, his practice and his family, but it's equally there to provide a fund for proper compensation to the client who has suffered loss"

Mr Pritchard complained that while the Law Society organised and administered the master policy and ensured that it provided the necessary range and amount of cover, negotiations over a claim were a matter for the client, solicitor and insurer.

He described the suggestion that the system operates to deliberately delay settlements or deny settlement when it was due as utterly wrong.

The Law Society's rule is to monitor what the master policy is intended to do and that it is to deal speedily and effectively with claims. In the main we are quite satisfied, although there are cases which go wrong.

There are two quite separate issues, the first being liability.Were the solicitors negligent ? If that is established, the second big issue is how much does the client get paid ?

There is an inevitable regulation - indeed there may well be an inevitable gulf - between what the client perceives as justified and what the insurers backed by their experience of settlements awarded by the courts, believe that a particular claim is worth.

Mr Pritchard also denied the allegation that firms which carry an excess on their insurance policies try to avoid liability because cash would have to come from their own pockets.

My perception from talking to firms is that, if they accept that the claim is due, the sooner it gets settled the better. There is no advantage in haggling over liability or the amount of damages because all you are doing at the end of the day is adding interest to the claim.

What lay behind that 1994 report in the Herald newspaper, were revelations that Kenneth Pritchard intervened in negligence claims against the legal firms of Wright & Crawford of Paisley, MacRoberts of Edinburgh, and Grant & Co, writing to the petitioners legal representatives, Skene Edwards Solicitors, on 21 June 1995, asking them to "protect their back" and that such correspondence would remain confidential between Mr Pritchard and Skene Edwards Solicitors, the petitioner's legal agents, and should not be disclosed to the client, Mr McIntyre.

As you can see from the above extract of pleadings, Kenneth Pritchard, apparently not satisfied with the terms of his previous letter, then wrote back to Skene Edwards Solicitors , two days later on 23 June 1995, ordering them to withdraw acting for their client in the negligence litigation against several legal firms.

You can read some more about Iain McIntyre's case on the Scottish Parliament website in pdf format HERE

Kenneth Pritchard is currently a serving Sheriff, and has unbelievably, written a book on professional negligence. The book must be very insightful on how to protect the legal profession from the public interest .....

Kenneth Pritchard's involvement in the above case, is certainly evidence enough the Law Society of Scotland directly intervene in clients negligence claims against solicitors ... and to continue the theme of Law Society intervention, Mr Pritchard's successor, Douglas Mill, was again, caught interfering in a client's negligence action, this time by the details of his own memo where Mr Mill, and various elements within the Law Society and the insurers, were seeking to delay & destroy several negligence claims by Mr Stewart MacKenzie against solicitors.

My own case too, has seen such intervention, with Douglas Mill directly intervening with the Scottish Legal Aid Board to cancel my legal aid funding for (i) a negligence claim against a solicitor and (ii) a case against the Law Society of Scotland to expose their mishandling of claims & my complaint against Andrew Penman.

Mr Philip Yelland, the Law Society's Director of Regulation, then contacted my own solicitor, akin to Mr Pritchard's interference in the other case, ordering my legal agents not to undertake instructions from me and to abandon my case.

Well, there is no surprise to learn that such 'intervention' by the Law Society of Scotland is commonplace against clients who try to claim compensation against a crooked lawyer, or pursue a negligence case using a lawyer to sue a lawyer which is the current & only method for pursuing cases against solicitors ....

The Scottish Government of course, know this to be the case. They are not as stupid or ignorant as they pretend to be. Indeed, John Swinney MSP, spoke on the issue of Kenneth Pritchard's intervention in the above case, during the LPLA Bill debate in December, and you can view Mr Swinney talking about it here :

Similarly, the Scottish Parliament and every single one of it's msps, are well aware of these problems of incessant Law Society intervention against any court case or complaint, or claim for financial loss which threatens member solicitors.

If everyone knows about it, when why is nothing done about it ?

Well, the simple answer to that question is the Law Society and the legal profession require that no action be taken to protect the public interest, over the interests of solicitors, and politicians are left in no doubt that if they support legislation which might end the corrupt arrangements of the Master Insurance Policy, they will be facing electoral oblivion or a lack of financial perks so many have been used to.

Any client of a crooked lawyer, who has tried to make a claim for damages against their negligent solicitor has certainly found this to be true, with the full wrath of the legal profession & insurance industry dirty tricks brigade being brought to bare on them. I among them.

I covered some of the dirty tricks carried out by the Law Society of Scotland, Marsh UK, and the insurers against client claims in an earlier article here : The Corrupt Link Revealed - How the Law Society of Scotland manages client complaints & settlements.

To this day, the Scottish Government, and it's previous incarnations, have afforded obsessive secrecy to the operation of the Master Insurance Policy which 'protects the solicitor, his practice and his family' for reasons it seems, the Government itself may significantly benefit financially, from it's own direct relationship with Marsh UK and the same insurers.

In an earlier article I wrote on the Scottish Executive's in house legal team, an FOI revealed the cost of running some 114 lawyers at around 5 million pounds, although that figure is now understandably suspect, given further revelations since i wrote the piece here : Scottish Executive budget on lawyers salaries revealed at over £5 million pounds while public face restrictions on legal representation

In an effort to get to the heart of the seemingly impenetrable workings of the Master Insurance Policy during the progress of the LPLA Bill through the Scottish Parliament, a short lived saga developed, where John Swinney MSP, at the time in opposition, wrote to the then Deputy Justice Minister Hugh Henry MSP, asking for "minutes of any meetings that may have taken place between the Scottish Executive, the Law Society, the brokers & the insurers for the Master Policy in connection with any provisions within the BILL that may affect the Master Policy."

A few days after Johan Lamont MSP responded to Mr Swinney, the Scottish Executive had apparently consulted the Law Society of Scotland and decided against releasing any information, sending Mr Swinney a two page letter excusing themselves from release of the information, on grounds of disclosure not being in the public interest - this coming after an apparent demand from the legal profession to keep the information secret.

Mike West, of the Justice Department, responded for the Executive, denying release of the information ...

"We endeavor to provide information whenever possible. The information you requested is related to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill which is currently going through it's parliamentary process. As this information is a contribution to the formulation and development of government policy, it is exempt from disclosure under Section 29(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 which states the information held by the Scottish Administration is exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of government policy.

In addition, as the information you requested consists of ongoing deliberations to assist with development of policy, it is likely to inhibit substantially the free and frank provision of advice, and free and frank exchange of views, and is thus exempt from disclosure under section 30(b)(i) and (ii) of the 2002 Act.

In reaching our decision about releasing the information, we have applied the 'public interest test' where we carefully weigh up the balance between whether it would be in the public's best interest to either release or withhold the information. We considered that, release of information would be likely to result in the loss of input into policy development from valuable stakeholders. On both occasions, we considered that it would not be in the public interest to release the information."

Interestingly, the Scottish Executive at the time obviously felt unable to release discussions with a well known to be corrupt insurance policy arrangement with the legal profession, because it would apparently be 'against the public interest to do so' .... I wonder why that could be ?

John Swinney MSP duly replied to his constituent on December 11 2006, informing Mr MacKenzie of the Scottish Executive's refusal to release the information sought on meetings over the Master Policy.

Of course, now that Mr Swinney is in Government, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, there should be no problem in his ordering the release of such information, and I await with interest to see if he does so, defying the commands of the legal profession to the contrary ...

After all, you can't have meetings & policy discussions on external insurance arrangements for public bodies which are supposed to be outside the control of government, and then tweak proposed legislation (which may run counter to that same public body's interests) to suit, unless there is a degree of collaboration & involvement in those issues & insurance arrangements, which it seems are certainly against the public interest, not for it ...

In-fighting, legal aid fraud, theft, & dishonesty typifies poor standards of Scotland's legal profession.

Scotland certainly had an interesting week on the legal front ...

Developments in the World's End trial collapse saw the Lord Advocate & Lord Justice General kiss & make up after falling out over the Lord Advocate's shifting of blame from the usual Crown Office failures to judicial failures ...

The Lockerbie trial - that oh-so-honest international barometer of Scots justice which Westminster & Washington held up as a job well done against terrorism, saw allegations that witnesses were apparently offered millions of dollars for favorable testimony ... not a job well done then as it turns out

The Lord Advocate came in for more criticism she was trying to shield Colin Boyd from the promised inquiry into the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal, where some in the political & legal system decided it was in their best interests to persecute & fit up Shirley McKie, a then serving Detective with Strathclyde Police, than admit the SCRO got it wrong ...

.. and while the Scottish Legal Aid Board reluctantly troubled themselves to investigate a staggering £1.8million pound legal aid fraud, where the wife of the solicitor who was definitely on the fiddle, and committed suicide when investigations began into his activities, allegedly agreed to pay back the £1.8million pounds her late husband falsely claimed in legal aid payments from the taxpayer.

and of course not forgetting the Paralegal who is up in court for allowing a property to be used to sell drugs, and finally, the lawyer arrested in connection with the theft of Davinci's 500-year-old Madonna with the Yarnwinder, owned by the late Duke of Buccleuch.

My my .. .don't we have a great legal profession in Scotland, never out of trouble .. even with each other sometimes.

If they aren't stealing from the clients these days, they are stealing from the taxpayer, or helping themselves to antiquities of significant value .... a common enough occurrence in the Scottish Borders, where I once remember a lawyer's safe stashed with valuables from deceased clients ... if only those families of the deceased clients had done something about it ... or even if only they knew ...

Despite all of this, not much news out of the Scottish Government on reforming the legal profession, and stripping them of their prized regulatory powers, which are to be shared with the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which I'm sad to say, seems to be turning into a fairly crooked affair on it's own after word reached me today that a few of the usual suspects are being appointed on orders of the Law Society of Scotland to make sure crooked lawyers still get off the hook ...

Well, with the polluted incestuous system of 'lay membership' we have in Scotland, which the shiny new SNP Scottish Government hasn't tackled yet, and needs to soon, can we expect anything else ? How can justice be seen to be done with everyone sitting on each others committees ?

I wonder what people will think of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission when to act against the client interest just like the Law Society of Scotland when investigating complaints ... perhaps in the way some of you suggest in comments & emails which, for your own protection, and mine, I simply can't publish !

Perhaps even, clients should form their own investigative commission to look into complaints against lawyers, and then challenge the likes of the SLCC when it might perhaps, carry on the same culture of injustice where the Law Society left off ?

Finally, since it's Friday, here's a 20 minute video challenging the notion of mob rule in Jedburgh, my former town of residence in the Scottish Borders, where the youth have, allegedly run riot, terrorising elderly residents & tourists. The film has apparently been made by some of the young people in the town who want to put their own side of the story - something ex-provost and now SBC Tory Councillor Len Wyse didn't allow much when he was on the Community Council.

A few articles from the Scotsman & Herald this week relating to the above ...

Widow agrees to return £1.8m legal aid cash falsely claimed by solicitor

MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

A SOLICITOR "embellished" claims for legal aid in child welfare cases with false details of sex abuse to fraudulently obtain nearly £2 million, The Scotsman can reveal.

In Scotland's biggest-ever legal aid fraud, James Muir made false claims for public money in hundreds of child protection cases over seven years.

Mr Muir, who kept a low profile in the profession but was regarded as one of the country's most dedicated and experienced specialist child welfare lawyers, committed suicide after the police began investigating.

Details of the case have been kept secret for two years while the Scottish Government's civil recovery unit sought to reclaim the money from his estate.

Yesterday the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) announced that an agreement had been reached with Mr Muir's family that will see £1.8 million paid back to the public fund.

Last night politicians demanded answers over how such abuse could go undetected for so long.

SLAB claimed the "tragic case" was a one-off and insisted it had improved procedures for checking legal aid claims.

Mr Muir's wife Susan, believed to be a serving police officer, has sold the family's luxury home in Bothwell, Lanarkshire, to help pay back the money.

Mr Muir, 45, who ran his practice from his home, worked mainly as a custodian, or "safeguarder", for children and minors too young to manage their own affairs or represent themselves in court.

The Scotsman can reveal that from 1999 until 2005, he made false claims for legal aid in several hundred child welfare cases. At the outset, he was claiming an average of around £1,000 per case, but by the time he was caught, this had risen to £10,000. To justify the soaring claims, he "embellished" detailed application forms to the legal aid board with fabricated details of sex abuse. He even invented statements between social workers and police officers.

The fraud came to light after legal aid staff noticed his payments were steadily increasing.

Strathclyde Police obtained a warrant to search Mr Muir's home and office on 20 April, 2005. Later the same day his body was discovered on a railway line.

A source last night said: "Mr Muir had a niche market, being the only dedicated children's lawyer in the area. All the children existed in his claims, but he made up the grounds of referral from the Children's Reporter and they all, in effect, became sex abuse cases. This allowed him to embellish claims and increase the amount paid."

Another lawyer, who did not want to be named, added: "If this had been going on in the criminal court, people would have quickly suspected something was going on. But he was basically doing this work on his own and no-one asked questions.

"Everyone thought he was simply working and doing well for himself. When it came to light, I think the legal aid board was embarrassed and furious in equal measure."

Mr Muir was known to have taken on a large workload and on occasions carried out work he did not claim for.

Now, following a long and detailed investigation by the legal aid board and months of negotiations, it is understood that his widow has agreed to give back all £1.8m that her husband received in legal aid over the seven years.

Bill Aitken, the Conservatives' justice spokesman, said: "Little can be done to protect the legal aid fund from deliberate theft but the obvious question is: how was this allowed to go on so long without someone noticing?"

A spokesman for SLAB said steps had been taken to prevent such fraud going undetected for so long. The body's investigation unit had been beefed up with new staff, with closer attention now paid to claims from lawyers working in specialised areas.

Pauline McNeill, Labour's justice spokeswoman, said: "It's important that lessons are learned from this case."

LEGAL AID BILL COSTS TAXPAYERS MORE THAN £150 MILLION

SCOTLAND'S legal aid bill cost the public purse more than £150 million last year.

Criminal cases accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total, but the civil legal aid bill also rose, for the first time in three years. Last year's total legal aid bill was 2 per cent up on 2005 and brought spending to the second-highest ever level.

The figures were disclosed yesterday in the annual report of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It coincided with new proposals from the board and the Scottish Government to change the way solicitors are paid for legal aid in summary - or less serious - cases.

Under the proposals, there will be a "substantial" increase in payments to lawyers in the early stages of a case, with lesser rises for cases going to trial. This is intended to save money overall, as the system is said to favour "not guilty" pleas that are later changed.

The £150 million cost to the taxpayer was made up of £106.6 million on criminal cases, £39 million on civil cases and £4.5 million on children's legal assistance and contempt of court cases.

Over the past five years, total spending has gone up by 11 per cent, or £15 million, mostly because of a £13.6 million rise in the cost of criminal legal aid.

Announcing his intention to introduce the legal aid changes next spring, Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, said: "These proposals aim to save time and expense, to avoid wasted effort and to reduce the demands made on victims and witnesses."

Legal aid winners

DONALD Findlay, QC, has topped the list for legal aid payments to advocates, for the second year in a row, receiving £358,400 last year.

The Glasgow-based law firm Ross Harper topped the solicitors' list, also for the second year in a row, at £1.732 million - and 11 other firms of solicitors were paid more than £1 million each. Top-earning solicitor advocate was Iain Paterson of Paterson Bell Solicitors, with £219,300.

Ten advocates each earned more than £200,000 in 2006-7. They are Donald Findlay QC (£358,400), Ian Duguid QC (£321,600), Edgar Prais QC (£272,500), Mhairi Richards QC (£269,800), Paul McBride QC (£237,800), Gordon Jackson (£228,500), Derek Ogg QC (£213,300), Lorenzo Alonzi (£213,100), Ronaldo Renucci (£212,100) and Thomas Ross (£208,600).

Bill Aitken, the misplaced Tory Convener of Holyrood's only Justice Committee, for odd reasons, stating the obvious .. must have been through gritted teeth, criticising his friends in the legal profession .. now onto the crooked Paralegal .. yes there are plenty of those too ...

Law worker allowed flat to be used as 'drugs warehouse'

GORDON CURRIE

A FORMER employee of Renfrewshire Council's legal department turned a blind eye when she discovered that a flat she owned was being used as a distribution for cocaine.

Claire Feely, 32, a one-time paralegal with the local authority, used details of someone else's identity, taken from the local authority's database, to rent the property in Muirpark Street, Glasgow, then sub-let it to Derek Morrison for £150 a month.

During a huge police operation mounted last summer Morrison, a car dealer, was kept under surveillance, a court heard yesterday.

Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency officers recovered cocaine with a potential street value of over £800,000 during the raids that were mounted.

After gathering evidence, police arrested both Morrison and Feely and detained two others.

Police, acting on inside information, began watching Morrison, formerly of Elliott Street and now of Mossvale Street, Glasgow, over the summer last year.

The final pounce was mounted in August after Morrison had driven to properties associated with student Nikolas Guit, in Glassford Street and Sheila Street; and attended at the home of David Burke, a scene hand, in the city's Aray Street. Morrison, 30, admitted being concerned in the supply of the drug between 1 March and 24 August last year at the flat, described in court as a "drugs warehouse", and at his then home in Elliott Street, Glasgow.

The High Court in Paisley heard that police had found 15 one-kilogram packages of cocaine, concealed in a suitcase kept on top of a wardrobe.

A frying pan, hammer and scales, all stained with traces of cocaine, and various packages prepared for onward sale, were also retrieved.

Feely, who is now working as a hotel receptionist with the Holiday Inn group, was interviewed by police when they discovered her property had been let to Morrison.

She pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of cocaine between 1 March and 24 August at 6 Muirpark Street.

Burke, 35, now of Pitreavie Place, Glasgow, was found in possession of £800 worth of cocaine when officers raided his former address in Aray Street. He admitted he had been dealing and confessed he had a personal drugs habit that cost him £1,000 a day.

In court, he plead guilty to being concerned in the supply of the drug between 24 May and 24 August, 2006, at both Aray Street and Muirpark Street.

Guit, 32, was found with cocaine with a street value of £3,370 when police went to a second property he had in Glassford Street.

He admitted being concerned in the supply of the drug at both addresses on 24 August.

Yesterday judge Lord Kinclaven was told that a meticulous search of Morrison's home had also revealed correspondence relating to the purchase of another flat in Bulgaria.

Feely, he was told, had not been able to bring herself to tell any members of her family anything about the court case.

The judge remanded Morrison and Burke in custody after calling for background reports, and released Feely and Guit on bail.

All four will appear at the High Court in Edinburgh for sentencing on 31 October.

Law Society kills Petition PE1033 amid calls for review of injustice & regulatory sins of the past

We constantly read in the media of those who commit crimes never showing any repentance for their actions, usually doing their utmost to deny their wrongdoing, even when the evidence is all too plain to see.

And so, it is with the Law Society of Scotland, who never apologise for abusing clients rights when an innocent individual discovers they have been wronged grievously by a solicitor.The Law Society never apologizes of course, because they can get away with abusing clients, and don't see anything wrong with it.They see it as their right, and they have political friends who support it. As long as that is the case, nothing can stop it.

Imagine,if you will, an abuser, facing a law change which would send them to jail for longer, and force them to pay compensation of their victims, called up their political friends to prevent that law being changed, and the politicians said "Oh yes, we will allow you to go on abusing, we support you".

How would the public react to that ? Would those same politicians who shielded the abuser's view of their right to go on abusing & get away with it, last long in political office ? Well, yes, it does happen in a few instances, but for anyone who has fallen victim to the sins of the Law Society of Scotland and crooked lawyers, it has happened all too often.

This is, technically what happened at the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee on 18 September 2007, where, sadly, but not unexpectedly, my Petition PE1033, to call for a review of cases of injustice, caused by the Law Society of Scotland in it's role as regulator of complaints against solicitors, a complaints process which has caused such damage to innocent members of the public, was, for now, closed...

The letter from the Petitions Committee :

I knew it would happen of course, the Law Society, as determined as it is, and as full of hate as it is for anyone who criticises it's position as regulator of complaints against solicitors, would succeed in either delaying or ending what is, an obvious call for the sins of the past to put right.

Here is the Law Society of Scotland's letter to the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee members, arriving at the Parliament, by usual means of dirty tricks, the very same day the Petition was being considered. The Law Society had since December 2006 to make the spurious claims they laid before the Committee ....

The letter from the Law Society of Scotland to the Petitions Committee :

Item 1 of the Law Society's letter, gives a summary of how the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 came into being, which barely passed into law last year, after constant meddling, arm twisting, even threats to take the Parliament to Court if parts of the then LPLA Bill were not amended to the Law Society's interests ... None of that is mentioned in Mr Clancy's summary of how the LPLA Bill progressed through the Parliament and into law because Mr Clancy puts forward the Law Society's view of itself and demands that no one can take issue with it.

Item 2 of the Law Society's letter, the shorter part, and in the usual style of the Law Society when answering it's critics, attempts to sideline the reforms & additional powers I asked for in Petition PE1033, which were to either give extended powers to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to review & resolve past cases of complaint mishandled by the Law Society of Scotland, or, form an independent review commission with a similar remit.

There is of course, nothing at all, no mention whatsoever in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, of any such reforms or extended powers to which I called for in Petition PE1033, as is plain to see.

The Law Society claim further, in the letter, that

"The Parliament passed the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 on 14 December 2006. Mr Cherbi submitted his petition on 15 December 2006.

Mr Cherbi’s wish to make changes to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission could have been considered by the Parliament on 14 December had he promoted amendments to the Parliament.

The Act received the Royal Assent on 19 January 2007 and is in the process of implementation. In the Society’s view, the Act should be given the opportunity to be fully implemented and to be put into operation before its amendment should be contemplated. "

Really ? I think you jest Mr Clancy, and you know it full well.

So Mr Clancy wants to give the LPLA Act an opportunity to be "fully implemented and put into operation before this amendment should be contemplated."

The same LPLA Act which his colleague, Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill threatened to bring down with legal action against both the Scottish Executive & Scottish Parliament unless it was amended to suit the needs of the legal profession.

Does perhaps, Mr Clancy have plans for the progress of implementation of the LPLA Act to which we are not privy yet ? ..

Perhaps, as one of the rumours circulating from the Justice Department being that somewhere along the line, the Law Society will support a challenge by one of it's solicitors against the LPLA Act and the SLCC on the grounds that particular legislation or operation of the SLCC has ... breached that particular solicitors Human Rights ? ..... just the same as what happened with Temporary Sheriffs, then we see the SLCC suspended in it's function while the Law Society of Scotland come back to self regulate the legal profession for its own interests as it has always done ?

This is one of the scenarios which has been under consideration by politicians in the event that Douglas Mill and the Law Society decide yet again to threaten to kill off the LPLA Act & the function of the SLCC .... so, better now to look at either implementing the aims of Petition PE1033 as an 'amendment' or more simply, have the Justice Secretary convene a review commission to carry out the terms of Petition PE1033 .. sooner rather than later.

If I had put forward amendments to the LPLA Bill, the Parliament would have considered them and thrown them out quicker than the speed of light, on orders from the Law Society because such amendments would effectively call into question many many cases of poorly & deliberately mishandled complaints by the Law Society of Scotland over many years.

I have been asking since 1999, since the Justice & Home Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament first examined whether to investigate regulation of the legal profession, that the sins of the past be put right.

To clearly show the long history of this matter, you can read the submissions of myself, and many others to the Justice 1 Committee 'regulation of the legal profession' hearings in 2003 and again, submissions from myself and many others to the Justice 2 Committee consideration of the LPLA Bill during 2006.

Clearly, at least one MSP out of them all, should have proposed the issue of dealing with injustice caused by the Law Society to clients whose complaints were poorly or deliberately mishandled by the law Society of Scotland - there was ample evidence, after all .. but not one MSP was brave enough to raise it as an issue, despite every MSP in the Parliament receiving letters from constituents on problems with 'crooked lawyers'.

Why on earth would I, and many others, have been campaigning over the years, since 1994 actually, for an end to self regulation of the legal profession, the creation of an independent regulatory body to deal with complaints against solicitors, and as obvious to all, a clean up of the injustice of the past by the Law Society who either poorly or deliberately in many cases, mishandled complaints against solicitors ?

Petition PE1033 - Reviewing mishandled complaints against lawyers :

Here are the details from the Committee Official Report on how my Petition PE1033 was considered :

Legal Profession (Complaints) (PE1033)

The Convener: I thank committee members and the public for their patience. We have heard from two petitioners and we must now give appropriate consideration to a series of petitions.

PE1033, which was lodged by Peter Cherbi—I hope that I have pronounced that right—calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek an effective, transparent and wholly independent means of reviewing cases of alleged injustice, caused by actions and decisions of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates that relate to the regulation of complaints made by members of the public against the legal profession, either by giving powers to the new Scottish legal complaints commission or by setting up an independent review commission. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the Parliament's e-petition system, where between 9 February and 2 June it gathered 46 signatures and three comments.

Do members have views on how to deal with the petition? We have received a letter from the Law Society of Scotland, which is one of the organisations that we might contact as part of our consideration. I will not pre-empt the discussion by talking about what the letter says. That would be

Col 120

unfair to members, who have not seen the letter, because it arrived this afternoon.

Nanette Milne: I have seen the letter from the Law Society of Scotland. I think I am right when I say that significant legislation has been passed; the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 has not yet been fully enacted, but it will establish the Scottish legal complaints commission. I confess that I do not know the detail around that, but I know that the Justice 2 Committee in the previous session of the Parliament took detailed evidence on the issues.

Given that the new arrangements are not yet fully up and running, would it be a little premature to consider the petition at this stage? Might it be better to deal with it as part of post-legislative scrutiny? I am interested in what members think about that.

15:30

Rhoda Grant: I was about to say much the same thing. It is important to let legislation bed in and, when significant changes have been made, to ascertain whether the new system is working. After that, the new system can be reviewed by the appropriate committee of the Parliament.

The Convener: Do members agree?

Tricia Marwick: Despite the raft of legislation that has been passed, it seems that dissatisfaction remains about the legal profession, which might or might not be lessened when all legislative provisions are in place. It might be worth while to write to the Law Society of Scotland or the Scottish Government about the petition, to ask whether it is anticipated that all the petitioner's concerns will be addressed when all provisions are in force. I suspect that all the petitioner's concerns will not be addressed. We might ask what further provisions could be considered.

Robin Harper: We must acknowledge that there is a group of people in Scotland—a relatively small number, I hope—who, for personal reasons, are deeply disturbed by the treatment that they have had from lawyers. The depth of their feelings should not influence committee members as much as the sensible approach that Nanette Milne suggested, which is to wait until the legislation that has been passed is in force, before considering what can be done in the context of post-legislative scrutiny.

The Convener: Two distinct approaches have been suggested: to seek further views on the appropriateness of the petition in the context of existing legislation and to ask whether existing legislation will address the petitioner's concerns; or to wait until post-legislative scrutiny takes place.

Col 121

Nanette Milne: Are the two approaches mutually exclusive?

Robin Harper: I do not think so. We can do both.

The Convener: I hope that the approaches are not mutually exclusive. I am trying to find healing words.

Nanette Milne: We can do both, ideally.

The Convener: Are we not closing the petition?

Fergus Cochrane (Clerk): If the committee decides that existing provisions are sufficient to deal with the concerns that are raised in the petition, it can close the petition on that basis.

John Farquhar Munro: Can we take advice from the Scottish legal complaints commission?

The Convener: The issue is whether we can close the petition at this stage on the basis that we can revisit it if issues emerge from post-legislative scrutiny or comments made by the Government, the law officers or anyone else.

Fergus Cochrane: If you close the petition, you close it.

The Convener: That is what I was trying to get at. What do members want to do?

Tricia Marwick: I would not want to go to the wall on this. A few members think that the legislation needs to bed down and I would not divide the committee on that. We might say to the petitioner that we will close the petition at this stage, but if he wants to come back to us after the provisions have been enacted and have bedded in we will consider more specific points at that stage.

The Convener: That seems a sensible way to resolve a difficult issue, given the journey that has been taken. We might recommend closing the petition on the basis that we expect to hear something about post-legislative scrutiny. We can remind the petitioner that if his concerns have not been appropriately dealt with in the new legislative framework, the opportunity remains for him to lodge another petition. I thank members for their helpful contributions.

Sadly, I think only Tricia Marwick MSP actually understood what Petition PE1033 was all about, and what I was asking for in it, rather than accepting the Law Society explanation in their letter, ideally timed to keep scrutiny of the issue to a minimum.

I do thank all of you who signed the Petition on the Parliament's website. I am sorry of course, for letting you down but the battle goes on, to bring redress to those who suffer & have suffered injustice at the hands of the legal profession in Scotland.

Well, I can only but try again of course, and to assist that somewhat, and given I heard a whisper the Petition was to be closed (amazing, isn't it), I wrote to the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill several days before the Petitions Committee met, asking that he consider the aims of Petition PE1033, with a view to his office implementing the calls for review & resolution of past injustice caused by the mishandling, deliberate or otherwise, of complaints against solicitors by the Law Society of Scotland.

Mr MacAskill could do that. He does have the power to either call for a review & resolution of past injustice caused by the legal profession against members of the public, by way of putting together a Commission, or himself, putting forward extended powers to be passed by the Parliament, just as the Law Society have occasionally done in the past, using Solicitor MSPs to put forward & promote legislation when it suited them to do so

My letter to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill :

The Law Society of Scotland know of, and apparently have, a copy of my letter to Mr MacAskill, so I can imagine they will try and flummox him with the same deadly poison they laid before the Petitions Committee.

However, I hope that Mr MacAskill, a member of the legal profession himself, will see sense and give, what are 'healing powers' to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to clean up the Law Society of Scotland's sins of the past. After all, cleaning up the sins of the past, isn't such a bad thing to do now, is it ?