Censorship & ‘frequent flyers’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal attempt to write off consumers evidence in Master Policy report

Victims of crooked lawyers branded "frequent flyers" & “biased” by anti client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. A bungled attempt at censorship of documents released under Freedom of Information laws by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, reveals that board member David Smith, who is also the husband of Scotland's Supreme Court Judge Lady Smith, has hit out at ruined clients of crooked lawyers who gave their experiences through invitation to the SLCC’s recent Master Policy investigation, branding victims "frequent flyers" and claiming the ‘ground breaking’ investigation carried out by the University of Manchester research team into the infamous Master Policy insurance scheme for Scotland’s 10,000 solicitors, had ‘paid only lip service’ to duties the commission is supposed to carry out involving the monitoring of claims for financial damages made by members of the public against the growing ranks of crooked lawyers in Scotland.

David Smith, SLCC solicitor board member criticised ruined victims of crooked lawyers. Mr Smith, himself a retired solicitor who served with Edinburgh legal firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, said in incompetently censored emails to the SLCC's Chief Executive : "I have read through the Report and it is quite clear that it is of only limited value because of time (and funding ?) constraints and the fact that the claimants interviewed were all frequent flyers." Mr Smith went onto repeat the insults further, stating : "I suspect that when we go public we will be seen by the claimant lobby and consumer organisations to have achieved nothing and that we have paid only lip service to our monitoring role. Conversely I think LSS and the profession will think we have achieved nothing as the research has only focussed on the frequent flyers who have longstanding grievances against LSS/the profession."

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman branded participants in SLCC investigation as ‘biased’ but said nothing about how biased lawyers views were. Eileen Masterman, the SLCC’s Chief Executive joined in the criticisms against members of the public who had given up significant time and made huge effort to participate in the SLCC’s investigation of the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, branding them ‘biased’, saying : “It has not been possible to interview a representative sample of claimants with regard to the Master Policy and it is very likely that the sample used is biased. Many of the claims the researchers were informed of are long standing. Without current data it is difficult to say whether the problems alleged are persistent and that pursuing a claim is currently as difficult as has been alleged by those claimants spoken to.”

SLCC board members think little of participants in Master Policy investigation. A member of the public who participated in the SLCC's sponsored survey hit back at Mr Smith's comments saying : "Oh well if that's what these people think of us then why are they still on the legal complaints commission and being paid for it ? Why did the SLCC ask for people to contact them in the first place if all that was going to happen was a steady stream of insults and the usual no action at the end of it ? I think the SLCC should be apologising to all of us at least and let us have a fair hearing instead of all this name calling."

He continued : "Wouldn't we be better with someone on this commission who respects what ordinary people have had to go through to try and get justice against a crooked lawyer because I’m sure Mr Smith and his friends will know very well that trying to claim against a crooked lawyer is impossible in Scotland and life is made very difficult for anyone who tries.”

Insulting comments against victims of crooked lawyers & consumer groups were expressed earlier in the year by solicitor & SLCC board member Margaret Scanlan. A senior official at one of Scotland's consumer organisations today expressed disgust at the revelations. He said : "I fail to see how these continuing poor attitudes expressed towards consumers by board members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will help address the historical problems of poor and biased self regulation of Scotland's legal profession." He continued : "It is going to be almost impossible for the SLCC to work with the public if people realise the underlying attitudes at the commission are biased against consumers and the fact is we have already seen other commission members and senior staff make similar unnecessary slurs against particular members of the public and certain campaign groups. These kinds of comments do not belong in an organisation which was created at great public expense to independently investigate complaints against members of the legal profession in Scotland."

Law Society might be ‘requested’ by SLCC to hand over Master Policy documents but no power exists to compel them to do so. After twice branding victims of crooked lawyers who had participated in the SLCC Master Policy investigation as "frequent flyers", David Smith then went onto put forward a proposal that the SLCC should 'request' further documents concerning the Master Policy from the Law Society which had earlier been denied to the SLCC and their research team. I reported on the research team’s lack of access to documents in an earlier article here : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers

However, since the Law Society and its insurers Marsh UK who run the Master Policy, had refused to hand over required documents for the SLCC investigation, Mr Smith stated later in the same email (again blacked out by the SLCC) : "If we continue to get resistance from the LSS (Law Society of Scotland) we need to require them to supply reasons under Section s39(4) AND we should make the Scottish Ministers aware of our concerns and highlight the need for greater powers to make this monitoring role actually work."

Section 39(4) of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 laughably states that : “(4) Where a relevant professional organisation fails to provide information requested under subsection (3), it must give reasons to the Commission in respect of that failure.” which means the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, for the all the £2 million pounds plus of taxpayers money lavished on it by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, actually has no powers at all to require the Law Society hand over the real evidence of how claims against crooked lawyers are treated in Scotland, and thus indicates a complete failure of the law, allowing effective oversight of the legal profession in Scotland which the public had been promised in the 2007 LPLA Act.

A legal insider said today : "I am somewhat concerned that such sentiments are being expressed against the investigation because no one at the SLCC wants to hear the actual truth of just how corrupt the claims process is against a lawyer when the Master Policy is involved. Perhaps what we are seeing is an attempt by the SLCC to write off the work of the University of Manchester team because they actually did their job and produced a very good report which is difficult to refute from a factual standpoint.”

Jane Irvine, the SLCC’s Chair was asked for comment, and to review the censored FOI documents. Jane Irvine, the chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was asked to review the content of the heavily redacted FOI disclosures. However, she replied by way of an FOI review stating “The response provided to your FOI request was correct” and amazingly did not comment on the failure of the SLCC’s attempts at censoring information contained in the disclosures, which were justified with specific references to FOI exemption rules.

A leading FOI expert this afternoon said he thought the SLCC’s attempt at censoring references to participants in the survey as possibly being in violation of the law on FOI disclosures, and recommended the matter be sent to Scotland's Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion for investigation.

He said : “Notwithstanding the fact the SLCC bungled the redactions on the documents disclosed under FOI, there is cause for concern some of those redactions have occurred simply to protect board members from the fallout of their own ill judged comments. That is not what exemptions under Freedom of Information legislation were designed to conceal. I think anyone may reasonably conclude under the circumstances that an abuse of the rules on the application of exemptions under FOI has occurred here.”

Personally I must say I am thoroughly disgusted by the SLCC’s conduct with regard to the investigation into the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund which was carried out on its own instruction, and with the help of the Scottish Government.

The report produced by the University of Manchester research team identified a great deal of suffering that has been caused by the policies of the Law Society and the insurers towards those who have attempted to lodge claims against their ‘crooked lawyers’ …. even identifying suicides of clients which have occurred, and all quite happily kept under wraps for all these years by the Law Society of Scotland . You can read more about that in a previous article I wrote here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

If ordinary members of the public are to be encouraged to participate in work involving the SLCC, surely they are to be treated with equality of arms and courtesy, which the SLCC has certainly showed the legal profession on many occasions. However, with what has been revealed to me in badly censored FOI documents (and I understand there to be much more) I see nothing more than a trail of anti client bias, which first reared its head earlier this year through comments made by fellow board member Margaret Scanlan, who branded claimants to the Guarantee fund as "chancers" and then went on to demand that consumer groups be excluded from surveys and investigations carried out by the SLCC.

Clearly the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission must now be cleaned up itself, and given a good dose of oversight to restore public confidence, if it can indeed be restored ...

Legal profession ‘afraid of losing profits & control of access to justice’ as Faculty of Advocates protest against McKenzie Friends for Scotland

The Faculty of Advocates oppose the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland. The Faculty of Advocates have made an amazing claim to the Scottish Parliament that only lawyers should have access to the courts in Scotland, thus become the latest branch of Scotland's embittered legal profession to object to wide ranging reforms to access to justice in Scotland which include the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland's courts, some FORTY YEARS after their introduction in England & Wales which has proved hugely successful for the interests of justice in the rest of the UK over the past four decades and for many people around the world who are also able to use McKenzie Friends in many jurisdictions.

Scotland's Advocates claimed only lawyers or advocates should have access to the court. The Faculty of Advocates said in their objections to the McKenzie Friend petition at Holyrood : "It would generally not be desirable for litigants to take part in the legal process without legal representation. It is accepted that there may be instances where the facts are so straightforward that it would appear at first sight that the claim could be dealt with by a party on his own. It is also accepted that there are occasions when a litigant either cannot afford to be assisted by a legal adviser, has chosen not to engage such assistance due to a lack of faith in lawyers in general, or simply is unable to find a lawyer who is willing to represent him."

The Faculty of Advocates then attempted to justify their stance by claiming people who represent themselves in court only have to do so because lawyers have told them their case 'is hopeless' : "In the last of these instances, on occasions it happens that clients receive advice that their case is hopeless and the client does not take the advice. It usually proves difficult for a client to persuade a different lawyer to act, when that advice has been given. It may be arrogant of the legal profession to presume that advice given by lawyers is correct. But often it is. The difficulty for the justice system is that a litigant who is intent on presenting a case will occasionally do so in an unfocussed way, perhaps missing a potentially good point while insisting on points of no merit."

You can read the Faculty of Advocate’s entire submission to the Scottish Parliament on the issue of McKenzie Friends, HERE

Clearly this is about the Faculty controlling access to justice, rather than being about the integrity of someone’s legal affairs and whether they have a presentable case in court or not. We are therefore left with little doubt the legal profession wants to retain its monopoly control over access to justice in Scotland, which is clearly in the Faculty's plan, in partnership with the Law Society of Scotland, who also oppose the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland.

You can read my earlier report on the Law Society of Scotland’s resistance to the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts here : 'Control Freaks' at Law Society say “No” to McKenzie Friends as Holyrood submission signals resistance to Lord Gill's civil justice review

A spokesman for one of Scotland's consumer organisations hit out today at the arrogance of the Faculty's claims, branding them selfish and obstructive, saying : "The Faculty's attitude towards access to justice in Scotland is astoundingly arrogant and it is clear they are desperately afraid of the impact that McKenzie Friends will have on their business, to the point they will use any means to justify the legal profession's control over who has access to a court in Scotland."

She continued : "What we all must remember is that access to justice is not about lawyers and advocates making money, it is about consumers being allowed to have a fair hearing in the eyes of the law. The introduction of the facility for court users in Scotland to choose a McKenzie Friend to assist the presentation of their case will bring us into line with the rest of the UK where McKenzie Friends have operated with great success for forty years, and have happily coexisted with solicitors & barristers work in the English courts, without all the fuss and protests we are now seeing from the Scottish legal profession prior to their introduction north of the border."

A Holyrood insider branded the Faculty's objections to McKenzie Friends as being ‘pathetic’, saying : " The Faculty are out to make sure people are forced to keep paying huge fees for advocates to appear in the courts on their behalf. Obviously they see McKenzie Friends as being competition to their services and that is why they don't want McKenzie Friends to be allowed in Scotland."

A client who recently found out his solicitor had asked for two further counsels opinions after the case had actually been settled said : “Everyone thinks getting an advocate to represent you in the Court of Session is a guarantee to win. It is not and if McKenzie Friends were available I would have taken one to begin with. I have wasted over £50,000 on fees for advocates who ended up just complicating the case which ended up having to be settled when the company I was suing got fed up of paying the legal fees for their lawyers who were just keeping themselves going in the court for no reason other than to be there. The two accounts I now have for legal services even after we had agreed to settle shows to me they were just out to make as much money as possible and were probably miffed we ended up settling where the lawyers hoped it would all go on for years.”

Scottish Court Service say Government and judiciary will have to work together on McKenzie Friends. While the Faculty of Advocates are smarting over the idea of introducing McKenzie Friends in Scotland's courts, which as they see will 'violate' their right to earn as much money as possible out of clients who are forced to use advocates & solicitors to pursue legal cases, the Scottish Courts Service stepped in with their own submission on the petition to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, confirming any action to introduce McKenzie Friends in the Scottish justice system would have to be a joint effort between the judiciary and the Scottish Government.

Scottish Court Service letter to Holyrood Petitions Committee. Neil Rennick, the Director of Policy & Strategy for the Scottish Court Service said : "I can confirm that any decision about the potential introduction of a “McKenzie Friend” facility within the courts would be a policy matter for Scottish Ministers in consultation with the judiciary.” Mr Rennick went onto clarify current the SCS current policy on McKenzie Friends in Scotland, which may well change after the expected recommendations by the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill, who will call for the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland in his forthcoming Civil Court Review. Mr Rennick continued : "I note that you have written separately to the Scottish Government and that they have indicated that there are no current plans to introduce such a facility, pending consideration of any relevant recommendations from the current Civil Courts Review, chaired by the Rt Hon Lord Gill. No actions are therefore being taken by the SCS on this matter at this time. The SCS will contribute, at the appropriate time, to any consideration of the operational implications for the courts of matters arising from the Civil Courts Review."

A spokeswoman for the Civil Courts review team when approached for comment confirmed they would be dealing with the issue of McKenzie Friends in Lord Gill's civil courts review, which is hoped to be published on or around 30 September 2009.

The situation as currently stands where our access to justice is controlled and restricted by the legal profession on the grounds they have to make huge profits out of the public, cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, given the obstructive attitude of Scotland's legal profession from the advocates and solicitors towards the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland's courts, it is a must that Parliament and the Scottish Government move on the McKenzie Friend petition, and Lord Gill's expected recommendations, to ensure the Scots public have the right of access to Scotland's courts, and the choice to use a legal representative, or a McKenzie Friend, as is appropriate to their case.

You can read my earlier articles on the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland HERE and I urge readers, and anyone experiencing difficulties in obtaining access to justice or access to legal representation to support the McKenzie friend Petition 1247 by contacting the Petitions Committee via their email at : petitions@scottish.parliament.uk

Hospitality in the land of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Revelations from Scottish Legal Complaints Commission show no register was kept until August 2008. Documents released today under the Freedom of Information Act from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal that strangely, no register of interests had been kept at the joint taxpayer-legal profession funded law complaints body until August 2008, this despite the quango being in receipt of millions of pounds of taxpayers money while it awaited the eventual collection of the Penman complaints levy from the legal profession to keep the commission ‘ticking over’.

Jane Irvine, the SLCC’s Chair is the only board member to have declared any hospitality in the newly released register of Members Gifts & Hospitality. The papers released today from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission show that only one member, the SLCC Chairman, Jane Irvine, has received (and declared) hospitality from the legal profession and organisations connected with it. However, the register did not reflect hospitality received by one of the SLCC’s lay board members, Dr Linda Pollock, who, the SLCC today confirmed, had alongside her husband, attended a ball given by an Edinburgh law firm.

In responding to queries on actual hospitality, the SLCC said today : “ In searching for the information requested I have ascertained that no Register existed prior to August last year. I have also sought the Members' recollection as to whether they had received gifts or hospitality and they have all responded that they have not.”

“In clarification of my request regarding hospitality Dr Pollock informed me that she had declared an invitation to the Chair who ascertained that the invitation was for Dr Pollock's husband to attend a Ball on 30 May 2008 by the law firm Gillespie Macandrew LLP. Dr Pollock attended as his partner.”

A legal insider earlier today commented on the revelations, saying : “The lack of a register being drafted for the start of members paid work at the SLCC, which began in January 2008 raises questions over what has been going on all this time, especially after the revelations that not even a members code of conduct existed until just a few weeks ago, and that only came about after the newspapers began to take an interest in the SLCC.”

He continued : “It all seems a bit of an amateur set-up at the SLCC, although a costly one at over 4 million pounds to solicitors and the taxpayer. Everyone knew what was needed to get this organisation going so why couldn’t all this have been in place when the money started pouring in ?”

Hospitality rules at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. While there are no particular horrors contained in today’s disclosures from the SLCC, there are certainly some interesting organisations revealed to be keen to keep the SLCC ‘on side’, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants, itself a self regulator, well known by many to have protected crooked accountants from serious complaints over the years, and also, perhaps a surprising note to some of an invite from the Medical Protection Society, who describe themselves as “… the leading provider of comprehensive professional indemnity and expert advice to doctors, dentists and health professionals around the world” which sounds almost familiar to how Marsh UK describe themselves, as the leading provider of professional indemnity to the legal profession. Others who regularly invite the SLCC over for bouts of socialising are the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, and, dare I say .. the usual suspects.

Since there appear to be some issues of hospitality which are not indicated in the actual register itself, which the SLCC do not publish, I decided to publish this information today, which perhaps might give a clearer impression of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to those who may have to deal with it at some stage in relation to complaints about the legal profession.

Perhaps as there is so much hospitality on offer from the legal profession and those connected with it to the ‘independent’ SLCC, there should be a rolling register of interests kept updated regularly … hopefully without too much of the forgetfulness that has marked the SLCC’s previous attempts at transparency …

McKenzie Friends for Scotland gain support from ‘original McKenzie Friend’ while Scottish Government hint at delays to civil justice reforms

Scottish Parliament receives submission from ‘the original McKenzie Friend’ promoting McKenzie Friends for Scotland. IAN HANGER QC, the Australian barrister who participated in the 1970 McKenzie v McKenzie court case in London which led to the existence of the now widely used McKenzie Friend facility by thousands of unrepresented litigants in courts all around the world, has given a submission to the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee in support of Petition 1247 asking that Holyrood permit the use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts.

Ian Hanger QC urges Holyrood to permit the appearance of a McKenzie Friend. In his submission to the Parliament's Petitions Committee, Ian Hanger QC writes of the historical nature of the court case which began the existence of the 'McKenzie Friend : "I did not know when a humble clerk working for Jeffrey Gordon in 1969 and 1970, that when he asked me to look after Mr McKenzie I would be catapulted into history. For me it was just another day at the office. Quite frankly, I did not think that Mr McKenzie had a lot going for him but he was entitled to have his case put in the best possible fashion. I tried to help him do that. I am quite sure that had I been able to remain in court and quietly assist him, the case would not have gone on for half the time that it, in fact, did. I am sure that I could have curtailed the hearing to a few days."

The submission goes on to detail how McKenzie Friends operate in the Australian courts : "As you know, a lot of common law has developed around the doctrine of McKenzie Friend and certainly some of it is confused. In Australia, most of our courts have the power to permit a non-qualified person to, in effect, represent a litigant. Such a provision is specifically contained in the Acts or Rules of Court. But such a person is not a McKenzie Friend."

"A McKenzie Friend does not have a right to address the court. That right is confined to quietly assisting the unrepresented litigant. The Australian experience has been that it has worked successfully. I don't know of the Scottish experience, but certainly in Australia the courts are now greatly troubled by unrepresented litigants and, as the Chief Judge of our District Court has informed me - any help is appreciated."

"Of course, some McKenzie Friends step out of line. The Australian courts have had no hesitation in controlling such people. Obviously the McKenzie Friend should not be entitled to charge any fee for services. To do so, in Australia, would be breaching our Legal Services Acts. I cannot see that the floodgates would be opened by permitting, in appropriate cases, the presence of the McKenzie Friend to help the unrepresented litigant. In some cases you will get a brilliant law student who will provide enormous assistance to the Court."

Ian Hanger concludes his letter to the Scottish Parliament, stating : "I would urge the Parliament to permit the appearance of the McKenzie Friend."

Clearly the support of Ian Hanger QC, being the original McKenzie Friend is of considerable value to the effort to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, some FORTY YEARS after their first use in England & Wales. Thank you Ian !

A spokesman for a Scottish consumer organisation said last night : "I am delighted to read of the tremendous support given by Ian Hanger to the McKenzie Friend petition at the Scottish Parliament."

He went on : "As you know our organisation together with several other consumer groups have been supporting the petition at Holyrood, and I can only say that having the support of the original McKenzie Friend is a great bonus, which proves our efforts are justified in ensuring that consumers in Scotland have the same access to justice entitlements as those in England & Wales and all the other jurisdictions were McKenzie Friends have operated successfully for many years."

Several officials from other consumer groups joined in praise of the contribution from Ian Hanger, one senior official calling Mr Hanger’s submission "so invaluable to the McKenzie Friend debate in Scotland that it must lead to change in the Scottish courts so that the growing number of unrepresented litigants can avail themselves of a facility which has helped many people over the years in the sometimes intimidating court environment."

However, while the petition has received considerable support from consumer organisations, law reformers, campaigners, politicians, and the anticipated support of Scotland's Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill, who is rumoured to be recommending the implementation of the McKenzie Friend facility in his forthcoming civil courts review, there are still apparently some obstacles to overcome.

As I reported on Wednesday of this week, the Law Society of Scotland have predictably opposed the moves to allow McKenzie Friends in Scotland's courts, claiming it should be for judges to decide on a case by case basis whether unrepresented litigants can have someone quietly assist them represent their own case.

The claims by the Law Society of Scotland against the implementation of McKenzie Friends, were however, quickly dismissed as "rubbish" and "pure nonsense" by several senior legal figures who are of the clear opinion the Law Society simply wants to keep out McKenzie Friends from Scotland's courts on worries of financial worries, fearing law firms & solicitors will lose business due to clients deciding to take on a McKenzie Friend instead of paying out tens of thousands of pounds on costly and poor quality legal representation.

A retired solicitor commented last night : "The Law Society can protest all they like about not introducing McKenzie Friends to Scotland, but we all know their arguments hold no water. The fact is the Society feels itself being threatened by the introduction people to the court whom it does not control nor who will bring in money to the legal profession."

He continued : "McKenzie Friends should be allowed in the court, and I think we are all in no doubt there will have to be some kind of legislation to guarantee that litigants can choose to have a McKenzie Friend, rather than allow this ridiculous idea of judges being given the responsibility of considering case by case requests from litigants for the use of a McKenzie Friend, which in my view could lead to repeated miscarriages of justice."

Justice Secretary MacAskill finally submitted his ambiguous three page reply to the Scottish Parliament. Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has now submitted his response to the McKenzie Friend petition, stating : "... some important elements of the McKenzie friend facility are already available in the Scottish Courts, but the Scottish Government currently has no plans to further replicate the facility before consideration of the report and recommendations of the Civil Courts Review under the Lord Justice Clerk and (ii) the consultation on the eighth programme of law reform”.

Justice Secretary MacAskill’s submission gave limited examples of the rights of unrepresented litigants in Scotland’s courts. Mr MacAskill's submission described the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales, then went on to detail how the issue had [not] been handled in Scotland : “In Scotland differing views have been expressed by Outer House judges as to the competency of permitting a person assisting a party litigant to address the Court on the party litigant’s behalf. Many party litigants are assisted in conducting their litigation before the Court of Session by friends and acquaintances, who sit behind them in court."

"In Kinneil v Kinneil the Lord Ordinary, in granting an application for a wife to represent her husband who was otherwise unrepresented at the hearing, found that the Court of Session has a discretion to allow a lay person to speak for a party litigant. He emphasised, however, that this discretion should only be exercised in favour of allowing such representation in exceptional cases. Each case will depend on its own facts. In another case the Lord Ordinary, in the absence of any authority supporting that approach, found it to be incompetent, although he did acknowledge that such an arrangement might in certain circumstances prove to be of practical assistance."

Mr MacAskill ended his submission by stating : "The Scottish Government awaits the Review’s full consideration of responses received to these and other questions, and will similarly formulate preferred reforms to Scottish civil justice systems only in a coherent whole. In the interim, in advance of receiving the Review’s report and recommendations, the Scottish Government has no plans to introduce prematurely to the Scottish courts any further or additional elements of the McKenzie friend facility."

On an analysis of the Justice Secretary’s submission to the Petitions Committee on the McKenzie Friend issue, there is an overwhelming sense of the usual 'delay & do nothing' approach from the Scottish Government, which seems to typify this administration's lack of coherent & consumer friendly policies on justice issues in Scotland.

A legal insider last night branded the Scottish Government’s submission “a no brainer” saying “If anyone is in any doubt why Scots have so little rights in court and why reforms to the justice system are so slow, they just need to read through the three pages reply the Justice Department sent into Holyrood about McKenzie Friends.”

He continued : “A good good comparison would be where the Scottish Law Commission have been recommending much needed civil law reforms for years. However most of the SLC's recommendations have been ignored by successive administrations including the current Scottish Executive. I fear from the tone of the Executive’s response to Parliament on the McKenzie Friend petition, we are going go encounter more unnecessary delays to civil law reform in Scotland.”

While the Scottish Government continues to dither over the impending publication of Lord Gill’s civil courts review, the Scottish Court Service confirmed yesterday they would be replying to the Petitions Committee on the issue of McKenzie friends although a spokesman for the SCS when pressed for reaction on the Law Society of Scotland’s resistance on the issue, said : “We have no comment on the position being taken by the Law Society of Scotland.”

Clearly, with the groundswell of support from consumer organisations, court users, campaign groups, and even the occasional judge, and of course, the original McKenzie Friend himself, the Scottish Parliament must act and bring about clear decisive legislation to give Scots the entitlement the rest of the UK has had for forty years previous, to have a McKenzie Friend assist them in court, if so required.

You can read my earlier articles on the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland HERE

Please support the ending of 40 years of discrimination for Scots access to justice, and help bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts.