Holyrood’s Petitions Committee reluctant to allow law reform proposals through to Parliament

The Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee comes in for some all-singing, all-dancing praise in the Scotsman newspaper, although despite the congratulatory tone of the article, it seems that many petitions along the theme of law reform, are excluded. (yes, but that’s because the Law Society calls in petitions they feel shouldn’t be heard – Ed)

The Scotsman reports :

Petitions are giving power to the people of Scotland

Published Date: 30 April 2009

CITIZENS can bring about real change by signing their names, finds John Forsyth

ALAS, it's not that common to stumble across a civil servant who bounces with enthusiasm about his job. Fergus Cochrane, the clerk to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament, is among the few – the precious few.

He is close to evangelical about the role petitions play in giving ordinary members of the public direct access to the Holyrood parliamentary process.

It is hard to recall the dark days of the late 1980s and early 1990s when the dogged members of the Scottish Constitution Convention planned for an assembly that would be "different". The Public Petitions Committee is one of the genuine differences.

Any member of the public can lodge a petition and have the substance considered in public session. Evidence is heard, investigations conducted and conclusions brought to the attention of the Scottish Government.

"What makes it unique," says Mr Cochrane, "Is first that it is genuine access for members of the public. Their petition doesn't have to be "bought into" or endorsed by an MSP. Secondly, it is a petition that requires a parliamentary response. Ten Downing Street has an e-petitions site, but if 35,000 people sign up on an issue, or boxes of personally signed petitions are delivered to the doorstep, what do they amount to, unless a minister wants to pick the issue up?"

Current Petitions Committee convener, Frank McAveety, says the public petitions principle is built on the founding concept of the parliament: "The case for Holyrood was that sovereignty rests not with the government or with the Crown but with the Scottish people. The citizen has a right to engage parliament in issues that affect him or her and that may highlight important issues long before they would get on the radar of MSPs or government apparatus."

History, and the website at www.scottish.parliament.uk, record that the first petition was lodged on 14 June 1999 by Rev David R Beatty of Sandwick and Cunningsburgh Free Churches. It drew 40 signatories.

Petition PE001 called for parliament to take the necessary steps to introduce prayers to its the proceedings. On 10 September 1999 the record notes: "The parliament reached a decision to hold multi-denomination prayers, which the petitioner was informed of." A result.

The next meeting of the all-party committee, next Monday, will consider five new petitions and receive progress reports on 19 others. Oral evidence will be presented in support of PE1248 calling for the restoration of safe standing areas at football stadia, and on PE1249 calling for the proper regulation of holiday and "party" flats.

The 19 already under way include two petitions to protect disabled parking spaces, one on the menace of high hedges and another urging greater effort in upgrading the A92.

It's an education in itself scrolling through the list of matters raised by the public over the last decade, sometimes by a single citizen. Around half of the petitions have been lodged by individuals, a quarter by community councils and the remainder by organisations and campaigns.

The committee had a public evidence session earlier this year on the welfare of Siamese fighting fish that may yet influence practice throughout the land.

At the other end of the spectrum, Petition PE1108 not only changed policy on the prescribing of cancer drugs in Scotland but in England and Wales too.

It was lodged in January 2008 by Tina McGeever and her terminally ill husband, Michael Gray, and called for an overhaul of the inconsistency between different parts of the NHS in funding cancer treatment drugs. After several evidence sessions, the committee endorsed the petition and required the Scottish Government to address the issue. Michael Gray's legacy is an overhaul of government instructions to the NHS.

Another petition, on abuse of children in care called, among other things, for an apology to victims. First Minister, Jack McConnell, stood up in plenary session and apologised "on behalf of the people of Scotland".

Petitions can be submitted on paper or through the website. The first eyes to see it are those of Fergus Cochrane: "My job as clerk is to work with the petitioners to help the focus on the issue. Some are ruled out because they raise issues that fall outwith the powers of Holyrood. Though even going through that discussion with petitioners has some value for them in demonstrating they were taken seriously.

"Most petitioners will get at least two public sessions for their petition. The committee has never had a vote – the only issue the members have to resolve is when to close a petition, and the reality is if one member thinks there are still investigations that could be carried out, the petition will be continued."

Meetings have been held around Scotland with the aim of raising, not just the profile but also understanding of the process. The committee is also conducting a public consultation on its effectiveness and looking for suggestions on how to improve awareness of its work.

In the meantime, the committee's reputation has travelled further afield, with legislatures from South Africa, Australia, Wales, Saxony and Catalonia showing great interest in the system, with a view to taking their own route to breaking the stranglehold of the politicians on access to parliamentary time.

McKenzie Friends could come to Scottish courts as Holyrood considers 'access to justice' petition

The ability to have a McKenzie Friend by your side in an English courtroom should be extended to Scotland after a 39 year unwarranted exclusion, say access to justice campaigners, and the petitioner, Mr Stewart MacKenzie.

Peter Cherbi’s “Diary of Injustice” law blog reveals more on the merits of the McKenzie Friend petition and why having a McKenzie Friend at your side (if you can’t obtain the services of a solicitor) may very well be a good thing for justice and the courts. (Yes, high time McKenzie Friends were recognised and allowed in Scotland’s courts – Ed)

Diary of Injustice reports :

'McKenzie Friend' proposal to Parliament seeks to end 39 years of lawyers monopoly over Scots access to justice

Law Society 'monopolises' Scots access to court. THIRTY NINE YEARS after laws allowing a 'McKenzie Friend' in the English courts system were introduced to facilitate the public's access to justice by allowing a not necessarily qualified legal individual to assist a person in court, a McKenzie Friend Petition (Petition 1247) has been put to the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, asking for the implementation of the same privileges of a ‘McKenzie Friend’ to be granted in Scotland, to help many who find it difficult through the current system of legal representation, controlled by the Law Society of Scotland, to secure access to the Scottish Courts.

McKenzie Friend petition will end 39 years of prejudice against Scots ‘justice rights’ in Court. The petition, brought to the Scottish Parliament by Mr Stewart MacKenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a McKenzie Friend facility in Scottish courts as a matter of urgency. Mr MacKenzie’s case involving the legal profession became famous, when revelations of secret internal memos documenting a claims fixing policy at the Law Society of Scotland, resulted in a televised confrontation between Mr Swinney & former Law Society Chief Douglas Mill during the Justice 2 Committee's investigation of the now passed into law Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The memo-gate scandal eventually toppled Douglas Mill as Law Society Chief Executive in January 2008.

Mr MacKenzie speaking today to Diary of Injustice said : "I am hopeful the petition will get a good hearing at the Scottish Parliament, and begin the work of ending what is a glaringly prejudicial omission from the public's legal rights & entitlements in Scotland, while people in the rest of the UK have enjoyed and heavily used the right of having a McKenzie Friend accompany them in court hearings for nearly four decades."

Cabinet Secretary Swinney will be asked to speak to Holyrood committee on the merits of McKenzie Friends. It emerged today, the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee has set a 5th of May hearing for the petition, but has not granted Mr MacKenzie the right to give oral evidence, to which the petitioner replied : "Since I am not being allowed to speak on the merits of my own petition, I have asked my MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, to attend the Petition Committee hearing and speak on my behalf, as he has done so with considerable care and attentiveness on previous occasions."

In England & Wales, the concept of a McKenzie Friend has existed for some 39 years, assisting people in court, who find it difficult to obtain legal representation either through cost or other reasons.

The guidance from the President of the Family Division of the courts in England & Wales states : “Where proceedings are held in open court, it is clear from the principles set out in Court of Appeal decisions that a litigant who is not legally represented has the right to have reasonable assistance from a layperson, sometimes called a McKenzie Friend (“MF”).”

A litigant in person wishing to have the help of a MF should be allowed to do so unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not so require. The presumption in favour of permitting a MF is a strong one.”

A McKenzie Friend May : • Provide moral support for the litigant • Take notes • Help with case papers • Quietly give advice on: points of law or procedure, issues that the litigant may wish to raise in court, questions the litigant may wish to ask witnesses.

Mr Stewart MacKenzie's 'McKenzie Friend' Petition reads as follows : “39 years after a McKenzie Friend was introduced in the English Courts, we still do not have an equivalent in Scots law. For those who are unable, for whatever reasons, to be represented in court by a solicitor, be it cost or principle, it is unjust, immoral and a breach of their fundamental human right to have a fair hearing with reasonable “equality of arms” as required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to force them to appear in court as a party litigant without the facility of having someone to offer them support and guidance.

As people in Scotland are having their lives ripped apart by having their homes repossessed without the opportunity, as they do in England, to at least have their day in court, it is barbaric and inhuman that this obstinate refusal to ensure that the people of Scotland are not treated in an inferior manner compared with the rest of the United Kingdom when it comes to access to Justice. This is not an attempt to get the Parliament to consider any individual case.”

Justice Secretary MacAskill criticised over his own failure to reform access to justice. While many of the failures to implement the 1990 access to justice legislation can obviously be pinned on previous Scottish administrations who stood by while the Law Society in effect dictated policies on restricting the individual’s right of access to legal representation and the courts, the current Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and the Scottish Government have done very little, if anything to improve the lot of members of the public who simply cannot get into court because the legal profession feel it is not in their best interests to allow such cases to go forward.

Justice Secretary’s leaked letter promised cabinet colleague John Swinney that access to justice was happening two years ago. The road to reforming access to justice in Scotland has been a rocky one so far, as almost all attempts to-date of implementing changes allowing the Scots public increased access to justice and the Scottish Courts, have either been thwarted by the legal establishment, or held in political limbo by an exceedingly uncooperative Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who despite promises to Cabinet colleague John Swinney, two years ago in 2007 that change 'was on the way', has in reality made things very difficult for anyone other than solicitors to enter the Scots legal services market to this date and no doubt beyond.

High Court Judge Lord Hardie while serving as Lord Advocate, wanted to repeal Scots access to justice legislation. However, while the prickly thorn of reforming access to justice falls to the current Scottish Government to act upon, the legal establishment’s attitude to counter any reforms to increased access to the Scottish Courts go back years, as I revealed in an earlier report where in 1997, the serving Lord Advocate at the time, Lord Hardie, himself advocated repealing the laws which allowed increased competition in the Scots legal services market, which had actually been kept from the public by an intense campaign ran by the Law Society of Scotland for over seventeen years, seeing Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 only implemented in March 2007 after public queries and the release of documents through Freedom of Information laws which revealed the secret campaign by senior law figures and civil servants within the Scottish Executive to withhold or repeal the access to justice legislation.

A member of the public whose legal case could have significantly benefited from the use of a McKenzie’s friend said today : “"It is a matter of record that Lord Hardie has consistently denied the Scottish Public any meaningful or proper access to the law by his stubborn obstruction of articles 25-29 [of the Law Reform & Miscellaneous Provisions (Scotland) Act 1990], allowing members of the public to be represented by a third party of their choice.“

He went on : “The deafening silence by every major political party which has accompanied this wicked betrayal of trust indicates their tacit approval of it. Disturbingly, the Scottish Courts have also consistently refused to allow recordings of hearings to be made - a proposal also rejected by the Scottish Parliament.”

Given the lack of willingness on the part of the current Scottish Government to speedily reform the Scots legal services market, leaving many clients out in the cold in terms of legal representation, many Scots caught up in legal difficulties feel with some justification, their rights are being impugned by both the legal profession and the Government simply to protect solicitors long held monopoly over access to justice.

Clearly the Scots public could benefit from the McKenzie Friend facility being applied to Scots Law, and as with other legal reforms long overdue, the Scottish Government should act without delay and reverse the 39 year prejudice against ordinary Scots obtaining access to courts, while our English counterparts have enjoyed the use and privilege of a McKenzie Friend at their side.

I therefore look forward to reporting on and watching how the McKenzie Friend petition progresses through the Scottish Parliament .. as surely the public interest of access to justice comes first over protecting solicitors business markets & profits.

Law & Order : Justice Secretary announces review of sheriff & jury procedures

Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill has today announced an ‘independent review’ of sheriff and jury criminal court cases.

The ‘independent review’ will be carried out by a Sheriff, in this case, Sheriff Principal Bowen, the Sheriff Principal of Lothian & Borders, and the ‘review’ will be completed by summer 2010. (Independent reviews - is this a thing we can do in Scotland ? - Ed)

Scottish Government Press Release :

Review of sheriff and jury procedures

29/04/2009

An independent review of sheriff and jury criminal court cases was announced today by Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill.

Sheriff Principal Bowen, Sheriff Principal of Lothian & Borders, will examine practice and procedure in sheriff and jury cases, with a view to reporting to Ministers by summer 2010.

This follows two previous independent reviews, one into High Court procedure, led by Lord Bonomy, and subsequently the summary justice reforms recommended by Sheriff Principal McInnes.

Mr MacAskill said:

"The Scottish Government is determined to promote a safer and stronger Scotland. There is much to be proud of in our independent criminal justice system. However, we must ensure that all its parts remain fair, effective and efficient.

"The Bonomy and McInnes reviews have led to significant reforms that have benefited victims and witnesses, while continuing to ensure fairness to the accused.

"Sheriff Principal Bowen's review will help ensure that efficient and fair justice continues to be delivered throughout the criminal justice system.

"I am delighted that Sheriff Principal Bowen, an experienced and respected judicial figure, has agreed to undertake this review. The Lord President has fully endorsed his appointment. "

Sheriff Principal Bowen said:

"I am very pleased to have been asked to lead this important review of sheriff and jury procedure. There is a wide acknowledgement across criminal justice organisations and legal professionals of the need for this review.

"It follows the recent reviews of the High Court and summary justice and accordingly will complete the circle of reform of Scotland's criminal justice procedures.

"The review is timely having regard to the forthcoming report on Civil Justice by the review team headed by the Lord Justice Clerk. That report may lead to far-reaching changes in the structure of Scotland's court system.

"It is important that all procedures within the criminal justice system should be modern and fit for purpose.

"I am sure that lessons can be learnt from earlier reviews and the revised procedures which resulted from them. The present review will draw on those experiences and will endeavour to consolidate all recognised improvements.

"My objective, shared with those who will be working with me, is to create a system which operates efficiently with particularly emphasis in minimising inconvenience and distress to victims and witnesses."

The most serious criminal cases in Scotland are heard before a jury under solemn procedure in the High Court or Sheriff Court. More than 80 per cent of solemn cases are heard in the Sheriff Court. The Sheriff can impose a maximum term of imprisonment of five years following a jury trial.

The review remit is: 'To review the arrangements for sheriff and jury business, including the procedures and practices of the Sheriff Court and the rules of criminal procedure as they apply to solemn business in the Sheriff Court; and to make recommendations for the more efficient and cost-effective operation of sheriff and jury business in promoting the interests of justice and reducing inconvenience and stress to the victims and witnesses involved in cases.'

Sheriff Principal Edward Farquharson Bowen QC qualified as an Advocate in 1970. Between 1983 and 1990 he served as a sheriff at Dundee before returning to the Bar. He was appointed as Queen's Counsel in 1992. In 1997 he was appointed to the office of Sheriff Principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin. In 2005 he became Sheriff Principal of Lothian and Borders. He has also given service as a temporary judge in the High Court and Court of Session since 2000.

Sheriff Principal Bowen will appoint a Reference Group, including representatives from the Crown, courts service, police and defence practitioners, to assist with the review.

Lockerbie Appeal : Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed between UK & Libya

The Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed today by British & Libyan officials, could see Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi sent back to Libya soon, although at the expense of dropping his ongoing appeal in the Scottish Courts against his conviction for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 in which 270 people died.

BBC News reports :

UK and Libya make prisoner deal

The UK has signed a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, the Foreign Office has confirmed.

The agreement will allow the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to apply to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail.

Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has prostate cancer, is currently being held in Greenock prison in Scotland.

He has begun a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 attack on Pan AM Flight 103.

The BBC's North Africa correspondent, Rana Jawad, said the package treaty encompasses four agreements, including prisoner transfer, extradition, mutual legal assistance, and civil and commercial law.

Any possible transfer to a Libyan prison would depend on Megrahi dropping his current appeal, which is expected to last a year.

And any transfer would have to be decided by Scottish ministers, who would have the final say.

There has been no comment from Megrahi's legal team about whether they are to apply for him to be transferred to a Libyan jail.

Megrahi's second appeal is being heard by five judges in Edinburgh, headed by Scotland's senior judge, the Lord Justice General, Lord Hamilton.

He has already lost one appeal against his conviction for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died.

Since then he has been in prison in Scotland, and must remain in jail until at least 2026.

Lockerbie Appeal : Families of victims split on Megrahi’s bid to challenge conviction

Relatives & family of the victims of those who died aboard Pan Am flight 103 which blew up as a result of a bomb, over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 are unsurprisingly divided over the current appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi against his conviction for the atrocity, which many feel was politically motivated.

The Scotsman reports :

Split among Lockerbie relatives as Megrahi bids to clear name

Published Date: 29 April 2009
By JOHN ROBERTSON
Law Correspondent

VICTIMS' relatives at the long-awaited opening of the Lockerbie bomber's second appeal were divided on whether he should be freed or ordered to continue serving a life sentence.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, 57, is suffering from prostate cancer and was not in the dock at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh yesterday. His condition in Greenock prison is said to have deteriorated.

His lawyer argued that Megrahi's conviction had been a miscarriage of justice, and the claim found support from Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was among the 270 victims.

"I think the real perpetrator was Iran, which paid money to a Syrian group to introduce one of its devices at Heathrow on the day of the disaster," he said. "I think this appeal will lead to the overthrowing of the verdict."

The Rev John Mosey, who lost his daughter Helga in the bombing, said:

"I am here hoping to hear whatever new evidence there is about how our daughter was murdered 20 years ago.

"I am hoping nothing will prevent that coming into the public domain. Having sat through the trial, I came away with the profound impression that this man was not guilty or, even if he is, the evidence led in that court did not show him to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt."

Asked about Megrahi's medical condition, he said: "Of course, I have sympathy for him. He is a fellow human being whether he killed my daughter or not."

Strikingly contrasting views were given by Jack and Kathleen Flynn, of New Jersey in the United States, whose son, John Patrick, died in the explosion.

Mr Flynn said: "Justice would be Mr Megrahi to serve his term. I went to the trial every day either at Kamp Zeist or to the closed circuit television link in New York. I saw all the evidence. I noted it and discussed it with attorneys and everybody agreed he was guilty. Yes, he was the right man. Yes, he did it."

There had been speculation Megrahi might abandon his appeal, which would be necessary if he were to attempt to use a new prisoner-transfer treaty between Libya and the United Kingdom to serve the rest of his sentence at home. He has completed ten years of a minimum term of 27 years.

It is almost two years since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission sent the case for a rehearing by the appeal court on the ground that it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

Megrahi had been convicted in 2001 by a three-judge bench at a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, and five judges rejected a first appeal in 2002.

While new evidence could feature in later parts of the second appeal, the current hearing, expected to last four weeks, is to examine the evidence led at the trial and to see whether the guilty verdict was reasonable.

QC McBride who jumped to Tories admits he was not fee paying supporter of Labour

In a rather humorous turn of events to the grandiose weekend revelation that Paul McBride, one of Scotland’s largest legal aid earners switched sides from his life long love of the Labour Party to the Conservatives, revelations today have emerged Mr McBride was not in fact, a paid up supporter of the Labour Party he was so quick to condemn over the Damien McBride email smear-gate affair. (Dear me .. I hope he gets his facts right in court ! – Ed)

The Scotsman reports :

Party-switch QC was not paid-up Labour member

Published Date: 29 April 2009
By David Maddox

THE QC who claimed he was switching his support from Lab-our to Tories was not a fee-paying party member when he made his comments, it has emerged.

Leading Labour members have dismissed the declaration by Paul McBride, who said he was switching his lifelong support for Labour to the Conservatives because David Cameron's party was the only one serious about saving the legal system.

Labour Lothians MSP Lord George Foulkes said: "Strangely, I cannot recall ever seeing a Paul McBride at any Labour Party event over the past two decades, and neither can the many other members I have spoken to.

"To allay my suspicion, perhaps Mr McBride could confirm which constituency party he is resigning from."

Last night, Mr McBride said: "I was a member (of the Labour Party] during the 1990s and supported the party from my youth.

"I let my membership slip in terms of paying fees but attended almost all of the Scottish Labour Party fund-raising events right through the Blair era to the bitter end.

"I was a Labour supporter for more than 30 years."

Law & Order : Sentences for weapons offences rise 35% as courts crack down on knife & gun crime culture

Knife & gun crime in Scotland gets the crack down treatment from Scotland’s courts as sentences rise some 35% for offenders convicted of handling offensive weapons.

The Scotsman reports :

Courts get tough as jail terms go up 35% for weapons offences

Published Date: 29 April 2009
By Tanya Thompson
Social Affairs Correspondent

SCOTLAND'S courts are cracking down on knife and gun crime with longer jail terms for those convicted of handling offensive weapons, new figures show.

The average sentence for those convicted of the offence rose by 35 per cent last year to more than seven months, according to Scottish government statistics published yesterday.

The increase – from 161 days to 217 days – was described by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill as a stark warning for youngsters who carry a knife.

"These statistics should act as a wake-up call for those people – generally young men – who think carrying a knife brings with it protection," he said.

"Rather than protection, it is likely to bring a prison sentence – and a lengthy one at that."

Scotland has the worst knife crime level in the UK, three and a half times more than south of the Border. On average, surgeons in Glasgow deal with a facial injury every six hours.

In January, the issue came under the spotlight as MSPs were warned they would have "blood on their hands" if they failed to change the law on knife crime. A summit at Holyrood heard the warning from John Muir, the campaigning father of Damian Muir, who was murdered 21 months ago.

Mr Muir said there would be many more deaths if MSPs failed to introduce mandatory prison sentences for people carrying knives in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has clashed with opposition parties in recent months over the way to tackle blade culture.

In January, critics warned that plans to curb the use of short-term jail sentences would allow hundreds of knife-wielding criminals to roam the streets.

Iain Gray, the Scottish Labour leader, said most knife-crime offenders were given short jail terms, so, by getting rid of these sentences, ministers would allow hundreds of criminals to remain on the streets.

It emerged yesterday that 76 per cent of all sentences were of six months or less – the type of sentence the justice minister has pledged to cut down on.

A raft of other statistics were disclosed on criminal court proceedings yesterday, including a 12 per cent rise in violent crime.

The latest figures were seized on by Labour, which accused the Scottish Government of being soft on crime and failing to get to grips with knife crime.

Labour's shadow justice secretary Richard Baker said: "The SNP are losing the battle in key areas of tackling crime and their soft-touch approach is clearly not working.

"The most worrying aspect of these figures is the increase in violent crime."

The Conservatives said current justice policies provided no deterrent and they urged ministers to push ahead with the scrapping of automatic early release for inmates.

Figures show the peak age of conviction for men is 18, with 7 per cent of all Scottish males convicted of a crime or offence such as breach of the peace at least once during the year.

The number of custodial sentences imposed by the courts was just under 16,700 – the second largest figure recorded during the last 10 years.

About 16 per cent of all offences were committed while the offender was on bail – 1 per cent up on the previous year.

The total number of people convicted in Scottish courts last year was 133,100 – a drop of 1 per cent on the previous year.

Mr MacAskill said "credible" community service options were needed to end the cycle of offending. He said evidence showed short sentences did not do enough to tackle the revolving door of minor offending.

He added: "Around three quarters of those jailed for six months or less re-offend within two years while three fifths of those given community orders are not re-convicted within two years."

FAMILY 'BURDEN'

SOCIAL workers face an "unsustainable burden" dealing with parental failure and broken families, the Scottish Conservative leader warned yesterday.

Chairing a conference in Edinburgh aimed at tackling "the cycle of family breakdown and crime", Annabel Goldie said parenting skills must be taught where they are missing and couples should be encouraged to stay together.

"We ask our social workers to accept an awesome burden of responsibility," Miss Goldie said. "When all else has failed, we expect them to pick up the pieces."

Restrictions of legal aid for defamation challenged over Edinburgh City Council’s false ‘convicted murderer’ claim

Danny Wilson, whom Edinburgh City Council falsely claimed was a convicted murderer, has been awarded legal aid for a judicial review on the directions issued by the Scottish Government over restrictions for legal aid in defamation cases. (Good luck Danny – its about time those long held directions which definitely amount to prejudice against the individual, were overturned – Ed)

The Scotsman reports :

Danny Wilson's case has sparked a judicial review. All he wanted was an apology for being wrongly called a murderer

Published Date: 27 April 2009
By John Forsyth

A MAN who was falsely reported by Edinburgh City Council officials to be a convicted murderer has been awarded legal aid to fund a judicial review of the Scottish Government's "directions" that restrict legal aid for defamation actions.

It is the latest significant milestone in the long haul from grievance to resolution for Danny Wilson. "All I wanted at the outset was the council to say sorry," says Mr Wilson, "but the whole thing is going to end up in the legal textbooks."

Mr Wilson now lives in Wales but was in Edinburgh between 1991 to 1998. In 2004, he and his partner began a course of IVF treatment at Shrewsbury Hospital, but on one visit were told they were no longer to be treated. "I can still see the hostile look on faces of staff when we arrived," he recalls. "We asked what was up. They said, 'We must have a meeting.' When I asked why we were no longer to get treatment they said, 'Surely you know?'"

The clinic had received a letter from Edinburgh City Council's social work department advising, among other falsehoods, that Mr Wilson was a convicted murderer and had served the prison element of a life sentence. "I said it was a complete mistake but they said, 'Prove it'."

The council later acknowledged to Mr Wilson that the information in the letter was incorrect and unsubstantiated, but when the clinic asked for clarification was only told the council could not confirm or disprove the allegation – even though it came from them in the first place.

The clinic refused to continue with the course of IVF treatment and Mr Wilson and his partner incurred financial loss in securing treatment elsewhere. "It was even difficult going to the clinic to get my own samples back," he says. "All the staff seemed to know the story and looked at me as if I'd crawled out from under a stone."

It appeared the false allegation had entered the council system via a clinic in the city and Mr Wilson raised a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman. "I was just as stunned by their approach," he says. "They rejected the complaint apparently on the basis it would be too expensive for councils to validate every bit of information on their files.

"It means the council can hoover up gossip, mistakes or malicious falsehoods about people and never be faulted when they pass them on. Who knows how many people have had their reputations destroyed in council files without them knowing a thing about it or having a chance to challenge the falsehood?"

In 2008 Mr Wilson approached Cameron Fyfe of Ross Harper, who lodged an application for legal aid to support an action for defamation.

The law in Scotland was changed in 2007 when The Legal Aid Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act permitted the granting of Legal Aid in cases involving defamation and verbal injury. However, there were a series of "directions", among them a requirement that an applicant must demonstrate there is "something exceptional about the person or the case".

Specifically, the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) "must be satisfied that the degree of exceptionality is the same as, or is approximately the same as, in the facts found in the case of Steel and Morris v United Kingdom." This is the famous "McLibel" case, in which two activists were sued in England by the McDonalds burger chain.

Mr Wilson's first application to SLAB was rejected and an appeal was dismissed, though the Sheriff Principal said he found the hurdles placed in the way of a successful application "extraordinary".

SLAB confirmed it had received three applications for legal aid in support of defamation actions since the new rules came in. All had been turned down.

In December 2008, Mr Fyfe applied for legal aid to apply for a judicial review of the Scottish Government regulations on the basis that the directions effectively put legal aid beyond reach, and therefore breach Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. SLAB has agreed to fund the review.

Mr Fyfe says: "This is really good news. There's a sense SLAB are unenthusiastic about funding judicial review but the board will have taken advice that our case has a reasonable prospect of success. It's still a long haul."

A judicial review in his favour will take Mr Wilson back to the starting blocks. He believes a social work department is particularly vulnerable to malicious falsehood because applicants often overstate the details of their predicament. He is particularly vexed at how Edinburgh's social work department seemed to drag its feet in undoing the damage or explaining how it passed on such a falsehood.

He adds: "The council couldn't even bring itself to say it was wrong. An alleged murder conviction must be the easiest fact of all to check … They just said the information was being 'removed from my file'. That just made it worse."

Solicitor advocates dismiss Lord Gill’s criticisms over poor conduct

Lord Gill’s recent criticism over the way in which solicitor advocates are regulated, has unsurprisingly been dismissed by solicitor advocates and the Law Society at an extraordinary general meeting held at the Law Society of Scotland last week. (We in the real world, of course know otherwise – Ed)

The Scotsman reports :

Solicitor advocates dismiss criticism

Published Date: 27 April 2009
By Christopher Mackie

RECENT criticism of the way that solicitor advocates conduct themselves was firmly rejected by their representative organisation at an extraordinary general meeting held in Edinburgh last week.

Lord Gill's comments, made in the wake of the Woodside case, questioned the ability of solicitor advocates to act independently for clients by receiving instructions from within their own firm.

He also criticised the practice of self-certification that allows solicitor advocates to determine whether they were qualified to act in a particular case.

During a lively meeting, the Society of Solicitor Advocates dismissed Lord Gill's criticisms and reaffirmed its members' commitment to act in the best interests of clients.

And responding to concerns over self-certification, the society confirmed that ongoing efforts to establish a committee to determine a solicitor advocate's suitability to act at a senior level for legal aid purposes had been completed.

That committee will be chaired by Sheriff Principal Bowen and is expected to issue its first list of accredited solicitor advocates approved to act at the senior level by September.

Following the meeting, Alayne Swanson, the president of the society said: "Solicitor advocates have every incentive to do an excellent job for their clients and I believe that our commitment to independence, trust, personal integrity and confidentiality is exactly the same as members of Faculty."

A resolution restating the society's position will now be debated at the forthcoming Law Society conference.

The actual release from the Society of Solicitor Advocates :

Society of Solicitor Advocates reaffirms commitment to independence and client choice

At an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Society of Solicitor Advocates held on 22 April 2009 recent criticism of solicitor advocates was roundly rejected. There was a large turnout of solicitor advocates at the Extraordinary General Meeting, which was called to discuss the issues arising from the recent Woodside case. Those attending included some of the first solicitor advocates and some of the most recently qualified, as well as coming from many different parts of the country. A lively discussion ensued which centred on the three main points of contention.

The first is instructions to solicitor advocates. It centres on Rule 3 of the Solicitors (Scotland) (Supreme Courts) Practice Rules 2003, which requires clients to be given the choice of advocate or solicitor advocate. Criticism was made in Woodside of the practice of solicitor advocates accepting instructions from within their own firms.

The consensus was that objective advice directed to the client’s best interests must be given at all times to assist the client to make an informed choice of representative. Every solicitor must ensure that the representation of their clients in Court is appropriate. That means that even junior solicitors instructing senior colleagues have a duty to exercise independence and take appropriate action if concerned about the representation being provided.

The meeting was clear that the Solicitors (Scotland) (Standards of Conduct) Practice Rules 2008 are designed to ensure that the instructing solicitor instructs a solicitor advocate or advocate of appropriate skill, specialisation and experience to the task and who, whether solicitor advocate or advocate, will charge an appropriate and reasonable fee. The Rule 3 provisions are duplicative and unnecessary. The duty to ensure competent representation provides clients with the same protection. This is why the Society passed a resolution at the Law Society AGM last year for the revocation of Rule 3.

The second topic of discussion was the criticism levelled at solicitor advocates who self-certify themselves to act as seniors. It was explained to the meeting that, following consultation with the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Law Society and the Scottish Government, the Council of the Law Society has set up a committee to recommend solicitor advocates for remuneration as seniors for legal aid purposes. This committee will be chaired by Sheriff Principal Bowen and will include a Council member, two members of the Society of Solicitor Advocates committee and a lay member. A list of accredited seniors should be available by 1 September 2009.

John Scott, Vice-President (Criminal) of the Society, said: “The judiciary were consulted on the new accreditation proposals. This is an issue which is already being addressed and it is therefore disappointing to read the comments in the Woodside judgment about self-certification.”

The third issue raised in the Woodside Judgments was the different roles of members of the Faculty of Advocates and Solicitor Advocates. The meeting rejected any suggestion that the difference in business structures between the two had any bearing on the central question of independence. Indeed, given that both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates subscribe to the principles espoused by the Code of Conduct of the Conseil des Barreaux de la Communaute Europeenne, (Council of European Bar Associations or CCBE), it is no surprise that the same fundamental principles of independence, trust, personal integrity and confidentiality apply to both organisations.

Alayne Swanson, President of the Society said:

“The Society welcomed the opportunity to discuss with so many solicitor advocates the issues arising from Woodside, which are of significance for all solicitor advocates. In the end of the day, solicitor advocates have every incentive to do an excellent job for their clients and I believe that our commitment to independence, trust, personal integrity and confidentiality is exactly the same as members of Faculty. Clients deserve the best representation they can get and it is our duty to ensure representation to the highest standard in every case .”

The meeting passed the following resolution, which stresses the existing duties of solicitors and solicitor advocates and the right of solicitor advocates to accept instructions from solicitors with whom they are in a business relationship. This resolution will also be proposed at the Law Society AGM on 28 May 2009.

Lockerbie Appeal : Megrahi may clear his name claims victims father

Dr Jim Swire, father of one of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 has spoken of his views that the latest appeal by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi against his conviction over the destruction of the airliner, may well result in the Libyan clearing his name.

The Scotsman reports :

Lockerbie bomber will clear his name, says victim's father

Published Date: 27 April 2009
By michael howie and john robertson

THE father of a young woman killed in the Lockerbie bombing last night predicted a fresh appeal by the Libyan convicted of the atrocity will clear his name.

Dr Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter, Flora, was among 270 people killed when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over the town on 21 December, 1988, believes material to be brought before the hearing – due to start tomorrow – will overturn the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

Mr Swire told The Scotsman: "My knowledge of what is going on, which is far from complete, looks to me as though the prosecution case could not withstand the new evidence and different emphasis that could be applied to old evidence."

Megrahi, 57, who was diagnosed with cancer last year, has just completed ten years in custody for the bombing and it could be nearer 11 years before the appeal is fully determined.

It is almost two years since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided there were grounds for believing Megrahi's conviction might be a miscarriage of justice.

Preliminary disputes, over such issues as public interest immunity and the scope of the appeal, have dogged attempts to arrange an early hearing for the case in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.

The first hearing, which is scheduled to last four weeks, will concentrate on an area for which preparatory work has been completed – that the guilty verdict returned against Megrahi at his trial was not supported by the evidence – and, were the plea to succeed, it would be enough for the conviction to be overturned and for Megrahi to be freed.

However, some observers believe this part of the appeal is far from Megrahi's strongest argument, and that other areas will require to be pursued, explaining why work is continuing.

A source said: "Three judges at the trial decided there was enough evidence to convict Megrahi and five judges said the same thing at his first appeal. That's a pretty high hurdle to overcome, and while there's nothing to be lost in having another go, you can't imagine five different judges this time being easily persuaded.

"So, in theory, Megrahi could win this first point and be on his way back to Libya by the end of the summer, but it seems much more likely that the other grounds of appeal will have to be heard, and that will take us months further down the line, to have them heard and for the judges to go away and think about them and then announce their decision."

Megrahi will not attend the hearing, but will follow the proceedings by a closed circuit television link between the court and Greenock Prison.

Surveillance Society : UK Police infiltrated protest groups to spy on activists, destaibilise campaigns

In what is not a particularly great surprise to many, it has been revealed that Police forces across the UK, including Scotland, have infiltrated protest groups to gather intelligence on members and their aims.

However rumours are now circulating those same Police forces may have used their insiders to destabilise protests, campaign groups, and discredit organisations in the media …

The Sunday Herald reports :

Revealed: a web of police bids to infiltrate protest groups

Anti-nuclear and other groups back up Plane Stupid claims
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

A LONG-RUNNING and intricate web of covert police attempts to spy on peaceful activists and infiltrate legitimate protest movements in Scotland has been uncovered by the Sunday Herald.

Citizens protesting against nuclear bases on the Clyde have been offered cash for intelligence by Ministry of Defence (MoD) police, it has been claimed, while environmental activists report similar offers from Strathclyde Police.

They all back up the revelation made yesterday that Strathclyde Police offered to pay Tilly Gifford, an anti-airport protester with Plane Stupid, to inform on the movement. She recorded two police officers making the proposals.

The veteran anti-nuclear activist, Jane Tallents, from Helensburgh, told last night how she and five others arrested for blockading the Coulport nuclear arms depot on Loch Long were offered money by officers. They were all invited one by one for "cosy chats" with two female MoD police officers, she said.

They were taken from their police cells on September 7, 2005, she said, and asked if they would like to help by supplying information.

"They wanted to know who we were working with and asked if we could come to an arrangement," Tallents said. "It was pretty clear they were offering to give us money. I remember coming out and shouting to a friend that they were offering to pay us. We laughed about it."

Tallents said police spies were an occupational hazard for the anti-nuclear movement, and told how a woman later unmasked as an MoD policewoman had visited the Faslane peace camp. She said police spies used to be easy to spot by their shiny shoes, but even if they looked the part "they are still easy to spot because they can't talk from the heart".

Tallents' account of being offered money in 2005 was supported by another of those arrested at the time, Angie Zelter from north Norfolk.

A spokesman for the MoD police said last night: "We can neither confirm nor deny the specifics of the allegations, but the MoD police have a responsibility for the protection of MoD assets from terrorism and unlawful interference.

"This is a responsibility it takes very seriously and it uses all available legal powers to carry out these duties."

Other activists from Plane Stupid also spoke yesterday of being approached by Strathclyde Police. One, who declined to be named, said he met police officers at a garden centre in January, where he was asked about the group's activities and at the end of the conversation was given £20. "Then they asked me to sign a receipt using a false name," he said.

Another Plane Stupid protester, Kate Mackay, a 20-year-old student at Glasgow School of Art, said she had been left a hand-written letter on Strathclyde Police headed paper asking for a meeting. But when she tried to follow it up she couldn't trace the officer named.

Last night Strathclyde Police Assistant Chief Constable, George Hamilton, defended the police action, saying: "Officers of Strathclyde Police will, from time to time, engage with members of the public and protest groups to gather intelligence which will enable them to discharge that duty effectively.

"This responsibility is discharged in a manner which safeguards the identities of individuals who are prepared to provide such intelligence and is audited and monitored in accordance with the relevant legislation," he added.

"Officers from Strathclyde Police have been in contact with a number of protesters involved with the Plane Stupid protests, including Aberdeen Airport. The purpose of this has been to ensure any future protest activity is carried out within the law."

Opposition politicians called for a full explanation from the justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill. "What action will ministers take to prevent this kind of outrage in the future?" asked Green MSP Patrick Harvie.

A Scottish government spokesman said: "The justice secretary has discussed the matter with Strathclyde Police's assistant chief constable and is satisfied the force has acted proportionately and legitimately."

QC McBride switches to Tories as legal profession seeks to maintain influence in politics

The rush to switch sides in terms of political alegances in the wake of some feeling Labour are finished in Government continues, as senior members of Scotland’s legal profession take the plunge, the latest being Paul McBride QC.

The official reason given by McBride indicates the Damien McBride email affair played a part in his decision .. however members of the Faculty of Advocates and senior Law Society Chiefs have been interchanging emails & memos much worse than McBride could ever create ! (Funny how he just sidestepped the SNP too – Ed)

Scotland on Sunday reports :

QC Paul McBride switches allegiance to Conservatives over party's 'smears and fears'

Published Date: 26 April 2009
By Tom Peterkin
Scottish Political Editor

LABOUR suffered a new setback last night after one of its leading Scottish supporters said he was quitting the "serially mendacious and incompetent" party to join the Tories.

Paul McBride, one of Scotland's top QCs, is understood to have agreed to advise the Conservatives on justice matters and will speak at their conference next month.

McBride said the sleaze engulfing Labour had led him to change his political allegiance and indicated he disapproved of the scurrilous e-mails Gordon Brown's adviser Damian McBride – no relation – had sent from Downing Street.

McBride said: "I have been a supporter of the Labour party all my life. However, I now find myself in a position where I can no longer support a party that is serially mendacious and incompetent.

"Wednesday's Budget showed that Labour has been in power for too long. It is a party that now relies on smears and fears rather than policies, persuasion and hope. The sooner there is a change of Government the better, and David Cameron is that change."

McBride added: "In Scotland, Annabel Goldie has set the agenda and is delivering real change. I am delighted to be speaking at our spring conference in Perth in May – an event which will no doubt show Scotland that the Conservatives are winning again."

McBride, 44, is regarded as one of the pre-eminent counsels in Scotland and has been involved in high-profile appeals and media and criminal cases for 22 years. He sits as a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, administering millions of pounds of public money relating to those who require legal aid. He is the former vice-chairman of the Faculty of Advocates Criminal Bar Association.

He has been involved in various public inquiries and health and safety prosecutions, acting for a wide range of individuals of stature in Scottish and English life. He has also appeared regularly in the judicial committee of the Privy Council.

Last year McBride was Scotland's ninth-highest-earning legal aid QC, making £217,700.

Goldie said: "This is yet another sign that the Conservative party is making real progress in Scotland and I welcome Paul warmly to our ranks. His experience and knowledge, especially in the justice field, will be invaluable."

Andrew Fulton, chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, said: "Paul is another welcome addition to our ranks. I know he will not be the last… more and more people (are] coming to the Conservative cause."

A spokesman for the Labour party said: "Mr McBride might be upset with the increase in tax for people earning over £150,000. However, the vast majority of Scots support that policy."

Lockerbie Trial : Victims families demand new inquiry over 'politically motivated' trial

In the ongoing saga of the Lockerbie case and the appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi against his conviction for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, families of the victims are pressing for a fresh inquiry into the events surrounding the bombing of the airliner and the prosecution of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, whose second appeal against his conviction is currently being heard in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Herald reports :

Fresh demands for new inquiry into Lockerbie

LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter April 24 2009

Families of the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy are applying pressure to politicians and calling for a fresh inquiry, days before the appeal of the man convicted of the bombing is due to begin.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, has written to other relatives to explain his belief that they have been "pawns in a political scenario which had nothing to do with truth".

On the day that a new film about Lockerbie that was expected to raise serious questions about the prosecution was screened in the Scottish Parliament, Dr Swire also wrote to The Herald to express his concerns about the case and call for a new inquest into the bombing that killed 270 people in December 1988.

The film, which was shown to MSPs and relatives last night, is expected to undermine part of the forensics case put by the prosecution.

Dr Swire's letter comes just days after campaign group UK Families Flight 103 issued a statement accusing Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice, of backtracking on his earlier sympathy for the bereaved.

They accused Mr Straw of hypocrisy over moves to clear the way for the man convicted of the bombing to return home.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, currently serving 27 years in Greenock Prison, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by the UK Justice Secretary.

The Herald revealed last week that the relatives had received an e-mail from the Crown Office seen as a tacit warning that the man convicted of the killings is likely to be granted a transfer under a new agreement between the UK and the African nation that is likely to be ratified early next week.

Megrahi, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, is due to begin appeal proceedings at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh on April 28.

Prisoners still engaged in criminal proceedings would not be eligible for repatriation under the terms of the agreement, and he would have to drop the appeal in order to apply for a transfer.

The Westminster Joint Select Committee on Human Rights called last month for the ratification of the agreement to be delayed until at least the end of April, pending investigation into concerns over the content of the treaty. However, Mr Straw insisted earlier this month that the treaty must go ahead early.

In his letter, Dr Swire raises serious concerns about the validity of the original trial and the Fatal Accident Inquiry - particularly in light of evidence that came to light after they concluded, which indicated there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport the night before the tragedy.

He also told The Herald: "For me, the passive attitude displayed by Heathrow in not making a realistic response to the break-in, with its terrible implications, remains inexcusable.

"However, we also have a right to know who was behind the suppression of this material, which has undermined the trial as well as our Fatal Accident Inquiry.

"It would appear that orders must have come from the very top, and you will remember that Thatcher was never prepared to meet us to discuss an objective inquiry, but later 1993 claimed in her book The Downing Street Years that the USAF bombing of Tripoli in 1986 had prevented further terrorist outrages by Libya.

"We were, I believe, right from the earliest days, pawns in a political scenario which had nothing to do with truth, and whose parameters also conveniently concealed the appalling irresponsibility of the Heathrow authorities."

Law & Order : Crooked Scots accountant jailed for 1 year over £25k embezzlement

Scottish accountants have bee carefully developing a reputation of being just as crooked as the legal profession,as previous reports seem to indicate.

In a recent case, an accountant decided to embezzle some £25,000 from his employers, and ended up only getting one year in jail …

BBC News reports :

Prison for embezzling accountant

An accountant has been jailed for a year for embezzling £25,000 from an Edinburgh jewellery shop to fund his own business.

James Wyse stole the money while looking after the books at Edinburgh diamond specialist Macintyres between April 2006 and March 2008.

Wyse, 54, pled guilty to the embezzlement last June.

He tried to avoid jail by repaying the cash, but Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard he had only managed to pay £10,000.

He has been unable to sell his Kirkcaldy home or re-mortgage it to raise the rest of the money owed due to the current economy.

He was in a position of trust that he severely abused, he deserved to go to prison
Stephen Turner Macintyres co-owner

Sheriff Isabella McColl said the courts have a duty to protect companies and other organisations from corrupt professional advisors.

She said the length of the embezzlement meant Wyse must be jailed, but reduced the sentence from 18 months because he had pled guilty at the first opportunity.

His former boss, co-owner of Macintyres Stephen Turner was in court and said afterwards he felt the length of the sentence was "justified".

"He was in a position of trust that he severely abused, he deserved to go to prison," said Mr Turner.

"The damage he did to the company was a great deal more than the money he stole so it has taken us time to recover from that."

He said the company would continue to pursue Wyse for £31,000 through the Court of Session, and could force him to sell his home.

Unauthorised payments

Wyse was seen behaving oddly at the Frederick Street jeweller in February 2007, when an assistant reported him hovering over her as she opened the mail.

The company ordered a full financial review and found £25,000 was missing from the accounts.

Police were called in and it was discovered Wyse had made 15 unauthorised online payments out of company accounts into his own account.

Wyse, of Kirkcaldy, pled guilty to the embezzlement last June and the Crown has been taking steps since to recover more than £30,000 under proceeds of crime law.

His lawyer, Keith Leishman, said Wyse had been of good character up until the offence and was at low risk of re-offending.

"It is something he's deeply ashamed of," Mr Leishman added.

The proceeds of crime case will call again next month.

Law & Order : Edinburgh Sheriff Court clerk charged with £90k fraud

A former clerk employed by the Scottish Courts Service, at Edinburgh Sheriff Court has, apparently been charged with fraud to the tune of £90k. (I thought the SCS said their staff never got up to this kind of stuff ? – Ed)

BBC News reports :

Former clerk charged with fraud

A former clerk at Edinburgh Sheriff Court has appeared on petition in his former workplace charged with fraud.

Graeme Wilson, 28, of Kirkcaldy, made a brief appearance in private before Sheriff James Farrell on Thursday.

He was charged with obtaining £90,107 by fraud from the Scottish Courts Service between 7 October 2007 and 6 March 2009.

No plea or declaration was made and the case was continued for further inquiry. He was released on bail.

Law & Order : Police demand drug dealers be banned from pubs

Members of the Scottish Police Federation have backed a motion calling for pub landlords to ban drug dealers from their establishments. (and rightly so – Ed)

The Scotsman reports :

Police call for drug dealers to be banned from their local pubs

Published Date: 23 April 2009
By Michael Howie
Home affairs correspondent

DRUG-dealers should be banned from pubs to alienate them from their local communities, Scotland's rank-and-file police officers demanded yesterday.

Scottish Police Federation members backed a motion to deprive criminals of their "gang hut premises" and force licence holders to exclude them.

Officers voted in favour of new legislation that would make it an offence for proprietors to allow convicted drug dealers in their pubs.

Sergeant Colin Johnston of Strathclyde Police told the annual conference in Peebles it was time to create new Asbo-style banning orders for people convicted of supplying drugs.

He pointed out that Section 80 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 had created the offence for licence holders to allow persons of bad character to frequent licensed premises.

But the legislation was under-used in police operations and was eventually repealed and not replaced.

However, Sergeant Johnston believes convicted drug dealers should be alienated in their communities and an amendment should be made to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to make licensees more accountable on who they serve.

He said: "These are licensed premises; it is not a free-for-all, so the licensees are responsible.

"It is time to regain control of our pubs and totally exclude those who have been convicted of drug-dealing.

"We should deprive criminals of their gang hut premises.

"It would take away their standing in society by removing them from pubs."

He was backed by Sergeant Frank Carroll of Strathclyde Police who said: "It is time for licensees to take full responsibility for their premises and exclude these people.

"What is the point in removing them from houses if they can still go about freely in licensed premises?

"They should be excluded from all aspects of public life."

Members representing Scotland's 16,000 police officers voted 73.74 per cent in favour of the motion.

It called for the federation to take up the matter with justice secretary Kenny McAskill to secure an amendment to the current legislation "seeking to exclude from licensed premises persons of bad character, namely those convicted of offences concerning the supply of convicted drugs".

A Scottish Government spokeswoman last night said new legislation in September will allow for a review of a premises licence on the grounds that not enough is being done to prevent crime and disorder.

"We are confident that the powers available to the police in the Act, combined with the new powers we are introducing in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, will give the police and licensing boards the right tools to tackle crime and disorder in respect of licensed premises and shut premises."

Meanwhile, police also backed a motion calling for officers to be routinely equipped with Tasers when confronting criminals in possession of knives and other weapons.

Insurers launch legal challenge against Scotland's asbestos ‘pleural plaques’ compensation law

Using the Edinburgh law firm of Brodies LLP, several large insurance firms have launched a legal challenge by way of a judicial review against the recently passed Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act, which seeks to allow those suffering from ‘pleural plaques’ a condition many associate with exposure to asbestos.

Peter Cherbi’s Diary of Injustice law blog reports on the insurers case for challenge against the law, and some curious associations some of the plaintiffs have with the Scottish Government …

'Money must come before life' as insurers & lawyers launch legal challenge against Scotland's asbestos compensation law

Law Society 'happy' over challenge against asbestos laws. Scots law firm Brodies LLP, acting for the big insurers, Avira, AXA Insurance, RSA, and Zurich, have launched a legal challenge in the form of a judicial review against The Scottish Government’s Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act, which passed the Scottish Parliament despite Tory opposition in a 98-16 vote and received Royal Assent last Friday.

The legal challenge to Scotland's law making powers, comes amid insurers claims that the new law, which makes it easier for victims of asbestos related illnesses to claim compensation, contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights and insurers' economic rights. However, can an insurer claim their Human Rights are being breached when it might just turn out those same insurers in respect of many other claims, do not respect the Human Rights of claimants or customers.

Simply, what we have here, is big business & corporations claiming their own human rights are being breached because they will have to pay out money to asbestos victims in Scotland, while not having to pay out in England & Wales because the House of Lords ruled in their favour that ‘pleural plaques’ do not qualify for compensation. It was this House of Lords ruling which prompted the Scottish Government to introduce the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act, arguing pleural plaques were symptomatic of asbestos exposure.

I reported on the earlier threats from the Insurers to take legal action if the Asbestos claims legislation was passed at the Parliament, here : Insurance firms with links to Scottish Government threaten legal challenge against Holyrood on asbestos claims reforms

Insurers challenging asbestos law also insure Alex Salmond’s Scottish Govt. Some of the insurers who are participating in the legal challenge against Holyrood’s law making powers, have links to the SNP minority controlled Scottish Government, as you can see in my earlier report. At least one of the insurers, Royal & Sun Alliance is identified in papers showing insurance deals between, among other insurers, the RSA and Alex Salmond’s administration to provide indemnity insurance cover for quangos created by Ministers and also claims protection for the Government Legal Service for Scotland (GLSS).

The insurers Aviva, AXA Insurance, RSA, and Zurich who launched the legal action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, have argued that pleural plaques, which the new legislation recognises as a symptom of asbestos related illness, is nothing much to do with victims fatal exposure to the substance, going so far as to put their points on this argument in a rather unconvincing manner at the Scottish Parliament, which you can watch here :

Dr Pamela Abernethy of Edinburgh legal firm Simpson & Marwick argued at Holyrood, pleural plaques ‘were good for you’

You can read more about how the insurers & Simpson & Marwick argued against the passage of the asbestos claims legislation at the Scottish Parliament here : Insurance lawyers argue against laws to help asbestos victims asserting part of their suffering 'is a good thing'

Law Society threatened legal challenge against parliament in 2006. The last time the Scottish Parliament's law making powers were threatened on such high profile legislation occurred in 2006, when the Law Society of Scotland's then Chief Executive, Douglas Mill unbelievably claimed that new legislation in the form of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, created to independently regulate Scotland's 10,000 solicitors contravened a lawyers human right to regulate complaints against themselves.

Despite bringing forward an English QC to claim a human rights breach under ECHR, the Law Society's legal challenge never proceeded, however, lawyers did have their way, and the LPLA Act was heavily compromised through amendments insisted by the Law Society of Scotland, with the help of certain politicians within Holyrood known to be sympathisers of, and some suspect financial beneficiaries of the legal profession.

This time around, the insurers have support from the Scottish Conservative Party, who among their ranks, Bill Aitken MSP, Chairman of Holyrood's solitary Justice Committee after Mr Salmond scrapped the second Justice Committee, fearing opposition control. Mr Aitken apparently believes the asbestos claims law which will force insurers to pay out over pleural plaques, is ill conceived. Mr Aitken of course, has a long background in the insurance industry, as his Scottish Parliament profile reveals.

Incidentally you can read more about other things the Royal Sun Alliance get up to HERE.

MacAskill claims he will defend his asbestos claims law against his own colleagues action. The Scottish Government, no doubt in the form of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill claimed today that they will ‘defend the action vigorously’, but what a slap in the face to the SNP it will be if the Court of Session do give the insurers their wishes. To make matters worse for Mr MacAskill, a legal insider indicated tonight, the Law Society of Scotland were apparently “happy” over the legal challenge against the asbestos claims legislation, one senior official stating “Its about time Holyrood got it in the neck” … indeed, but many of us might just be wondering isn’t it about time the Law Society got it in the neck ?

At the end of the day it comes down to the attitude we are used to seeing in the professions, be it banks, lawyers, or insurers, that money comes before lives, and there are plenty of Scottish legal firms happy to indulge big business and the insurers in that argument, giving a very potent signal to the public that access to justice is only obtainable through corporate wealth, or corporate agreement, and woe betide anyone who is too poor, or requires the use legal aid to secure a smidgeon of court time to pursue life threatening medical conditions which the insurers want killed off .. along with their victims to avoid making any compensation payments.

Money before life in Scotland today … and all because lawyers and their insurer supporters say so. How does that make you feel ?

The Herald reports :

Insurance giants to challenge asbestos claim ruling in court

BRIAN CURRIE April 22 2009

Britain's biggest insurance firms have lodged a legal challenge against a new law which allows Scots workers suffering from exposure to asbestos to sue for compensation.

Aviva, AXA Insurance, RSA, and Zurich have lodged an action for a judicial review at the Court of Session in Edinburgh of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act which received Royal Assent only last Friday.

The act allows claims for compensation for people affected by pleural plaques. The insurers insist clinical evidence shows plaques are symptomless, do not impact on health or lead to asbestos-related diseases and the legislation overturns a House of Lords decision made in a case two years ago.

They claim the act ignores "overwhelming" medical evidence that plaques do not cause asbestos-related conditions such as mesothelioma, overturns a fundamental UK legal principle that compensation is payable only where physical harm has been suffered through negligent exposure to a risk and fails to fully assess the financial impact on Scottish firms.

Nick Starling, of the Association of British Insurers, said the action had not been taken lightly and claimed the legislation was "ill conceived" and ignored the fundamental legal principle of negligence and clear medical evidence.

A government spokesman said it would "vigorously defend" the challenge.

He said: "We are disappointed that this action to seek effectively to overturn the will of the Scottish Parliament has been taken.

"The insurance companies' action may delay, but will not ultimately defeat, our resolve to defend the rights of people who have been negligently exposed to asbestos by their clients. We firmly believe that our legislation is right in principle and right in law."

Judicial Appointments : Scotland gets two new ‘floating’ sheriffs

George Alexander Way and James Hunter Williamson have been appointed as all-Scotland ‘floating sheriffs’, to be based in Dundee and Kirkcaldy.

Scottish Government Release :

Appointment of sheriffs

22/04/2009

Her Majesty the Queen, on the recommendation of the First Minister, has appointed Mr George Alexander Way and Mr James Hunter Williamson as all-Scotland floating sheriffs based in Dundee and Kirkcaldy.

First Minister Alex Salmond nominated Mr Way for appointment on the basis of a report by the independent Judicial Appointments Board.

They both will have a commission enabling them to serve where required throughout Scotland's sheriff courts, but in practice they will be expected to sit mostly in the Sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife.

Mr Way (52) graduated from Edinburgh University in 1978. He was admitted as a solicitor in November 1980 and as a Solicitor Advocate in November 2003. Since 2003 Mr Way has been the Procurator Fiscal to HM Court of the Lord Lyon and the Senior Litigation Partner with Beveridge & Kellas SSC in Edinburgh since 1983. He is a Past President of the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts and Convenor of Civil Justice on the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. He is an accredited mediator and arbiter.

Mr Williamson (48) graduated from the University of Dundee in 1982, and gained a Diploma in Legal practice in 1983. He was admitted as a solicitor in September 1983 and as a part-time sheriff in 2003. Mr Williamson is currently a partner in the Court Department, specialising in criminal law and civil court work with Messer Lawson Coull & Duncan in Dundee.

The salary of a sheriff is £128,296 per annum.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland was established by Ministers in 2002. The Board is an independent advisory body whose role is to recommend for appointment to the office of judge, sheriff principal, sheriff and part-time sheriff. The First Minister retains the statutory responsibility for making nominations to Her Majesty the Queen. The First Minister is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making his nomination to Her Majesty.