Saturday, February 27, 2010

EU rules Court of Session failed to give hearing within a reasonable time as Article 6 puts Scots Law back in the dock

A judgment in from the European Court of Human Rights from February 9 on Richard Anderson v U.K, ruled that the absence of effective court case management in Court of Session proceedings failed to meet the right to a fair trial within the terms of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It should be borne in mind that while Mr Anderson acted in a party litigant capacity, he is actually a member of the Faculty of Advocates, so one could say he had many advantages over a legally unqualified individual who may try to get a similar ruling against the notoriously slow Court of Session civil law case practices.

The issue of poor, or even a lack of case management at the Court of Session extends back many years, although has to some degree been addressed after Lord Penrose’s review of the Court of Session’s Inner House, where he identified numerous shortcomings and made recommendations which are referred to in Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review :

. a single Inner House judge should deal with procedural business;

. cases should not be allocated until they are ready for a hearing;

. there should be a degree of judicial continuity in managing appeals, and particularly those involving party litigants;

. control over the progress of an appeal should be vested in the court rather than parties;

. the court should fix a timetable to which parties would be required to adhere;

. late amendments and late lodgings of documents should be penalised toencourage frontloading of preparationon.

The Scots Law News and Jonathan Mitchell QC have already covered the issue at length, both links well worth a visit.

In the meanwhile, here follows the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights … and lets hope in the light of Lord Penrose’ review of Court of Session business, which resulted in the recently enacted Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No. 2) (Causes in the Inner House) 2010, SSI 2010/30 (pdf) may clear some of these inequalities up, if not, then yet more trips to Europe may be necessary …

CASE OF RICHARD ANDERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 19859/04)

STRASBOURG

9 February 2010

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Richard Anderson v. the United Kingdom,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijovic,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vucinic, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2010,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

# The case originated in an application (no. 19859/04) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Mr Richard Anderson (“the applicant”), on 27 May 2004.

# The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Willmott of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

# On 15 January 2008 the Acting President of the Fourth Section to which the case had been allocated decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

1. The background to the applicant's civil proceedings

# The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Glasgow. He is an advocate by profession. He owned a flat in a tenement building in Edinburgh. A number of the flats in the building were also owned by a commercial property company. In August 1988, when the proprietors of the building failed to carry out repairs mandated by the city council under statutory notices, the city council itself instructed works to be carried out (provided for by section 99 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982). It sought advice from a private architect, awarded the contract for the repairs to a private preservation company and apportioned the cost of the repairs among the various proprietors of the building. In October 1988, a fire occurred in the building which damaged part of the applicant's flat and part of the flat below belonging to the commercial property company. Whilst the applicant was living elsewhere, the commercial property company instructed repair work. The applicant claimed that both sets of repairs constituted trespass to his property, that in each case the repairs were in fact inadequate and unsatisfactory, and that he was entitled to damages in the sum of GBP 100,000.

2. Proceedings in the Sheriff Court

# When the applicant refused to pay the council for his share of the repair costs, the council brought proceedings in the Sheriff Court (the civil court of general jurisdiction). The applicant filed a counter-claim alleging that the council had instructed further repairs that had damaged his property. The applicant further sought referral of the whole case to the Court of Session (the highest civil court in Scotland).

On 14 November 1994 the Sheriff Court upheld the council's claim, rejected the applicant's counter-claim and found that the case did not meet the criterion for referral to the Court of Session. On 11 May 1995, the applicant's appeal to the Sheriff Principal was rejected.

In 1998, the applicant then brought proceedings against the architect and chief executive of the preservation company for contempt of court in relation to an alleged failure to produce documents in the initial action. By judgments of 17 February 1999, the Sheriff Court rejected the applicant's claims.

3. Proceedings in the Court of Session

# On 26 March 1997, the applicant obtained a summons to bring proceedings against the commercial property company (“the first defenders”) and the city council (“the second defenders”) in the Outer House of the Court of Session, alleging that the statutory notices were invalid on grounds of fraud and illegal conspiracy. The second defenders were served on 15 April 1997. The first defenders were served on 14 May 1997. Defences were lodged by both defenders on 12 June 1997. Between that date and 7 January 1998 the record in the case (the parties' written pleadings) was open and closed on a number of occasions at the request of the parties and with the leave of the court to allow for adjustment of their pleadings.

# The applicant was then informed by the court that, since part of his claim challenged one of the orders made in the Sheriff Court proceedings, he was required to intimate a copy of the closed record to the relevant sheriff clerk. On 26 February 1998, the court gave him leave to do so. There was then further correspondence between the parties as to the future procedure in the case, which led the applicant to apply to the court first, for an order for disclosure of certain documents and second, for a warrant to direct the relevant sheriff clerk to transmit the record of the Sheriff Court proceedings to the Court of Session. On 15 July 1998, the applicant's motion to this effect was adjourned to 22 September 1998. On the latter date, the motion was granted by way of interlocutor. This was done when the first defenders, despite their opposition to the motion, failed to appear. On 2 October 1998, the Lord Ordinary granted the first defenders leave to reclaim (appeal) to the Inner House against the interlocutor of 22 September 1998 in so far as it related to the disclosure of documents.

# On 8 October 1998, the Inner House directed the parties to lodge their grounds of appeal within 28 days. On 4 November 1998, the first defenders lodged their grounds of appeal. It appears that, by oversight, the first defenders failed to apply for a hearing.

# On 5 November 1999, the Inner House allowed the applicant to amend his pleadings and allowed the other parties to lodge answers within 21 days. On 7 December 1999, on the first defenders' unopposed motion, the Inner Court appointed the case to the Summar Roll (the list of appeals and other business before it). On 3 February 2000, the Inner House allowed the second defenders' answer to be received late. The interlocutory appeal was then to be heard in one day, 26 May 2000, but this date was vacated when, on 20 April 2000, the applicant explained to the court that he believed a two day hearing would be necessary. On 9 June 2000, the hearing was then fixed for 15 and 16 March 2001. On 7 February 2001, the applicant advised the court that a one-day hearing would be sufficient. The interlocutory appeal was duly heard on 15 March 2001 and, in a judgment given the same day, the Inner House allowed the first defenders' reclaiming motion and remitted the case back to the Lord Ordinary in the Outer House.

# On 20 March 2001, upon remittal to the Outer House, further directions were given for disclosure. On 14 September 2001, on the motion of the first defenders, the court appointed the case to the procedure roll for a debate (hearing) on pleas-in-law. After two dates for that debate were vacated, a two-day hearing was fixed for 20 and 21 June 2002. On 15 May 2002, the court allowed the applicant to lodge further supplementary arguments alleging a lack of candour in the defenders' pleading but refused his motion for further disclosure. The case was heard on 21 June 2002. As a result of that hearing, the applicant's action was dismissed on 4 September 2002 by the Outer House. In a written judgment, the Lord Ordinary found the applicant's claims to be unfounded and unspecified.

# The applicant appealed to the Inner House. The appeal was listed for 18 and 19 November 2003. On 4 November 2003, the Inner House refused the applicant's motion for leave to amend his appeal. However, on 13 November, it allowed him to abandon his appeal against the second defenders and proceed only against the first defenders. The appeal was heard on 18 and 19 November 2003. The appeal was unanimously dismissed on 11 December 2003, the court finding that the applicant's pleadings lacked specification. The applicant was found liable for the first defenders' costs on 18 December 2003.

# In June 2002 the applicant also sought to bring proceedings in the Court of Session against the solicitors acting for the council in the Sheriff Court proceedings. Unable to obtain a solicitor who would provide the necessary signature on the summons, the applicant petitioned the Court of Session for leave to proceed without the signature. Leave was refused on the papers on 25 July 2002. Complaints made in relation to the solicitors and advocates representing the council were dismissed by their respective professional bodies and then by the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman on 13 November 2001 and 4 July 2003, respectively.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION ARISING FROM THE LENGTH OF THE COURT OF SESSION PROCEEDINGS

# The applicant principally complained that the length of the proceedings before the Court of Session challenging the statutory notices was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He also referred to Article 13 of the Convention in this connection.

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

# The Government contested that argument.

A. Admissibility

1. The parties' submissions

# The Government contended that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he did not complain about the alleged unreasonable length of the proceedings before the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session. First, before the Outer House, when the parties could not agree to the future procedure in the case, the applicant could have enrolled a motion for the court to decide on future procedure. Second, in October 1998, he had failed to seek early disposal of the first defenders' reclaiming motion or to have it heard as a single bill (a motion which can be heard in a short period of time) rather than on the Summar Roll. The brief and interlocutory nature of the appeal meant it would have been well-suited to being heard promptly in this way. Third, when the first defenders failed to apply for a hearing before the Inner House, the applicant failed to apply for the reclaiming motion to be refused for want of insistence. He could also have requested that the first defenders be asked to explain to the court whether they intended to insist upon their appeal. Fourth, in December 1999, when the case was on the Summar Roll, he again failed to seek early disposal of the appeal or to have the case heard as a single bill. Fifth, in October 2001, when the case was on the procedure roll, the applicant failed to agree to allowing the case to be put on the “warning list” (a list of cases that could be heard at short notice). Sixth, in October 2002, the applicant failed to seek early disposal of his own reclaiming motion. Apart from the failure to make use of these procedures, at no point did the applicant enrol a motion, making reference to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, to have the case expedited. He also had not sought any redress under the Human Rights Act 1998. Finally, the Government argued that the absence of a formal case management system for some ordinary actions in the Court of Session did not prevent litigants from using the above procedures to expedite cases.

# The applicant argued that the Government's submissions were without foundation. For the first alleged remedy, a motion on future procedure, the delay at that stage was minimal. For the remaining delays and the possibility of an early disposal of the appeal, such a procedure existed but it was for urgent matters, such as an appeal against an order removing someone from the matrimonial house, and there was nothing in the present case that met that test. Instead, the applicant's concern throughout the proceedings was that the defenders had been less than candid in their pleadings and he had sought to address that in his own pleadings and in his motion to that effect, which had been refused on 15 May 2002.

2. The Court's assessment

# The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but that no recourse need be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective. The existence of the remedy must be sufficiently certain, failing which it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 of the Convention also provides for a distribution of the burden of proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Bullen and Soneji v. the United Kingdom, no. 3383/06, § 43, 8 January 2009, with further references).

# In determining whether the present applicant has exhausted domestic remedies, the Court also recalls its findings in the cases of Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom (nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003) and Crowther v. the United Kingdom (no. 53741/00, § 29, 1 February 2005) where it held:

“a principle of domestic law or practice that the parties to civil proceedings are required to take the initiative with regard to the progress of the proceedings, does not dispense the State from complying with the requirement to deal with cases in a reasonable time...The manner in which a State provides for mechanisms to comply with this requirement, whether by way of increasing the numbers of judges, or by automatic time-limits and directions, or by some other method, is for the State to decide. If a State lets proceedings continue beyond the 'reasonable time' prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for the resultant delay.”

# The Court finds that, in the present case, the Government's submissions have essentially identified periods in the proceedings where the delay was caused by the applicant's conduct and, in particular, his failure to take “the initiative with regard to the process of the proceedings”. As such, and consistent with its approach in the cases of Price and Lowe, Crowther and Bullen and Soneji, all cited above, it finds that these submissions in reality go to the merits of the application and in particular to the applicant's conduct and contribution, if any, to the length of the proceedings. It follows that the Government's objection to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must therefore be dismissed.

# The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. The complaints must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

(a) Article 6 § 1

1. The parties' submissions

# The Government considered that, because in Scots law proceedings commence when a summons is served on the defender, the relevant period began on 15 April 1997. It ended on 18 December 2003 when the Inner House found the applicant to be liable for the first defenders costs. The total period was therefore some six years and eight months.

# In the Government's submission, the proceedings were of some complexity as evidenced by the applicant's own attempts to amend his written pleadings by means of lengthy minutes of amendment. Responsibility for the progress of proceedings rested with the parties, in particular the applicant as pursuer in the case. In considering what steps he should have taken, it was to be noted that the applicant was represented by a firm of solicitors who regularly acted for litigants in the Court of Session and the applicant himself was an advocate who had practised in the Court of Session for many years. He had failed to show diligence in carrying out the procedural steps required of him, he had used delaying tactics and he had failed to avail himself of the available means for shortening the proceedings. In addition to the failure to take the steps set out by the Government in their submissions on non-exhaustion (see paragraph 15 above), he was also culpable for the delay in the following ways. He had failed to complete service until 14 May 1997; he did not oppose the defenders' motions for adjustment made in 1997; he continued to develop his pleadings from September 1997 – January 1998; he failed promptly to obtain the necessary warrant for intimation to the clerk of the Sheriff Court and, having done so, he had failed to enrol a motion for further procedure to be determined. Before the Inner House, he had persuaded that court that a two-day hearing was necessary (causing the hearing to be postponed) when in fact it was heard in one hour on 15 March 2001. After that hearing he had failed to respond to the defenders' calls to agree upon further procedure. When the case was remitted to the Outer House he had also caused another hearing date to be vacated by insisting that a two-day hearing was required, when in fact the hearing only took one day.

For the period from late 1998 to autumn 1999, the Government understood that the parties were involved in other proceedings in the Sheriff Court (see paragraph 5 above), in settlement discussions and the complaint proceedings brought by the applicant. The Inner House could have held a hearing in this period but the Government submitted that, during this period, it was clear that the parties were content to leave the proceedings in abeyance. When the parties had agreed on future procedure, all hearings dates had been set with reasonable promptness; judgments then had been issued promptly by both the Outer House and the Inner House. The dispute was about repairs to property and was not of a nature to require special efforts of expedition.

# The applicant submitted that the initial delay in service was by no means out of the ordinary. Thereafter the case began to depart from the procedure ordinarily followed in the Court of Session, principally because the defenders had not properly outlined their defences and had not adjusted their pleadings in the time when they could do so without needing to obtain the leave of the court. The applicant was not to blame for his failure to oppose the defenders' motion for adjustment: there was nothing to be gained from such an objection and it was better for the procedure to obtain as full a set of written pleadings as possible. When those adjustments were finally filed, he had no choice but to apply for an extension of time to adjust his own pleadings. He accepted that there was a short delay on his part in giving notice of the proceedings to the clerk of the Sheriff Court but, at the same time, there was nothing more he could have done when his motion for specification for documents (which the defenders had opposed) was before the court.

When the defenders appealed to the Inner House, the applicant was not at fault for failing to seek early disposal of the appeal. As he had submitted at paragraph 16 above, the case was not of the type that would be expedited by the Inner House. He was also not to blame for seeking a two-day hearing before the Inner House, believing this was necessary given the lack of specification in the defenders' written pleadings. He submitted that almost the whole of the proceedings were taken up by his attempts to force the defenders to make candid and proper disclosure of their case and, moreover, that the majority of the delay was due to the inability of the Outer and Inner House to control the proceedings. There was no proper system of case management by the courts; the Scottish courts had only introduced such a principle after his case had been concluded.

2. The Court's assessment

# The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

# As to the first of these criteria, the complexity of the case, the Court cannot accept the Government's argument that this was a complex civil dispute. The case turned entirely on the veracity of the applicant's allegations of fraud and illegal conspiracy and there had already been previous litigation between the applicant and the city council in the Sheriff Court. There were no novel points of law at stake and the Outer House was ultimately able to reject the applicant's allegations as unfounded and unspecified. The Inner House was also able to dismiss the applicant's appeal from the Outer House's decision for substantially the same reasons. The relative lack of complexity of the case is also demonstrated by the fact that, once various procedural issues had been resolved, the Inner House was able to dismiss each appeal to it shortly after hearing oral argument.

# As to the third criterion, what was at stake for the applicant, the Court does not accept that the proceedings were of exceptional significance. The repairs to the property may have had some financial consequences for the applicant but this matter had already been litigated before the Sheriff Court and, in the Court's view, the Court of Session proceedings were secondary to that litigation.

# The Court finds that whether there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 essentially turns on the second criterion, that is, the extent to which any delay was attributed to the conduct of the applicant or the relevant authorities. Having reviewed the record of the proceedings submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the applicant bears some responsibility for the delay in the initial stage of proceedings, notably his attempts to have the written pleadings amended on several occasions and his failure promptly to obtain a warrant for intimation to the clerk of the Sheriff Court. However, it accepts that, in respect of the former, the applicant was motivated by a desire to have the written record as fully developed as possible and there was nothing to be gained from objecting to attempts by the defenders to amend their pleadings. The Court also rejects the Government's submission that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings by insisting on a two-day hearing for an interlocutory appeal before the Inner House and for the debate on pleas-in-law once the case had been remitted to the Outer House. It sees no reason why this would have required the one-day hearing dates to be vacated since, in the Court's view, it would not have been necessary for a two-day hearing to have taken place on two successive days; each hearing could have gone ahead and, if a second day proved necessary, arrangements been made for the hearing to be continued on the next available date.

# Moreover, the Court finds that there were periods of inactivity for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the Government. The Court is particularly struck by the fact that the first appeal was before the Inner House from 22 September 1998 until 15 March 2001 and there was little or no activity between late 1998 and autumn 1999. It may well have been that, as the Government submitted, the parties were involved in other proceedings and settlement discussions. However, the Court finds that these considerations were not sufficient to absolve the Inner House of its own obligation to take an active role in the management of proceedings and to make enquiries of the parties to ascertain their position in respect of the appeal. As the Court has frequently stated, the State remains responsible for the efficiency of its system; the manner in which it provides for mechanisms to comply with the reasonable time requirement – whether by automatic time-limits and directions or some other method – is for it to decide. If a State allows proceedings to continue beyond the “reasonable time” prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for the resultant delay (Bhandari v. the United Kingdom, no. 42341/04, § 22, 2 October 2007, together with further references therein). Additionally, for the time the interlocutory appeal was pending before the Inner House, the Court does not find that any significant period of delay can be attributed to the applicant or that the expedition of the proceedings was his responsibility at this stage; the interlocutory appeal had been taken by the first defenders when the applicant's motion for disclosure – which they opposed but for which they failed to appear in person – had been granted by the Outer House.

# In all the circumstances, the Court does not consider that the proceedings were pursued with the diligence required by Article 6 § 1. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision, in that the applicant's “civil rights and obligations” were not determined within “a reasonable time”.

(b) Article 13

# To the extent that the applicant also appears to rely on Article 13 in respect of the length of the proceedings before the Court of Session, the Court, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and its analysis of the Article 6 complaint, finds that it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13.

II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

# The applicant made the following additional complaints. First, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he complained that the refusal of the Court of Session to grant leave for him to proceed without the necessary signatures on his summons violated his right of access to court. Secondly, under Article 6 § 1 he alleged that there was a lack of a fair hearing in three aspects: (i) that the Sheriff Court and Sheriff Principal refused to hold oral hearings on preliminary matters before them; (ii) that the Court of Session while it heard oral argument, essentially based its ruling on preliminary, written pleadings; and (iii) that the Court of Session failed in its duty to make a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties. Thirdly, under Article 6, the applicant complained that the courts hearing his case, while themselves independent and impartial, were not in fact independent and impartial by virtue of the corruption and contempt of court of the legal representatives before them. Fourthly, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that there was no effective remedy in respect of these alleged violations of Article 6 § 1. Finally, he complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the council, by entering his property to carry out the repairs, failed to respect his right to respect for his home.

# For the first complaint, the Court observes that the leave to proceed was refused on 25 July 2002. The present application was lodged on 27 May 2004 therefore this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

# For the second complaint, the Court does not find that the refusal of the Sheriff Court and the Sheriff Principal to hold oral hearings amounted to a breach of Article 6: the obligation to hold an oral hearing in civil proceedings in not absolute and the nature of the issues to be decided by the Sheriff Court and the Sheriff Principal justified their decision to dispense with oral hearings at the preliminary stage of proceedings before them (Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 41–42, ECHR 2006 XIII). It further finds the applicant's complaint that the Court of Session based its ruling on written pleadings to be unsubstantiated and his complaint that it failed to make a proper examination of the papers before it to be fourth instance in nature. It follows that this second complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

# For the third complaint, the Court finds these allegations to be wholly unsubstantiated and thus also to be rejected as manifestly ill-founded. For the fourth complaint, brought under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant's substantive complaints have been rejected pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention. The Court is not persuaded that any of these complaints were “arguable” (Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003 VIII) and thus Article 13 has no application to these complaints. The Court therefore rejects this part of the complaint as manifestly ill-founded.

# For the final complaint, which has been made under Article 8, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to rely on that Article in any of the domestic proceedings which he has brought against the council or the private parties he alleged to be responsible. Hence, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

# Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

# The applicant claimed GBP 85,603.14 (approximately EUR 97,030) in respect of pecuniary damage. This included the costs he was ordered to pay to the first and second defenders by the Inner House (GBP 33,000 – approximately EUR 37,406) and the money he owed to the city council for the repair work (GBP 30,403.14 – approximately EUR 34,463). He was required to sell his home to pay these costs and was forced to pay rental on another house for 2005–2008; the rental costs were GBP 22,200 (approximately EUR 25,172). The applicant further claimed GBP 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage arising from the emotional distress caused by the alleged breaches of the Convention and by the loss of his home.

# The Government contested these claims. In respect of the claim for pecuniary damage, they submitted there was no causal connection between the damage claimed and any of the breaches of the Convention alleged by the applicant. In respect of the claim for non-pecuniary damage, they submitted that the applicant had failed to explain how any emotional distress was caused by any particular delay in the Court of Session proceedings. Furthermore, any delay was not the cause of the loss of the applicant's home.

# The Court notes that it has only found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the length of the Court of Session proceedings. Moreover, it does not discern any causal link between that violation and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage. It also does not discern any causal link between this violation and any distress that the loss of the applicant's home would have caused him. On the other hand, it accepts the unreasonable delay in the Court of Session proceedings must have caused the applicant some distress and frustration. As a result he has certainly suffered non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently made good by the finding of a violation of the Convention. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 1,500.

B. Costs and expenses

# In his claim for just satisfaction the applicant stated that he had retained lawyers to represent him before the Court and sought recovery of his legal costs and expenses. The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred, and reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, D.G. v. Ireland, no. 39474/98, § 128, ECHR 2002 III). The Court notes that no itemised statements were provided in relation to the costs and expenses. Consequently, it makes no award under these heads.

C. Default interest

# The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

# Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of the proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy in that connection admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

# Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

# Holds that it is not necessary to examine the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention in the particular circumstances of the instant case;

# Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

# Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Grandparents Apart UK score a victory vote in Glasgow with “The Charter for Grandchildren”

GrandParents Apart UK logoGlasgow City Councillors Vote “Yes” for ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’

A big unanimous “yes” vote plus a standing ovation for Grandparents Apart UK by Glasgow City Councilors on 18th February 2010 to accept ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ for mandatory use by professionals that work in the welfare of children. By this historic vote brave Glasgow Councilors have opened up a whole new aspect of child care and protection plus huge savings on the public purse.

The Charter for Grandchildren was created by the Scottish Executive in 2005 to accompany the Family Law Act (Scotland) 2006 as an advisory document but because it was just advisory Social Services and professionals dealing in the welfare of children were reluctant to change their policies to comply with it.

The Policy Development Committee (PDC) in Glasgow City Chambers will now decide to accept parts or all of the Charter. The Charter was produced by the legal team of a Scottish Government on evidence produced by a stakeholders group of which Grandparents Apart UK were a part of.

The Charter for Grandchildren

It is important that parents, grandparents and other family members, speak to, and treat each other, with respect. You may not get on, but you can still be civil, for the sake of the children. Try to avoid arguing with or criticising family members in front of the children. It can be very upsetting for them.

On occasions professional organizations such as social work departments or the courts can become involved and may have to make decisions that will have a lasting impact throughout a child’s entire life. In these circumstances it is vital that the loving and supportive role that the wider family, in particular grandparents can play is respected and protected for the child…

FAMILIES ARE IMPORTANT TO CHILDREN

Grandchildren can expect:

  • To be involved with and helped to understand decisions made about their lives.
  • To be treated fairly
  • To know and maintain contact with their family (except in very exceptional circumstances) and other people who are important to them.
  • To know that their grandparents still love them, even if they are not able to see them at the present time.
  • To know their family history.
  • The adults in their lives to put their needs first and to protect them from disputes between adults - not to use them as weapons in quarrels between adults.
  • Social workers , when making assessments about their lives, to take into account the loving and supporting role grandparents can play in their lives.
  • The Courts, when making decisions about their lives, to take into account the loving and supporting role grandparents can play in their lives.
  • Lawyers and other advisers to encourage relationship counseling or mediation when adults seek advice on matters affecting them and their children.

Along with others, Grandparents Apart put a lot of hard work into “The Charter for Grandchildren” demanding to be heard about the gaps in the family law concerning their grandchildren. Why? Because we really do have the best interests of our grandchildren at heart, if it was not for love of them why would we bother?

We are happy to promote the Charter for Grandchildren and the Parenting Agreement because they are useful documents.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Malcontents wanted for £42K as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission aims to recruit staff after year of failure, scandal & public distrust

slccScottish Legal Complaints Commission. The SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION, which has spent its first (and hopefully last in existence - Ed) year mired in scandals involving everything from huge expenses payouts to its board members, a systematic failure to deal with complaints on any level, consistent failures to address its supposed duties from the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, media exposes on its members drunken booze fuelled rants against consumers, has gone on a recruitment drive.

SLCC members expenses We all live on an expensive submarine – SLCC Board members racked up a staggering £135K a year in expenses claims yet quango hardly does any work. So, if you feel like working for Scotland’s least worked quango (least worked, as the SLCC passes most complaints back to the Law Society anyway) and fancy getting involved in bitter feuds between officials & board members over policy decisions, complaints investigations, and how not to deal with the public, not forgetting the ubiquitous ‘how to tell people to sod off on the telephone if they are complaining against a solicitor’ routine, read the job ad below and apply (I’d imagine plenty of leavings from the Law Society will just jump at the thought of £41K & pension ! – Ed)

Previous Scottish Law Reporter coverage on the SLCC HERE and malcontents – don't forget to get your applications in to join up for the biggest complaints racket in town by 17:00 Zulu on 05/03/2010 ! (Whisky Foxtrot 14 doughnuts, out ! – Ed)

Case Investigation Manager & Gateway Team Manager

CASE INVESTIGATIONS MANAGER (refIM1)

GATEWAY TEAM MANAGER (ref GW1)

Salary for both posts in the region of £41,944. Group Self Invested Personal Pension + Benefits

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) is a corporate body operating independently of the legal profession and the government. It was set up by Statute to modernise the legal complaints handling system, to ensure complaints are resolved quickly and effectively. We are looking for people with the vision, determination and drive to form a key part of our management team and lead our people, achieve objectives and play a central role in making a real impact for the people of Scotland.

You will provide leadership and team management to your team, organising staff and other resources to deal with complaints in accordance with the SLCC's Complaint Handling Procedures and quality standards. You will support and develop your team and as a member of the management team you will assist in the review and further develop our policies and procedures to provide a high quality, efficient complaints handling service.

To be successful in this role you will be educated to degree level or equivalent and ideally will have a legal or comparable qualification and a supervisory management qualification.

You will have demonstrable experience in writing and providing procedural advice and guidance, including drafting reports and be able to demonstrate leadership and management skills. You will have a track record of significant achievement with a minimum of 3 years people and performance management experience. A working knowledge of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook is essential. You will be an effective communicator who is well organised and delivers work on time and to the agreed level of quality. Ideally you will be able to influence at local, national and strategic levels, with the personal and professional manner to command confidence of stakeholders.

To Apply:

Please contact Rick Mattison on 0131 243 2981 or rickmattison@uk.michaelpage.com, quoting reference MPTJ13091641. Please return your completed application and diversity monitoring form to Rick Mattison at Michael Page.

Closing date for applications is Friday 5 March 2009. SLCC short listing will take place on Monday 22 March and interviews will be held on Monday 29, Tuesday 30, Wednesday 31 March 2010.

Applications must be received by: 17:00 on 05/03/2010.

Glasgow law firms Biggart Baillie & Semple Fraser linked to Strathclyde Passenger Transport expenses scandal, more resignations expected soon

SPT-joining-up-journeysExpenses claims & hospitality from law firms hit the roof at SPT. Two Glasgow law firms, Biggart Baillie & Semple Fraser, have been dragged into the expenses scandal affecting Strathclyde Passenger Transport which has seen a slew of resignations in the past week, after it transpired SPT officials had claimed well over £100,000 on expenses, mainly it seems on ‘fact finding’ trips around the world.

Today's Sunday Herald contains further revelations where the newspaper reports “a fourth official is facing questions. Assistant chief executive Valerie Davidson assessed the tenders for outsourcing the public body’s legal advice, and one of the firms that was approved employs her husband as a finance expert.”

The Sunday Herald reports :

New SPT officials in expenses row

By Tom Gordon and Paul Hutcheon

Published on 21 Feb 2010

Strathclyde Passenger Transport is facing a fresh crisis, with allegations against its new chairman and a senior official after a week that saw the travel quango lose three of its top personnel.

Labour councillor Jonathan Findlay, who was named as the new SPT chairman on Wednesday after his predecessor Alastair Watson quit amid an expenses scandal, is facing a standards inquiry for failing to declare a football junket.

Chief executive Ron Culley and vice-chairman Davie McLachlan stood down on Wednesday and Thursday respectively after it emerged officials had run up more than £100,000 on expenses, much of it on fact-finding trips round the world.

Bob Wylie, the head of communications, is also under pressure to go over his expenses.

Now the Sunday Herald can reveal a fourth official is facing questions. Assistant chief executive Valerie Davidson assessed the tenders for outsourcing the public body’s legal advice, and one of the firms that was approved employs her husband as a finance expert.

Answers to Freedom of Information requests by teacher Gordon Cairns showed senior officials at the quango – which runs Glasgow Subway but little else – claimed £117,573 in three years.

Around £50,000 went on foreign trips, while Mr Culley, who quit citing ill health, also spent £6,500 dining in restaurants.

Mr McLachlan, a Labour councillor from South Lanarkshire, resigned after claiming £17,544 in mileage costs.

A trip to Manchester in May 2008 costing £1700 coincided with Rangers playing Zenit St Petersburg in the city in the UEFA Cup final.

SPT officials arranged to meet their Manchester counterparts for an hour on the morning of the match, then stayed to watch it.

It has now emerged that Mr Findlay, a 40-year-old solicitor, was also at the match through corporate hospitality, but failed to declare it within a month, as required by law.

An updated register from this month reveals he received transport to the match, a ticket and hospitality courtesy of Castlemilk-based Castlebrae Drainage.

Mr Watson also went with the firm, as did a third Glasgow councillor, Jim Todd.

A failure to register an interest within a month is a breach of the Councillor’s Code Of Conduct, and falls foul of the 2003 regulations governing the law on Ethical Standards In Public Life.

Breaches of the code are investigated by the Standards Commission For Scotland, and can result in councillors being suspended.

It is understood the commission will now be asked to investigate Mr Findlay’s case.

With the departure of Mr Watson, Mr Culley and Mr McLachlan, the spotlight has now fallen on Ms Davidson as one of the last remaining members of the old regime at SPT.

SPT used to rely on a team of in-house lawyers for its legal work, but opted in 2008 to create a “framework” of firms to handle its legal dealings.

According to an SPT document, Ms Davidson assessed the tenders alongside her fellow assistant chief executive Gordon MacLennan and senior legal adviser Terry Lynch.

One of the firms that made it on the chosen “panel” was Biggart Baillie, which employs Ms Davidson’s husband Alasdair in a senior management role.

SPT’s hospitality register also shows Mr MacLennan accepted two invitations to Ayr Races from law firms that subsequently made on the framework panel. Biggart Baillie took him to the event in March 2008, while Semple Fraser played host the following month.

The SPT report that recommended both these firms be included on the panel was dated July 2008.

Although there is no suggestion of wrongdoing, the episode piles further pressure on the agency.

Castlebrae Drainage refused to say why its boss, Tommy Easton, had invited the three Labour councillors to the game in Manchester or the value of the hospitality.

In his declaration of parliamentary interests, Labour MSP Andy Kerr said the transport, ticket and hospitality he received for the event from a separate firm was worth about £1500.

An SPT spokeswoman said: “SPT has an approved list of legal firms. We have a stringent assessment process that those legal firms need to be checked against before being added to the list.

“Valerie Davidson is not involved in that process and had made a declaration of interest with regards her husband’s employer.”

Journalist arrest in Hollie Greig abuse scandal speeds up MacAskill’s plans for anti-stalker law as officials admit possibility of use against media

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskillJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Officials have admitted that plans to bring in an ‘anti-stalker’ law in Scotland were greatly speeded up after the arrest of journalist Robert Green, who had travelled to Aberdeen to publicise the plight of downs syndrome girl Hollie Greig, who is alleged to have been raped by members of a paedophile gang in the Aberdeen area, identified by Ms Greig to contain members of Scotland’s legal establishment. So far the Crown Office have refused to prosecute anyone in the case, although Ms Greig has received a hefty payout from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which many now view as 'hush money'.

It transpired during the journalist's arrest that one Sheriff took out an interdict against journalist Mr Green, by using the same firm of lawyers, Glasgow based Levy McRae, who also happen to represent the Lord Advocate, also caught up in reports of Ms Greig’s allegations.

The amendment to the Criminal Licensing Bill, currently going through the Scottish parliament, was proposed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and will make it an offence to stalk a person by sending threatening e-mails, text messages or phone calls, or persistently following, pursuing or spying on them. A jail sentence should be expected if convicted under the law, according to some involved.

Grampian PolicePolice could only arrest journalist on breach of the peace, after plan to use interdict didn’t stack up. Up until the arrest of Mr Green, on February 12, the anti-stalker proposals were reportedly still in the discussion phase, however after the blaze of publicity surrounding Mr Green’s arrest, and the sizeable internet campaign which now exists to publicise Hollie Greig’s case, and Mr Green’s arrest.

Officials from the Scottish Government & Crown Office decided the issue should be acted upon now, as it is now widely known many of those identified by Ms Greig were disappointed that all Mr Green could be charged with was a breach of the peace, after an elaborate plan had been worked out to arrest Mr Green on breach of interdict which failed after it transpired no proper service had been made.

A legal source said this afternoon : “Although a law to tackle bullying is certainly needed, you can expect mission creep on this one as internal memos have already discussed using such powers against members of the media who might be a little too persistent.”

The Sunday Herald reports :

New law being brought in to crack down on stalkers and cyber-bullies

Tom Gordon

Published on 21 Feb 2010

Victims of stalkers and cyber-bullies are to be protected under a sweeping new law, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will announce today.

Prosecutors, who until now have usually charged stalkers with breach of the peace, will now be able to target harassment that occurs in private or in text messages.

Bullying through social networking sites, such as Facebook, will also be covered by the new offence of engaging in “threatening, alarming or distressing behaviour”.

The move follows a recent appeal court ruling that said there had to be a “public element” to breach of the peace.

Mr MacAskill said he was concerned this could exclude stalking and harassment carried out via telephone calls, texts, e-mail, or done in an isolated place.

He said: “Stalking can be deeply frightening for victims and we want to ensure the small minority of perpetrators who engage in this criminal activity are brought to justice.

“We want to send out the message loud and clear that if you carry out this offence, there will be no escape, there will be no wriggle room to exploit, and you will be met by the full force of the law.”

Last August, a Worcestershire teenager became the first person in the UK to be locked up for bullying through a social-networking site.

Keeley Houghton, 18, wrote on her personal page that she would kill Emily Moore, whom she had already bullied for four years while they were at school together.

She was sentenced to three months in a Young Offenders’ Institution after pleading guilty to harassment. She was also made the subject of a restraining order that banned her from contacting her victim in any way for five years.

Mr MacAskill now intends to table a Government amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill going through Holyrood, making it an offence to stalk a person by sending threatening e-mails, text messages or phone calls, or persistently following, pursuing or spying on them.

It will be an offence “to behave in such a manner that a reasonable person would be likely to fear for the safety of any person on account of the behaviour, or be alarmed or distressed by the behaviour.”

Government sources said those found guilty of the new offences should expect a jail sentence.

David Sinclair, of Victim Support Scotland, said the new law was a “welcome addition” to the criminal justice system.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Justice Secretary, Scots law title staff to appear as witnesses in Hollie Greig abuse case as victims prepare to testify for arrested journalist

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskillJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will face court questions over Hollie Greig case. KENNY MACASKILL, Scotland’s Justice Secretary now faces being called as a witness in the forthcoming trial of journalist & broadcaster Robert Green, who was arrested last week in Aberdeen after attempting to attend a public protest in the centre of the city, concerning the now widely reported campaign of downs syndrome girl Hollie Greig, who has made consistent allegations since 2000 of an abuse ring in Aberdeen, of which she was but one of the victims. Ms Greig’s campaigners contend medical & Police reports support her claims, also pointing out Ms Greig received an as yet unexplained huge payout from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority while no one has yet been charged or prosecuted over the abuse.

NMG0505123Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini – lawyers have ties to Justice Secretary MacAskill. Sources close to the case, which saw Mr Green arrested last Friday, his home in Cheshire, England, raided by Scottish Police officers, then later being bailed on Monday of this week at Stonehaven Sheriff Court to attend a full hearing at a later date, say Justice Secretary MacAskill will be quizzed on his relationship with the Glasgow law firm Levy McRae, who now appear to be representing several individuals including a Sheriff & Scotland’s top law officer, Lord Elish Angiolini, caught up in the mess. We revealed in earlier reports, Mr MacAskill has long standing ties to Levy McRae, where the Justice Secretary served his apprenticeship as a solicitor, and worked for some time.

The Firm - Hollie Greig 2 CensoredScots law title "The Firm" reported abuse story, sparked global campaign for Hollie. In another surprise move on the case, lawyers & staff from the well known Scots law publication “The Firm”, whose reports on Hollie Greig’s allegations back in November 2009 sparked the now global campaign to ‘secure justice’ for Ms Greig and other abuse victims, are also rumoured to be in line to be cited to give evidence in Mr Green’s pending trial and be questioned over the content of their now censored reports on the case, which were removed after legal threats from lawyers acting on behalf of the Lord Advocate and led to a string of apologies, which we covered in an earlier article HERE.

Robert GreenRobert Green – arrest was sparked after reports from law title which led to eventual arrest. Legal insiders said today it was likely Mr MacAskill would seek to avoid appearing in court, and may use ‘ministerial powers’ to avoid being cross examined by defence agents acting on behalf of the arrested journalist but there would probably be no escape for staff of law title “The Firm”, who are now being identified by many campaigners in the Hollie Greig case as being the publication which started the recent spate of articles, forum comments and online chatter over the abuse claims, said to involve members of the Scottish legal establishment who will now be forced to clear their names in the gaze of full publicity & open court.

One solicitor said late last night : “The Firm have got themselves in a sticky position. I understand its staff will be called as witnesses to be questioned over their reporting of Ms Greig’s claims, printed as far back as 17 November 2009.”

He continued : “The material published by the Firm in mid November appears to be the initial reports of recent weeks which led to the Lord Advocate’s personal involvement in the case, the spate of legal threats which saw coverage withdrawn from the Firm’s website, and the interdict gained on behalf of the Sheriff, all clearly resulting in Mr Green’s arrest and the current Grampian Police investigation. It is only proper the publication’s staff are called to account for their reporting which has now led to Mr Green’s current situation.”

This morning several additional campaigners associated with the Hollie Greig case, including website owners, pressure groups and online media outlets vowed to follow the same course of defence, if quizzed on their reporting of Ms Greig’s case. A source from a media organisation reporting on the case confirmed they too would be citing staff from “The Firm” to attend if any legal proceedings were instituted by the Lord Advocate.

It also can be revealed today “The Firm” ‘were intimidated’ by the Crown Office over a report they published, claiming a Police investigation took place of a Sheriff in connection with evidence on the Lockerbie case, after correspondence was submitted to Lothian & Borders Police by the SNP’s Christine Grahame. Lord Angiolini went onto praise the Sheriff said to be under investigation, and then disputed the events as reported by “The Firm” (better grab the info in those links while you all can – Ed)

GREIG, Anne & HollieAnne & Hollie Greig to support arrested journalist’s defence. It has also emerged that Hollie Greig herself, and her mother Anne, will support a defence of charges against Mr Green, support which could lead to damaging testimony in open court by Hollie and her mother, which may raise many questions as to why there have been no prosecutions in this long running case. Grampian Police and the Crown Office are now known to have been informed of allegations by Ms Greig of abuse dating back an amazing 10 years and recently the Crown Office issued varying statements as to why no one had been charged. Commentators on the case say the appearance of Ms Greig and her mother in court as witnesses, either in person or by video link from England, will prove an uncomfortable time for those who stand accused of the abuse, and may finally spark action on the Ms Greig’s allegations of serial abuse.

There are now growing calls for Grampian Police to interview the Lord Advocate, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and staff from ‘The Firm’ over issues connected with the Mr Green’s arrest and the ongoing Grampian Police investigation. (so, a hot time for Scotland’s legal celebs in the spotlight, lets clear calendars ? – Ed)

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Lord Advocate’s lawyers issue interdict on behalf of Sheriff in Hollie Greig case as journalist bailed, home raided by Police in files hunt

NMG0505123Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini. LEVY MCRAE, the same law firm which represents Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini and has long standing ties to JUSTICE SECRETARY KENNY MACASKILL, who worked at the law firm for several years and secured his solicitors apprenticeship there, is now also representing an Aberdeen Sheriff who stood accused of allegations in connection with the Hollie Greig case, recently reported in the Scottish media and by many online outlets. The England based journalist & broadcaster Robert Green, who was investigating the allegations, was arrested on Friday morning in Aberdeen, and bailed earlier today at Stonehaven Sheriff Court after desperate attempts by the Courts Service & Police to vary the trial venue in an attempt to prevent media and Mr Green’s supporters from attending.

Peter WatsonPeter Watson of Levy McRae, now also represents Sheriff as well as Lord Advocate. It has been revealed today that Levy McRae, acting for the Sheriff, sent letters to one of the publications which recently reported on the Hollie Greig case, the “UK Column”, informing the newspaper’s editors they had secured an interim interdict at Scotland’s Court of Session last week, 11 February 2009, seeking to prevent the publication and spread of information or allegations relating to their [new] client, identified in the court documents as one Sheriff Graeme Buchanan. The “UK Column” has now published the letters & correspondence between themselves & Levy McRae, along with a copy of the interim interdict, secured late last week in Edinburgh.

Levy McRae & Interim Interdict :

Levy McRae to UK Column Interdict (Scotland) Court of Session 11 February 2010

The above interdict, the terms of which can be published according to the Scottish Courts Service, now makes reporting any allegations specifically regarding the Sheriff, impossible, and earlier today, the interdict was apparently waved at several UK newspapers reminding them of their duty to adhere to the terms of the law.

However, a solicitor speaking on behalf of a London based newspaper noted the Scottish interdict, gained by Edinburgh law firm Simpson & Marwick on behalf of Levy McRae's client, Sheriff Graeme Buchanan v George Robert Green, had no effect in England & Wales or anywhere else outside Scotland, and until such time as an injunction was gained under the English legal system, news outlets outside Scotland remain able to report developments in the case.

Robert GreenJournalist Robert Green, bailed after 3 days in custody over ‘breach of the peace’. Meanwhile Robert Green has been freed on bail after an appearance earlier today at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, and is to report to a Police station until such time as the full hearing into his charge takes place. The hearing was, according to supporters of Mr Green present at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, held “in camera”, meaning not accessible to the public (a bit heavy handed for a breach of the peace charge – Ed) Also today it was reported by sources close to developments that Grampian Police had requested Cheshire Constabulary to raid Mr Green’s home, confiscating documents and computer equipment.

This morning, legal insiders were questioning the political impact of the same law firm which has ties to the Justice Secretary representing two key figures of the Scots legal establishment who face a number of allegations connected with the same abuse case.

One solicitor said this morning : "If this had occurred in England, television news would have been all over it, but due to the peculiarities of the Scots legal system, which some at the top appear to treat as their own personal fiefdom, wider coverage of Mr Green's three day detention on a charge of breach of the peace connected to allegations of abuse which drag in the country's top law officers, has effectively been censored from the wider public arena." (nothing new to us - Ed)

Anne GreigHolly Greig with her mother Anne – forced to flee to England after abuse. Since the journalist’s arrest by Grampian Police on Friday, reports of Mr Green, and his work investigating the allegations into the Aberdeen based paedophile ring have spread around the internet, along with a sequence of video clips of a talk the journalist gave to audiences on his work and the allegations into the abuse which had taken place in the Aberdeen area, leaving many to question why Scotland’s Crown Office had stamped on any chance of mounting prosecutions against people well known in the area who have been identified by one of the abuse victims, Hollie Greig, who, despite no one being charged after a Police investigation into the abuse claims, received £13,500 compensation (hush money ? – Ed) from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April of 2009.

Hollie has been described by a Grampian detective inspector who himself gave evidence, as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”, and medical evidence has apparently verified that Hollie has been abused.

Grampian Police are now known to have received hundreds of calls from people all over the United Kingdom and around the world, concerned for Mr Green’s wellbeing. It has also been revealed today that Anne Greig, Hollie’s mother has not been allowed to speak to Mr Green to establish if he is ok, or has the necessary legal representation for his court appearance on Monday.

The video clips, well worth a look while they still exist, can be viewed on You Tube at the following link : JusticeforHollie

You can read our earlier coverage of events in the Hollie Greig case, HERE and here follows today’s report from the Aberdeen Press & Journal on Robert Green’s court appearance yesterday. The ‘breach of the peace’ Mr Green is charged with, is alleged to have spanned 8 months (must be the longest breach of the peace in Scots legal history & so much for the Crown Office’s attempt to cap media attention to the story … – Ed)

Robert GreenLegal aide to Hollie’s family in abuse claim appears in court

Man accused of breaching the peace

By Leanna MacLarty Published: 16/02/2010

THE legal adviser to the family of a disabled woman who claims she was abused by a paedophile ring as a child has appeared in court charged with breach of the peace.

Robert Green, 63, appeared from custody at Stonehaven Sheriff Court yesterday accused of an offence spanning eight months. The political hopeful represents the mother of Hollie Greig, a 30-year-old woman with Down’s Syndrome. Hollie claims she was sexually assaulted by a Scottish sheriff, who is still serving, and a senior Grampian Police officer who is now dead.

Green is alleged to have committed a breach of the peace between June 9, 2009, and February 12 this year in the Ferryhill, Bridge of Don, Bieldside and Woodside areas of Aberdeen. A handful of Green’s supporters gathered at the court for yesterday’s hearing, while a few more arrived at Aberdeen Sheriff Court expecting him to appear there.

Green, of 4 Birchdale Road, Warrington, Cheshire, appeared in private on petition before Sheriff James Hendry. He made no plea and was released on bail. He was represented during the brief hearing by Stonehaven solicitor Denis Daun.

Green was arrested on Friday as he made his way to the centre of Aberdeen to hand out leaflets. He is understood to have been heading for Union Street to tell people about Hollie’s case and his plans to contest the Aberdeen South parliamentary seat as an independent candidate. Green had been staying at a bed and breakfast in King Street. The B&B was searched by police following the arrest.

Hollie claims she was abused for 14 years from the age of six and has given the police the names of some of the men she alleges assaulted her. The 30-year-old and her mother, Anne, have been campaigning for criminal proceedings since 2000. The abuse is alleged to have taken place in Aberdeen, and Hollie and her mother claim to have made a statement at Bucksburn police station in July that year naming those involved. The family moved to Shropshire and two Grampian Police officers travelled to Shrewsbury in September last year to re-interview Hollie at a special facility.

Last month, the Crown Office said there was not enough reliable evidence to proceed with the case.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Justice Secretary linked to Lord Advocate's lawyers after Police arrest journalist over reporting of Aberdeen Paedophile gang claims

Robert GreenJournalist & Broadcaster Robert Green was arrested by Grampian Police on Friday. SCOTLAND’s CROWN OFFICE are said to be heavily involved in the arrest in Aberdeen on Friday of the well known England based journalist & broadcaster Robert Green, who travelled to the Grampian area late Thursday to attend a public protest against the lack of action by Scotland’s law enforcement agencies to prosecute identified individuals in an Aberdeen based paedophile gang, names which include key members of Scotland’s legal establishment and even a local Sheriff, who stand accused of serial abuse of disabled victims, including downs syndrome girl, Hollie Greig.

Grampian PoliceGrampian Police arrested journalist on ‘breach of the peace’. Grampian Police apparently swooped on Mr Green before he was even able to attend Friday’s planned protest, taking him into custody earlier in the morning on a charge of breach of the peace, which Mr Green had been detained on, until his appearance tomorrow (Monday) at Aberdeen Sheriff court, where ironically, Mr Green will be taken before a colleague of a Sheriff who was identified by one of the abuse victims as being an alleged member of the paedophile gang at the centre of the case, who are accused of abusing disabled victims & also passing vulnerable children around their ranks.

The Firm - Hollie Greig 2 CensoredLord Advocate & Crown Office censored online legal publication “The Firm” from reporting on abuse case. Scottish Law Reporter have covered the story of Hollie Greig on previous occasions, HERE, secondly, revealing Scots Law magazine “The Firm” were censored by the Crown Office HERE, thirdly, revealing that a private law firm had been tasked by the Lord Advocate to threaten & censor media investigations of the case HERE and most recently, where the Crown Office announced they would not prosecute the case, HERE

Peter WatsonSenior Levy McRae partner Peter Watson acted against media outlets for the Lord Advocate. The case alarmed Crown Office officials and even the Lord Advocate of Scotland so much, a heavyweight law firm based in Glasgow, Messrs Levy McRae were brought in to threaten any media outlet who dare report on the allegations or identify anyone named by the victim and her mother, or involved the Grampian Police investigation. Mr Green recently alleged the investigation carried out by Grampian was very far from incomplete, apparently having omitted to interview many or all of the chief suspects, and victims.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskillJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill linked to Lord Advocate’s choice of lawyers. Amazingly, it can now be revealed the Scottish Government’s current Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill has long standing ties to Levy McRae, the same law firm used by the Lord Advocate to threaten media publication of the Hollie Greig case. Mr MacAskill is now known to have served his apprenticeship at Levy McRae and also worked at the firm for a considerable time during his years as a solicitor.

Levy & McRae letter on behalf of Lord AdvocateLevy McRae sent out legal threats to websites, newspapers, & online forums. Mr MacAskill could not be contacted for any comment on developments in the case, and officials said he would not answer any questions over his previous involvement with Levy McRae. However, several MSPs alerted to the fact the Lord Advocate has used the same firm which once employed the Justice Secretary himself, have now vowed to investigate the goings on in the Hollie Greig case. An aide to an MSP today said there may well be a problem for the Justice Secretary since the Lord Advocate has used his old law firm, throwing up the question of conflict of interest and whether the intervention against the media by Levy McRae “may have implied Scottish Government support for the law firm’s work on behalf of the Lord Advocate.”

Anne GreigHolly Greig with her mother Anne – forced to flee to England after abuse. Since the journalist’s arrest by Grampian Police on Friday, reports of Mr Green, and his work investigating the allegations into the Aberdeen based paedophile ring have spread around the internet, along with a sequence of video clips of a talk the journalist gave to audiences on his work and the allegations into the abuse which had taken place in the Aberdeen area, leaving many to question why Scotland’s Crown Office had stamped on any chance of mounting prosecutions against people well known in the area who have been identified by one of the abuse victims, Hollie Greig, who, despite no one being charged after a Police investigation into the abuse claims, received £13,500 compensation (hush money ? – Ed) from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April of 2009.

Hollie has been described by a Grampian detective inspector who himself gave evidence, as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”, and medical evidence has apparently verified that Hollie has been abused.

Grampian Police are now known to have received hundreds of calls from people all over the United Kingdom and around the world, concerned for Mr Green’s wellbeing. It has also been revealed today that Anne Greig, Hollie’s mother has not been allowed to speak to Mr Green to establish if he is ok, or has the necessary legal representation for his court appearance on Monday.

The video clips, well worth a look while they still exist, can be viewed on You Tube at the following link : JusticeforHollie

Aberdeen’s Press & Journal newspaper reported on Mr Green’s arrest :

Robert Green‘Sex abuse’ family’s legal adviser arrested

CAMPAIGNER WAS GOING TO HAND OUT LEAFLETS
BY RYAN CRIGHTON

Published: 13/02/2010

The legal adviser to the family of a disabled woman who claims she was abused by a paedophile ring as a child was arrested yesterday as he made his way to the centre of Aberdeen to hand out leaflets.

Political hopeful Robert Green represents the mother of Hollie Greig, a 30-year-old woman with Down’s Syndrome who says she was sexually assaulted by a Scottish sheriff, who is still serving, and a senior Grampian Police officer who is now dead.

Last night, 63-year-old Mr Green was charged with breach of the peace. He is expected to appear at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on Monday. It is understood he was arrested as he made his way to Union Street, where he was going to tell people about Hollie’s case and his plans to contest the Aberdeen South parliamentary seat as an independent candidate.

Mr Green, of Cheshire, had been staying at a bed and breakfast in King Street. He was expected in Union Street near the Marks and Spencer store at 10.30am but never arrived. Other “injustice” campaigners, including Aberdeen man David Emslie, formerly of Nigg Kirk Road, were waiting for Mr Green and said they were concerned for his safety when he did not appear.

Grampian Police later confirmed Mr Green was in custody. A spokesman said: “A 63-year-old man has been charged in connection with a breach of the peace. “As this case is now active, it would be inappropriate to make any other comment.” Police, with the consent of Mr Green, searched his room in King Street and are believed to have left with documents belonging to him.

Hollie claims she was abused for 14 years from the age of six and has given police the names of some of the men she says assaulted her. The 30-year-old and her mother, Anne, have been campaigning for criminal proceedings since 2000.

The abuse is alleged to have taken place in Aberdeen, and Hollie and her mother claim to have made a statement at Bucksburn police station in July that year naming those involved. The family moved to Shropshire and two Grampian Police officers travelled to Shrewsbury in September last year to re-interview Hollie at a special facility.

Last month, the Crown Office revealed there was not enough reliable evidence to proceed with the case.

A spokesman said at the time: “Historical allegations of sexual abuse made by a 30-year-old woman in Shropshire have been thoroughly investigated by police. “Crown counsel have considered all the available information and decided that there is insufficient credible, reliable and admissible evidence to justify criminal proceedings in respect of these allegations.”

Despite no charges ever being brought, Hollie received £13,500 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April last year. It is understood that followed evidence from a Grampian detective inspector, who described Hollie as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”. Mrs Greig, 58, claims her daughter has experienced nightmares and panic attacks since she first told her about the alleged abuse.