The Lord Advocate’s SECRET SLUSH FUND : Crown Office have used secret cash to ‘make payoffs’ & ‘cover up’ criminal, civil cases involving staff

Evidence emerges of a secret slush fund at Lord Advocate’s Crown Office. SCOTLAND’S Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has today been accused of operating a secret, unaudited “slush fund of public money” used to pay for legal advice, and private legal representation for its own members of staff who have been charged with criminal offences or who have become involved in civil legal disputes.

The fund, which legal insiders claim is buried deep in the budget for the Crown Office, is rumoured to have paid out millions of pounds over its existence in cases involving its own staff. There are also suggestions the fund has been used to PAY-OFF ‘media friendly’ law firms to keep headlines involving criminal charges against COPFS staff out of the press and that the fund may have been used “to purchase testimony” from witnesses”.

The claims come after the Crown Office refused to respond to Freedom of Information requests made by journalists investigating leaks that “a substantial fund which is not subject to external audit or accountability”, is maintained by prosecutors to pay huge sums relating to legal costs of their colleagues caught up in scandals, criminal charges and civil legal actions.

Legal insiders claim the fund, which is bankrolled by the Scottish Government, has been operating on an almost “cash-in-hand basis” with several high profile law firms receiving large sums of money for representing Crown Office personnel up to the most senior rank in the organisation.

Documents passed to Scottish Law Reporter show that journalists used FOI laws in June of this year to ask COPFS officials “Are there any arrangements for former Crown Office staff to continue to receive payment of public funds, respective legal advice, action or representation of issues or cases in which they were personally involved in prior to leaving COPFS, and if so, how many such cases have occurred since 2009, how many continue to this date, and how much has been paid in relation to the cases.”

It then took the Crown Office OVER TWO MONTHS to reply, after a series of secret internal discussions concluded the information should not be handed over, out of fears it would reveal significant sums of public money had been handed over by the Lord Advocate’s staff to law firms without any accounting of fees or questions as to the level of charges, which in some cases have skyrocketed past six figure sums.

Gertie Wallace, of the Crown Office ‘Policy Division’ replied to journalists, applying exemptions under Section 35(1)(b) and 35(1)(c) of FOISA to all of the information requested. Gertie Wallace then went onto state : “I consider that the release of the information would substantially prejudice the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the administration of justice.”

“I am satisfied that in all the circumstances there are compelling reasons that the public interest in disclosing is not outweighed by the public interest in not disclosing the information. I consider the public interest is best served by applying the exemptions under section 35(1) (b) and (c) in this particular instance. “

The Crown Office also refused to disclose the detailed reasons for refusing to disclose the information, citing live criminal proceedings against its own staff.

Wallace went onto say : “I cannot provide you with the detailed reason for this decision because to do so would in itself disclose information which is exempt under this section and also under section 26(c) of FOISA in light of live criminal proceedings which are subject to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Section 26(c) is an absolute exemption and not subject to the public interest test.”

Following the refusal to disclose, journalists then asked the Crown Office to review their decision, and in response, David Harvie, the Director of Serious Casework concluded the information on how much public money was being lavished on legal fees for staff should not be handed over.

The full details of the FOI battle to reveal taxpayers cash being spent on Crown Office staff and their dealings with law firms can be viewed HERE

Speaking to Scottish Law Reporter earlier today, a solicitor from a well known law firm expressed dismay at the Crown Office refusal to release the information.

The solicitor went onto say that it was well known in legal circles, there is a small exclusive club of law firms who are being paid substantial sums by the Crown Office for work involving their own staff.

He said that in one case he knew of involving criminal charges arising out of drink driving offences, the Crown Office handed over TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS to a law firm who were defending a senior Crown Office staffer in a case that had dragged on unnecessarily for many months, even attracting criticism from a Sheriff.

He also backed media attempts to reveal how much public money is being spent by the Crown Office on law firms and their staff involved in cases.

SLUSH FUND IN ACTION ?

Questions remain over who paid for lawyers working for Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in battle against anti-abuse campaigner. One case which has brought the issue of this secret fund into focus is that of a case involving legal action taken by the previous Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (born McPhilomy) over a campaign asking for an investigation into abuse against vulnerable people in the Aberdeen area, and allegations of a paedophile gang rumoured to contain members of Scotland’s judiciary.

Groups of law journalists and media publications had sought to use Freedom of Information laws to establish whether the Crown Office did pay for legal representation of Dame Angiolini (born McPhilomy)in the case of Robert Green, a journalist & anti-abuse campaigner who was jailed for six months on a breach of the peace charge, at a cost to taxpayers of around ONE MILLION POUNDS after he was found guilty of handing out leaflets asking for an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse against a downs syndrome victim, Hollie Greig.

The Crown Office refused to disclose any information in response to FOI requests involving Angiolini, and in some cases, enacted a media boycott of certain publications in retaliation for publishing material and allegations connected with the case involving Angiolini

The law firm involved in representing Dame Angiolini (born McPhilomy) was LEVY MCRAE of Glasgow, who also represented the shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell. Partners at Levy McRae have recently been caught up in bitter court fights over personal actions, while others at the firm are known to work for the Cayman Islands tax dodge haven, where some of the world’s biggest drugs gangs, terror groups and mobsters are known to keep their money from state tax authorities. It is also known that Levy McRae have personal ties to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who used to work at the firm, reported by SLR, HERE

Institutionally Corrupt : Crown Office, Police & Lord Advocate accused of criminality over Lockerbie trial injustice

Scotland’s Crown Office played a role in perverting the course of justice at Lockerbie trial, say many in Scots legal world. Scotland’s institutionally corrupt Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) which is headed by the Lord Advocate, has been accused of criminality over their part in the trial of Abdelbasset al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988.

The Justice for Megrahi group have made the accusations in a letter to Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has been in the justice portfolio now for over five years, with little to show for any improvements in Scotland’s now notoriously “Victorian” justice system.

The letter from the Justice for Megrahi group is reprinted below, followed by coverage from BBC News. More on the story can also be read on Professor Robert Black’s Lockerbie Case blog Previous coverage on the Lockerbie case by Scottish Law Reporter can be viewed here Lockerbie Trial

Letter from Justice for Megrahi group to Kenny MacAskill :

Dear Mr MacAskill,

The Committee of Justice for Megrahi hereby formally lodge with you complaints alleging criminal wrongdoing in the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the murder of 270 people in the downing of Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988.

These complaints are directed against the persons and bodies named below whom, for the reasons given, we believe may be guilty of the criminal offences specified.

1. On 22 August 2000 the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, communicated to the judges of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands information about the contents of CIA cables relating to the Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka that was known to members of the prosecution team [A. B. and C. D.] who had scrutinised the cables, to be false. The Lord Advocate did so after consulting these members of the prosecution team. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

2. Members of the Lockerbie prosecution team, including but not limited to [C. D.], devised and presented or allowed to be presented to the trial court a scenario regarding the placement of items in luggage container AVE4041 which was known to be false, in order to obfuscate and conceal compelling evidence that the bomb suitcase was introduced by a terrorist infiltration at Heathrow airport. It is submitted that this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

3. Dumfries and Galloway Police, and those individuals employed by that force responsible for the recording, prioritising and submission to the Crown Office of evidence gathered in the investigation into the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, and the Crown Office, and those individuals in that organisation responsible for the analysis of said evidence and identifying what material required to be passed on to those acting for Megrahi and Fhimah, concealed the witness statement relating to the break-in to Heathrow airside giving access to the luggage loading shed used by Pan Am 103 in the early hours of 21 December 1988 which was provided by Heathrow Security Officer Raymond Manly to the Metropolitan Police shortly after Mr Manly’s discovery of the break-in. It is submitted that the concealment of this witness statement, which was or ought to have been known to Dumfries and Galloway Police and the Crown Office to be of the highest possible significance to the defence, constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

4. [In the course of his testimony at Camp Zeist, witness E. F.] told the Court that the materials and tracking analysis of fragment PT/35b, the sliver of printed circuit board said to have originated from a circuit board contained in one of the 20 MST-13 digital timer instruments supplied by MEBO AG to Libya (the boards for all these timers having been custom-made for MEBO by Thuring AG), were “similar in all respects” to the control samples of MST-13 circuit boards. [E. F.] consistently used this form of words to describe analyses of items which were identical or of common origin. This statement was false. While the tracking pattern was indeed identical, [E. F.] was aware that the coating on the circuitry of the control boards was the standard alloy of 70% tin and 30% lead, while the coating on the circuitry of fragment PT/35b (most unusually) lacked the 30% lead content. It is submitted that his statement to the Court was a deliberate falsehood designed to conceal a significant and material difference between the evidential fragment and the control items, and thus constituted both perjury and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

5. The Lockerbie investigation, and in particular [police officer G. H.], knew by 1990 that the coating on the circuitry of fragment PT/35b was composed of pure tin, and that this composition was highly unusual, being described as “by far the most interesting feature” of the fragment by all the experts who were consulted, “without exception”. By early 1992 [G. H.] and those in the Crown Office to whom he reported also knew that the metallurgy testing on the control MST-13 circuit boards showed the circuitry on these boards to be coated with the standard 70% tin / 30% lead alloy. [G. H.] and those in the Crown Office to whom he reported either failed to inquire with the manufacturer Thuring AG whether they had supplied any MST-13 timer boards with the unusual lead-free coating, or did make such inquiries and failed to disclose the results of these inquiries to the defence. It was discovered by the defence team in 2008 that Thuring AG did not manufacture printed circuit boards with a lead-free coating, and indeed lacked the manufacturing capacity to do so. If [G. H.] and/or those in the Crown Office to whom he reported failed to make the relevant inquiries with Thuring AG, it is submitted that this omission was grossly negligent. If [G. H.] and/or those in the Crown Office to whom he reported made such inquiries and failed to disclose the results to the defence, it is submitted that this failure constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

6. From our assessment of the ‘SCCRC Statement of Reasons’, relating to its referral of Mr. Megrahi’s case to the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2007, and the ‘Grounds of Appeal 1 and 2' documents prepared by his legal team in furtherance of that appeal, it is clear that a number of questions have been raised in relation to the process which led to the identification of Mr. Megrahi by witness Mr. Anthony Gauci. These include doubts about the legitimacy of the process by which Mr. Gauci’s identification evidence was obtained, assessed and delivered, and what prompted significant failures by the Crown to disclose related material information. From these documents it appears that [police officer I. J.] and other police officers who were involved in this identification process might well have been aware that a number of the aspects of the process they were following were flawed and did not accord with guidelines extant at the time or with any general principles of fairness to the accused. It is submitted that the omissions and failings referred to in the relevant reports indicate that [I. J.] and others have important questions to answer in connection with the identification process, and we believe, taken as a whole, that their conduct constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice and a breach of section 44 (2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (violation of duty by a constable).

The above numbered complaints simply constitute the basic allegations. Documents containing detailed supporting material have been prepared and will be made available to the investigating authorities as and when requested by them.

You above all will realise the seriousness of these allegations which strike at the very heart of the Lockerbie investigation past and present. Effectively, we are complaining about the actions of Crown Office officials, the prosecution and investigating authorities including the police, and certain other agencies and individuals. Given the controversy surrounding this whole affair we request that you give serious thought to the independence of any investigating authority you appoint. As a group we believe that you should appoint someone outwith Scotland who has no previous direct or indirect association with Lockerbie or its ramifications.

You will be aware of the disquiet we feel about the delay and obfuscation which have surrounded this whole affair since 1988. Nevertheless we understand you will require reasonable time to inquire into these allegations and decide how you wish to proceed.

We therefore propose to keep these matters private and confidential for a period of thirty days from the date of this letter to allow you to carry out the necessary enquiries, decide how you wish the matter to be investigated, and respond to us. We thereafter reserve the right to make the above matters public as and when we feel appropriate and reasonable. Furthermore, on the grounds that JFM’s petition PE1370 is due for consideration on 25 September, we also reserve the right to inform the Justice Committee of the fact that we have lodged this document with yourself, making reference (in general terms only) to the fact that it contains serious allegations relating to the Lockerbie/Zeist case.

In passing we would also note the recent publicity given to the perceived lack of independence in Scotland between the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government by Mr. Andrew Tickell.

We also share this concern and would hope, for reasons that must be obvious from the foregoing, that your response to this letter will be free from Crown Office influence of any kind.

We thank you for your time and attention in this matter and look forward to an acknowledgment of receipt by return.

On behalf of the Committee of Justice for Megrahi

BBC News reports :

Lockerbie group accuse Lord Advocate Colin Boyd

By Reevel Alderson Home affairs correspondent, BBC Scotland

Scotland's former chief prosecutor Lord Boyd has been accused by campaigners for the Lockerbie bomber of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Justice for Megrahi (JFM) also claim police, forensic scientists and Crown Office personnel broke the law.

The Scottish government said JFM should send any evidence to Dumfries and Galloway police which carried out the original investigation into Lockerbie.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity.

Three judges heard the evidence without a jury at a special court in the Netherlands in 2001, when Lord Boyd was lord advocate.

They sentenced Megrahi to life imprisonment for the murder of the 270 people who died when Pan Am 103 was blown up over the Scottish town.

Megrahi died in May this year of inoperable prostate cancer.

Justice for Megrahi

The convicted bomber had abandoned a second appeal against his conviction in 2009 shortly being sent from a Scottish prison to Libya on compassionate grounds.

But campaigners, who want Megrahi's conviction overturned, have kept up their demands for a public inquiry into the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie case.

On Tuesday, JFM published a letter it had sent to Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill detailing its complaints about the legal process.

It claimed the lord advocate at the time, Lord Boyd, who led the Lockerbie prosecution, gave information to the trial judges which members of his team knew to be false.

It concerned the contents of American CIA cables relating to the prosecution witness, Abdul Majid Giaka.

In its letter, JFM said: "It is submitted this constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice."

It makes similar claims about members of the prosecution team at the trial at Kamp Zeist in the Netherlands, and about police and forensic officers.
convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died in May

JFM said its allegations "strike at the very heart of the Lockerbie investigation past and present".

It said it had documents of supporting material - but gave no details.

The campaign group repeated its call for an independent inquiry to be held by someone outwith Scotland.

Mr MacAskill has not replied to the letter, but asked Neil Rennick, deputy director of the Scottish government's justice directorate to do so.

Mr Rennick repeated the government's view that only a court had the power to uphold or overturn Megrahi's conviction.

He said: "Scottish ministers take exceptionally seriously any suggestion of inappropriate or criminal activity by individuals with key responsibilities with Scotland's justice system.

"Such allegations should be reported and investigated through the appropriate procedures."

He said it was not for the government to investigate allegations of criminality; it was for the lord advocate who is independent of government.

Mr Rennick told JFM it should provide evidence of its allegations to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary which carried out the Lockerbie investigation.

Lord Boyd, who is now a judge, has made no comment.

But the Crown Office said it considered the allegations to be defamatory.

It added: "These allegations have been addressed and rejected in a combination of court hearings, an inquiry by Lothian and Borders police and the investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

"The SCCRC was satisfied after full and proper investigation that there was no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies."

Crown Office anger as High Court judges oppose Scottish Government plan to abolish safeguard of corroboration

Judges report opposes removal of corroboration safeguards for criminal trials in Scotland. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s plans to ram through controversial and highly questionable changes to Scotland’s criminal justice system have taken a hit after it was made known Scotland’s High Court judges have strongly come out against the Scottish Government’s plans to abolish the long held requirement of corroboration in Scottish criminal prosecutions.

The opposition of Scotland’s judges to the major plank of the Carloway Review Report & Recommendations 2011 have been welcomed by many, who see the SNP’s decision to remove the well understood safeguard of corroboration as little more than a politically motivated plan to allow Scotland’s institutionally corrupt Crown Office to secure more convictions based on miserly requirements of uncorroborated evidence.

The Judiciary of Scotland made the following announcement :

Judges respond to public consultation on Carloway Report

On 3 July 2012, the Scottish Government launched a public consultation seeking views on how best to reform areas of Scottish criminal law and practice. This consultation was based on the recommendations set out in Lord Carloway’s Report on criminal procedure which was published in November 2011.

The Judges of the High Court of Justiciary, other than Lord Carloway, have now submitted their response available online here : Response by the Senators of the College of Justice to SG consultation : Reforming Scots Criminal Law & Practice  to proposals in the present consultation paper.  While their response provides support for the majority of the Carloway Review proposals, they unanimously agree that the rule of corroboration should not be abolished.

Yesterday’s announcement from the Judiciary of Scotland has certainly angered the Crown Office, who have today been privately briefing against the judge’s decision to oppose the removal of corroboration. Several law journalists have reported in alleging that Crown Office spin doctors have launched personal attacks on some of the High Court judges, even calling into question their remit to give a public opinion on what one Crown Office insider called the Justice Secretary’s plans to remove corroboration, come what may.

Scottish Law Reporter supports the retention of corroboration, and has reported on the issue in previous coverage HERE

The full Carloway Review can be read online here: Carloway Review Report & Recommendations 2011 along with the Executive Summary and Lord Carloway's statement

BBC News has reported further on the story, here :

High Court judges oppose abolition of corroboration

High Court judges have rejected proposals to abolish the centuries-old requirement for corroboration in Scottish criminal prosecutions.

Judge Lord Carloway, who carried out a review of Scots criminal law last year, said the rule ensuring all key evidence was backed by two sources was archaic.

He said it no longer had a place in a modern legal system.

But, in a consultation response, judges said corroboration provided a safeguard against miscarriages of justice.

The Senators of the College of Justice said removing the need for corroboration, which is unique to Scotland's legal system, would lead to "decreasing confidence in the legal system" and to lower conviction rates generally.

They said: "In our view, it is often difficult to assess the true facts on the basis only of the evidence of one witness. A witness may be credible and plausible, yet not be telling the truth (or the whole truth).

"The Scottish courts have on many occasions been grateful for the requirement of corroboration, which in our view provides a major safeguard against miscarriages of justice.

"One particularly anxious area is that of alleged sexual offences, where (without corroboration) the issue becomes one of the complainer's word against the accused's. Our concern is that the abolition of corroboration may result in miscarriages of justice."
Lord Carloway Lord Carloway is Scotland's second top judge after taking on the role of Lord Justice Clerk this year

The judges also expressed concern about police procedure if the corroboration requirement was removed.

"We are also concerned that the abolition of corroboration may result in less diligent police investigation pre-trial: knowing that corroboration is not required, there may be a relaxation in the search for supporting evidence (even though such may well exist)," they said.

"Furthermore the court or jury, faced with the dangers of one person's word against another's, may be reluctant to convict. In our experience, juries have always found corroborative evidence of great assistance.

"The current perception may be that the conviction rate in certain types of crime (for example, sexual offences) is low. It is our considered view that if corroboration were to be abolished, that would lead to decreasing confidence in the legal system, and to lower rates of conviction generally."

The judges were responding to a Scottish government consultation on the review.
'Medieval' thinking

In 2010, Lord Carloway was asked to lead a review of Scots law and practice in the wake of a high-profile human rights decision by the UK Supreme Court, on the Cadder case.

The Cadder ruling put an end to police being able to question suspects without the option of legal representation.

In his 400-page review, Lord Carloway said the requirement for evidence to be corroborated has lain at the heart of the criminal justice system "since time immemorial" but was based on "medieval" thinking.

His 76 recommendations looked at four areas: custody, investigation, evidence and appeals.

Judges supported the majority of the Carloway Review proposals but stopped short of agreeing with the abolition of corroboration.

They also said that if the requirement is removed, additional changes should be made to the criminal justice system.
'Additional safeguards'

Consideration may have to be given to changing the current requirement for a verdict of guilty from a minimum of eight jury members out of 15 to the type of majority required in England, of 10 out of a jury of 12, they said.

The judges added: "In our view, if the requirement of corroboration were to be abolished, it would reinforce the case for retaining the 'not proven' verdict to allow a jury a principled third option where they found it impossible to work out which of the complainer or the accused was telling the truth."

A Scottish government spokeswoman said: "The proposed abolition of the requirement for corroboration was recommended in an independent review by Lord Carloway. Lord Carloway's recommendations have been subject to a government consultation exercise.

"The consultation specifically sought views on whether any additional safeguards would be required as a result of removing the corroboration rule and we will carefully consider all responses."

Earlier this year, Lord Carloway was appointed the country's second top judge when he took up the role of Lord Justice Clerk.

Ex Strathclyde Detective Chief John Mitchell appointed as Director of Investigations for Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland

A retired Strathclyde Police Officer, John Mitchell has been appointed as the first Director of Investigations working for Professor John McNeill, the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS).

A former Detective Chief Superintendent and Head of CID at Strathclyde Police, Mr Mitchell retired in July and was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in 2012.

The appointment of the Director of Investigations is the most senior appointment made by the Commissioner this year as he prepares to take on an expanded remit and greater powers from 1 April 2013, when the PCCS becomes the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC).

John Mitchell said: “I am delighted and honoured to have been asked to take up the role of Director of Investigations by the Commissioner. My priority will be to ensure that the investigations team is resourced, trained and ready to carry out effective investigations from April next year.”

Speaking about the appointment Professor McNeill said: “The creation of PIRC represents an important step forward in how we hold the police to account in Scotland. I am delighted to have secured such a well-respected and experienced individual as John for this important role and look forward to welcoming him formally to the organisation on November. I have asked him to join the Scottish Government-led project to establish the PIRC and I am confident that, with the support of all parties, we will be fully prepared for our statutory duties by April 2013.”

The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 will, from April 1 2013, extend the remit of the PCCS from its current complaint review function to include independent investigations into the most serious incidents involving the police.

The types of investigations Mr Mitchell will lead include fatal road collisions involving police vehicles, deaths in custody, discharge of firearms by police officers, as well as investigations into criminal allegations against members of the police service. These investigations may be carried out under the direction of Crown, at the request of the Scottish Police Authority or the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland and, can also be instigated by the Commissioner himself, where there is a clear public interest.

Currently, these incidents are investigated by another police force in Scotland at the request of the Chief Constable or at the direction of Crown. However, from April the advent of a single Police Service of Scotland means that this option would not provide the assurance required by the public that there was effective oversight of the police in Scotland.

One of the first tasks facing the Director of Investigations will be to advise the Commissioner on the structure and recruitment strategy for the investigative arm of the PIRC. It is anticipated that he will lead a team of up to 22 investigators with a mix of skills and experience drawn from a range of backgrounds.

The PIRC will provide independent oversight of the second largest police service in the UK, behind the Metropolitan Police in London.

From April 1 2013 PIRC will investigate :

1.       allegations of a criminal nature (as directed by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service)

2.       death in police custody (under direction of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service)

3.       death following police contact

4.       police use of firearms and other weapons as specified in regulations (referral by Chief Constable to PIRC)

5.       serious injury in police custody or following police contact (referral by Chief Constable to PIRC)

6.       complaints made against senior officers (at the request of the Scottish Police Authority)

7.       relevant police matters where the Commissioner considers it would be in the public interest to do so.

FORGED WILLS : Courts hear of Scotland’s new growth industry as bitter family members alter, forge terms of wills in fraud scam to grab cash & assets for sole use

Scotland's courts hearing more cases of family members forging wills to grab cash, assets. SCOTS LAW FIRMS across Scotland may well be in for a mini boom period as the latest growth industry of FORGED WILLS appears to be resulting in record numbers of consultations & follow on litigation in Scotland’s court system, after firms report mounting instances where widowed partners & even parents of deceased love ones have been engaged in elaborate frauds to prevent other family members, relatives & even charities from receiving bequests & legacies left to them.

Speaking to Scottish Law Reporter today, a legal insider has identified numerous cases, ranging from wealthy & famous families battling it out over property & assets to small estates of only a few thousand pounds, where wills have been altered or forged by remaining spouses & ‘principal beneficiaries’ who have become intensely bitter & jealous towards even their remaining family.

He said : “A pattern in many cases is clearly emerging  where embittered spouses and even parents have altered or forged the wills & final wishes of their partners or children, simply to grab all the remaining assets for their own use in spite of written wishes dispersing awards & bequests to sons & daughters of deceased partners, other relatives and even charities.”

Many of the cases now floating around in Scotland’s courts, commonly involve allegations of falsified documents, multiple copies of wills where only the one most favourable to an ex partner or principal beneficiary has been used, misappropriation of assets prior to distribution, false information filed with HMRC to avoid paying Inheritance & Capital Gains Tax, and even cases where widowed partners have made fraudulent representations to banks & financial institutions where faked details of wills & assets have been used to obtain large loans.

While many of cases currently in the courts have not yet reached headline material, and may have some time to go before rulings are handed down, a recent case in Scotland’s Court of Session, SHARON McGEEVER(AP) as legal representative of her daughter Sophie Nicol Pursuer; against MAUREEN NICOL Defender: held that a mother had faked the will of her dead son in order to grab a house paid for by her son, so she could keep it for herself and not let it pass onto his child & former partner.

Of the above case, Court insiders have let it be known they were unimpressed with attempts by those who have forged wills to portray themselves as victims or use the ‘little old lady with no knowledge of the law’ syndrome in order to conceal significant financial fraud which in itself may well merit the application of criminal charges.

Cases currently in the courts and those awaiting hearing dates show a wide cross section of wealth, where claims of forged wills forged in residual estates ranging from the millions of pounds relating to sizeable and small residual estates the problem is not limited to Scotland’s wealthiest or most famous families

Scottish Law Reporter has previously covered the McGeever v Nicol case HERE, along with the full Court of Session opinion handed down by J Beckett QC, sitting as a Temporary Judge.

Complaints against Scottish Police soar yet again as Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland issues 2012 report

Complaint allegations made against Scottish police officers have increased by 13 per cent in the last year, according to figures released today (Monday 8 October) by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland.

According to the report Police Complaints: Statistics for Scotland 2011-12, in the year ending 31 March, a total of 4,379 complaint cases containing 7,933 allegations were received by the eight territorial police forces operating in Scotland, up from 7009 for the same period the previous year.

The most common complaint allegations disposed of during the period were irregular procedure (36.9%), incivility (15.3%) and neglect of duty (11.6%). “Irregular procedure” covers complaints that the police are not carrying out their duty well, such as taking a less than detailed statement or not following a particular line of inquiry. “Incivility” is rudeness in manner of speech, language or demeanour. “Neglect of duty” relates to complaints that an officer has failed or neglected to perform a duty, such as failing to submit a report following an investigation.

Complaints cases referred to the Area Procurator Fiscal fell during the year from 649 to 479. Although this is an overall drop of 26.2 per cent in the number of cases referred, nevertheless 2011-12 saw a peak in the proportion leading to proceedings being taken with 39 cases or 8.1 per cent of the total falling into this category.

In 2011-12, 152 complaint allegations resulted in misconduct proceedings against the officers involved and a further 29 allegations led to criminal convictions.

Given that Strathclyde Police serves the largest segment of Scotland’s population it is not surprising that it commonly receives the greatest share of all complaints directed at the Scottish police service. However, successive annual decreases since 2008 have seen its share fall to less than a third of all complaints (31.2%), smaller than its 42.2 per cent share of Scotland’s population. Conversely forces such as Tayside, Northern and Central Scotland all received higher percentage shares of complaints this year than might have been expected from their respective shares of the population.

In order to adjust for differences in force size and geographic area and enable more direct comparisons to be made between forces, the report uses a population denominator of complaint cases received per 10,000 of the population by police force and one per 1,000 on duty officers.

The largest force, Strathclyde, received the lowest number of cases per 10,000 population at 6.1, with Tayside Police the highest at 11.4 cases per 10,000 population. The average for Scotland is 8.4 cases per 10,000 population.

Using the on-duty complaint allegations per 1,000 officers measure, Northern Constabulary was the highest with 734.9 complaints received, while Strathclyde received fewest by this measure at 225.1 complaints. The average for Scotland is 350.7 allegations received per 1,000 police officers.

Professor McNeill, Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland said: “While it is disappointing that that both cases and allegations increased this year, I am happy that the longer term picture remains one of declining numbers of complaints about the police in Scotland. Reasonable people understand that the police face challenging circumstances daily and inevitably they will sometimes get it wrong. What is important is that the public has a route to voice their complaint and that police have a framework in place to identify learning and to implement improvements to procedures and practices as a result of complaints received.

“This report deals with historical information relating to eight forces. We must now start to visualise how to take best practice within a national police service and apply that across the country. My office is already part of a Scottish Government-led project to create the oversight and governance mechanisms we need to hold the single force to account. A consistent standard of reporting, recording and handling complaints from the public is central to that.”

The full report and individual reports for each of the eight Scottish forces can be downloaded from on the PCCS website www.pcc-scotland.org from Monday 8 October.