Calling for a Dimmo ? First Minister Salmond seeks Judge-led quango style post-Leveson group to look at ethics in Scottish media

First Minister Alex Salmond will need a judge without a dodgy background to chair his media ethics effort. ON THE DAY Lord Leveson’s Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press was published, absurdly accusing the UK media of creating havoc with the public interest, Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has outlined his plans for meddling with free speech in the media & published criticism north of the border, with the announcement he is looking for a Court of Session judge to lead a five ‘non-politician’ implementation group who will ‘take forward’ the issue of press ethics in Scotland.

It has been rumoured this evening Mr Salmond’s advisers have drawn up a short list of currently serving and retired judges, a list which include the names of Lord Nimmo Smith (who recently chaired the ‘inquiry’ into problems at Rangers Football Club) and also none other than recently retired Lord President, Lord Hamilton.

Stocking fillers for the five ‘non-politician' roles are rumoured to include several controversial figures and former law officers already given positions by Mr Salmond (A former Lord Advocate, perhaps ? – Ed)

A Scottish Parliament insider commented earlier today : “Perhaps Mr Salmond’s new media muzzling quango may be able to investigate his own party’s dark media ethics.”

Leveson: Salmond suggests post-Leveson inquiry group

First Minister Alex Salmond has outlined plans for an independent group to take forward the issue of press ethics in Scotland.

His call came as Lord Justice Leveson recommended a new and tougher watchdog in his report on the issue  report on the issue .

But Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said Mr Salmond was not fit to lead such reforms.

They said his relationship with News Corporation meant he should step aside from the process.

Mr Salmond pointed to Lord Justice Leveson's finding that the first minister "cannot be criticised", over his involvement surrounding the controversial proposed takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation.

During first minister's questions at Holyrood, Mr Salmond suggested the post-Leveson group should be non-political and chaired by a current or recent Court of Session judge.

The first minister appeared as a witness at the nine month-long Leveson Inquiry, which was prompted by the phone-hacking scandal at the former News of the World newspaper, owned by News Corporation.

Mr Salmond, who said he was "positive" about the findings of the inquiry, invited all the Scottish Parliament's political parties to meet him and give their views, adding: "I believe it's important to achieve cross-party agreement in Scotland on the best way forward."

The first minister, speaking in the context of Holyrood being responsible for the regulation of the printed media in Scotland, added: "I propose the establishment of an independent implementation group, chaired by a current or recent court of session judge, with five non-politician members.

"The purpose of this group would consider how best to implement the Leveson proposals in the context of Scots law and devolved responsibilities of this parliament."

During his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, Mr Salmond was quizzed about his contact with media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his willingness to lobby the former culture minister Jeremy Hunt over the planned BSkyB takeover.

In his report, Lord Justice Leveson concluded Mr Salmond could not be criticised for his role in lobbying for the takeover of broadcaster BSkyB by Mr Murdoch's News Corporation.
   
What did Lord Justice Leveson say?

All of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time"

The press must create a new and tough regulator backed by legislation to ensure it was effective

This cannot be characterised as statutory regulation

Legally-binding arbitration process needed to force newspapers to deal effectively with complaints

Some "troubling evidence" in relation to the actions of some police officers - but no proof of widespread corruption (Hear no …. See no …. Speak no …- Ed)

Over last 30 years all political parties have had too close a relationship with the press which has not been in the public interest

Former Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was not biased in his handling of News Corp's BSkyB bid but failed to supervise his special adviser properly (Haha – Ed)

However, the judge's report said that, had Mr Salmond been successful in persuading UK ministers, his actions would have rendered any final deal "unlawful".

The inquiry also said there was no evidence of a specific deal between Mr Salmond and the Murdochs to trade newspaper support for help with the bid.

But Lord Justice Leveson said the first minister was seeking political support from The Sun in the same conversation as he was repeating an offer to assist with the bid.

The report added that there was clearly "mutual respect" and admiration between Mr Salmond and Mr Murdoch.

It said Mr Murdoch, the owner of The Sun and The Times, appreciated he was dealing with a politician of "considerable skill, resource and intelligence".

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie insisted Mr Salmond was the most heavily criticised in the report and, therefore, his role in spearheading a cross-party group of leaders was in doubt.

He said the first minister had been accused by Lord Justice Leveson of "seeking to entice the UK government to act unlawfully over the BSkyB bid".

Mr Rennie added: "He should offer to stand aside from the cross-party work. It should be led by someone untainted by the report.

"Lord Leveson has seen right through Alex Salmond. He is justly concerned about the murky dealings between Alex Salmond and the Murdochs."

Labour Leader Johann Lamont added: "On the face of it, what Lord Leveson is recommending looks sensible.

"I am not convinced that there is need for a separate press regulation system in Scotland, but, after reading Lord Leveson's comments in his report, I am convinced that Alex Salmond is not the man to lead any form of press regulation."

And Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, added: "The Leveson Report contains some marked criticisms of the first minister and his conduct surrounding the BSkyB bid and his attempt to curry favour with The Sun newspaper.

"In light of these remarks, I think it would be wise for the first minister to take a step back from the process he announced today and allow another minister to represent the Scottish Government in the proposed cross-party talks."

While answering questions on the inquiry, Prime Minister David Cameron was asked by SNP MP Angus Robertson whether he endorsed Mr Salmond's proposals.

Mr Cameron responded: "I will look carefully at what the first minister says and the proposals that he's making in this area, adding: "I recommend that the honorable gentleman might want to have a look at what the report says about the first minister as well."

Reacting to Lord Justice Leveson's report, the first minister told BBC Scotland: "I think he's actually managed to make the distinction between state regulation, which I don't think would have been a good thing, on the one hand and the other hand self-regulation with an underpinning of the law, particularly if they give it incentives for people to take part and play the game, and that distinction's pretty successfully made in Leveson's conclusions."

On the attacks over his relationship with Rupert Murdoch, Mr Salmond added: "I think I'll accept the Leveson finding that I can't be criticised.

"He also says it's laudable for the first minister of Scotland to try and get jobs and investment for this country - that is the prime requirement."

Mr Salmond said it would be "totally irresponsible" not to have regular contact with News Corporation, which he said was Scotland's ninth biggest private sector employer, through News International and BSkyB, which supported 8,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Labour and Conservative leaders, Johann Lamont and Ruth Davidson, welcomed the prospect of cross-party talks.

MSPs will debate the Leveson Inquiry report next week.

SNOUTS LIKE US : Forget welfare & public service cuts, Alex Salmond takes £1/2 Million expenses for a Ryder Cup round of golf on the taxpayer

It’s all mine - Alex Salmond and the £1/2 million golf club THE old, well used excuse pretext “We were only doing it to bring business to Scotland” .. heard so often from successive First Ministers from Dewar to McLeish to McConnell, has been invoked once again by Alex Salmond’s travelling circus, complete with spivs & spin doctors over a HALF MILLION POUND golf trip. So, forget your heating bills this winter, and whether your mortgage lender may repossess your house .. the First Minister must have his million pound golfing lesson … (Is this like that other half million quid trip to the Middle East the FM took to open a MacDonald's, errm McGrigors ? – Ed)

A critic told Scottish Law Reporter earlier today : “Is this what Mr Salmond’s slashing of Scotland’s legal aid budget is going on? travel jollies for the First Minister and his hangers on ?”

BBC News reports : Alex Salmond-led Ryder Cup trip 'cost £470,000'

The cost of sending a delegation led by First Minister Alex Salmond to the Ryder Cup golf tournament in America was almost £470,000, the Scottish government has said. The trip in September was part of a plan to "maximise the economic benefits" of hosting the cup in Scotland in 2014. The government estimates the event will generate about £100m for the economy. Opposition parties criticised the costs as excessive.

In a written response to a question from Labour  External Affairs Secretary Fiona Hyslop stated: "The overall cost of Team Scotland's participation at the 2012 Ryder Cup was £468,580 and every effort was made to minimise costs including liaising with partner organisations to secure preferred rates where possible and identifying in-kind support. "The Team Scotland approach in Chicago will help ensure we maximise the economic benefits of hosting the Ryder Cup in 2014 which will generate at least £100m for the Scottish economy."
   
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS (For the First Minister’s round of golf)

£202,600 was spent on programme delivery
£83,165 was paid for the exhibition stand
£80,263 for accommodation
£54,192 for flights
£20,178 spent on office costs
£20,056 for marketing/branding
£8,125 for logistics

The tournament at Medinah, near Chicago, provided a "unique opportunity" to promote Scotland to a worldwide audience, she added.

The visit incorporated ministerial visits and business meetings, with the 36-strong delegation also including representatives of VisitScotland, EventScotland and Scottish Development International as well as the Scottish government.

Labour MSP Patricia Ferguson said: "To find out that Alex Salmond's trip to watch the golf cost all of us almost half a million pounds is eye-watering.

"The Welsh Government can spend about the same, but attend three Ryder Cups. Why does Alex Salmond cost us so much more?

"This comes on top of the tens of thousands of pounds spent on his trip to the opening of Brave in California earlier this year."

Scottish Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said: "I am generally accepting of the first minister's US trip, given that Scotland will host the next Ryder Cup.

"However, like most taxpayers, I am astonished that the costs incurred bear more relation to a head of state with a travelling circus than to the more modest expense which would have been appropriate and justifiable.

"It seems that even when using taxpayers' money, Alex Salmond doesn't do modest."

Scottish Lib Dem leader, Willie Rennie, added: "When money is tight, spending half a million pounds on a trip to the USA has to be questioned for value for money.

"It's right that Scotland was represented at the Ryder Cup but it can't be right to spend this amount on that representation."

A spokesman for the first minister accused Labour of "breathtaking hypocrisy", while criticising the previous first minister, Jack McConnell.

"They spent more than this on Tartan Day trips to the United States during each one of their last three years in office," said the spokesman.

"Their attacks might have some credibility if it wasn't for the fact that 'million pound McConnell' was happy to splash out on treating himself and other ministers to taxpayer-funded trips like this on such a lavish scale."

ONE OF OUR JUDGES IS A BENEFITS CHEAT– reveals investigation into undeclared criminal habits, tax dodging & secret fiddles of Scottish judiciary

Shame on them – Benefits Cheat & tax dodging Scottish judges at Court of Session. AN INVESTIGATION into the shady double lives of Scotland’s allegedly unimpeachable judiciary has revealed one of Scotland’s judges is A CONVICTED BENEFITS CHEAT. Law Journalists who are currently investigating the secretive Scottish judiciary have also turned up a host of other criminal charges, irregular activities such as tax dodging via offshore trusts, allegations of associations between judges & members of criminal gangs, regular liaisons with male & female prostitutes, membership of secret societies, and allegations of “bungs” taken in criminal trials, all of which appear to be known to the authorities yet no action has ever been taken despite concerns knowledge of the backgrounds of certain judges has led to altered verdicts and the collapse of criminal trials in Scotland’s courts.

Sensitive files passed to Scottish Law Reporter along with media reports identifying several currently serving Scottish judges who have criminal records, confirm that one of our judges is indeed, a convicted benefits cheat, yet the story only came to light after dogged Freedom of Information requests revealed the case, which the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service COPFS) had tried to cover up from the general public and had apparently warned journalists away from reporting.

Speaking to Scottish Law Reporter, a legal insider has told of how the Crown Office kept the case against the judge secret, by insisting on anonymity during criminal proceedings, and attempts to move the case from one court to another around Scotland, so journalists would not catch on.

The insider has also claimed there are worries within the Police & Crown Office that criminals & vested interests have been using knowledge of the seedy & undeclared financial backgrounds of some of the judges to alter the course of criminal trials & civil cases in Scotland’s courts, a worrying fact which brings into question the motives of current Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s apparent sanctioning of the cover up over criminal cases involving members of Scotland’s judiciary.

A senior QC also warned that influence over criminal trials “is not a one way business exclusive to those charged with criminal offences”, citing a feeling among his colleagues that prosecutors have been choosing certain judges with unclear financial backgrounds” to hear criminal trials where evidence brought before the court was “distinctly dodgy” and may otherwise have been thrown out… (Crown Office fixers at it again ? – Ed)

No one from the Crown Office or the Scottish Court Service were willing to comment on the allegations.

MYSTERY OF JUDGE CONVICTED OF BENEFIT FRAUD

Crown Office refuse to identify judge convicted of benefit fraud

Mar 11 2012 Exclusive by Russell Findlay

A JUDGE has been convicted of benefit fraud – but his or her name is being kept secret. The Crown Office are even refusing to say if the fraudster is a High Court judge, sheriff or justice of the peace.

Legal campaigner and blogger Peter Cherbi discovered he or she was one of six judges convicted of crimes since 2005. Five were found guilty of road traffic offences but one admitted fiddling benefits while he or she passed judgment on other criminals. Officials also refuse to reveal how much was stolen or where the fraud took place. The mystery judge was convicted under section 111A(1)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

While this identity is protected, the Crown Office have issued two press releases in the past four months naming others convicted under exactly the same section. One of them, who asked not to be identified, said: “My name, date of birth and where I’m from are online. “It was wrong but it is even more important for the public to know about a judge convicted of the same fraud.”

Labour justice spokesman Lewis Macdonald MSP said: “I would have thought the same rules should apply for members of the public and judges.”

The Crown Office keep a “hard copy file” of the six but say keeping the details secret is in the “public interest”.

Cherbi said: “People in front of a judge should know if they have a criminal record – that’s in the public interest.” He also asked the Judicial Office of Scotland to reveal the name under freedom of information law, without success.

PRESSURE OVER CHEATING JUDGE

MSP calls on Crown Office to reveal name of benefits cheat judge

Mar 12 2012 By Magnus Gardham

THE Crown Office came under fresh pressure yesterday to name a judge who has been convicted of benefit fraud. SNP MSP John Finnie, a member of Holyrood’s justice committee, added his weight to the demands for the cheating judge to be publicly identified.

It emerged at the weekend that six judges have been convicted of offences since 2005. Five were found guilty of road traffic offences but one of them admitted fiddling benefits. It is not known whether the person was a high court judge, a sheriff or a justice of the peace. Nor is it known how much cash was defrauded.

The Crown Office, who will not even confirm if the judge was male or female, insisted secrecy was “in the public interest”. But Finnie said yesterday: “The law should treat everyone equally, regardless of who they are and what they do, and this is something that should be looked into.”

The Crown Office often name and shame benefit fraudsters by issuing press releases about them. Campaigner Peter Cherbi, who uncovered the secrecy, said: “People in front of a judge should know if they have a criminal record.”

Proposed petition to Scottish Parliament calls on Judiciary, tribunal panel members to declare memberships of secret societies, race-hate or sectarian groups

Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee to consider petition requiring judges to declare membership of societies. A PROPOSED PETITION to the Scottish Parliament calling for members of the judiciary such as sheriffs, judges, members of courtroom juries and tribunal members to be required declare their membership of organisations & secret societies such as Freemasonry is to be considered by Petition Committee clerks at Holyrood.

The petition, presented to the Scottish Parliament by Fife transparency campaigner Mr Thomas Minogue “Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law or codes of practice to make it compulsory for decision makers such as sheriffs, judges, and juries at their courts, arbiters, tribunal panel members (income-tax, social security, employment, industrial etc) to declare if they have ever been members of organisations, such as the Masons, that demand fraternal preference to their brethren over non-brethren, or organisations which have constitutions or aims that are biased against any particular sect, religion or race.”

Mr Minogue also asks “That a register of such membership is held by the various bodies that supervise such judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals and that access to these registers is given on demand to the defendant, litigant, or plaintiff wishing to exercise their rights to a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the ECHR.”

In documents seen by Scottish Law Reporter, Mr Minogue wrote with reference to the petition’s background “In 2000 I petitioned the Scottish Parliament with PE 306 which was in a similar vein to this petition. Then, after having been under consideration for over three years with the parliament the petition was dismissed and the last two meetings at which my submissions were heard in regard to PE 306 of 4^th and 18 March 2004 have been removed from the public record for that public petition.”

“These meetings were not insignificant and in fact at the meeting of the 4^th March the Justice Minister Jim Wallace was questioned by the committee on my submissions regarding membership of the Speculative Society of Edinburgh and the Masons among the judiciary.”

“Furthermore despite the fact that the committee had asked me to provide examples of cases where there was a perception that freemasonry had influenced a court or tribunal the committee did not publish the submissions I made in this regard. “

“I believe that this censorship was draconian given that details of own case, Stott v Minogue 2000 SLT (Sh Ct) 25, & GWD 36-1386, - which spawned the petition – and the decision by the Social Security Commissioner, Ref: CS1/136/02. are in part matters of public record, or have been reported widely in the press and legal journals and are the two most important Scottish cases that deal with the influence of freemasonry in the justice system.”

“Having sought to determine my rights to challenge the existing law which allows non-disclosure of (secret) membership of fraternal organisations by decision makers by the courts, my elected representatives, and the previous government (which subverted the public petitions process), I am now attempting to resolve this anomaly with a new government, which claims to be open and accountable to the people of Scotland.”

“This public petition is similar to my Petition 306 but it’s terms have been broadened to encompass more of the decision makers whose roles may affect our lives. These now include jurors as since my original petition there have been some very high profile cases where there has been a perception among many, including high profile members of the legal profession, that the interests of justice have not been served and there is a need to know more about the background of those called for jury duty.”

“However the general terms are similar to PE 306, which had its genesis in a court case held at Dunfermline Sheriff Court between 1999 and 2000. The case is now known as Stott v Minogue. At a preliminary hearing before Sheriff Stuart Forbes I addressed him with my concerns that the charges of housebreaking and theft that were brought against me were motivated out of malice by a competitor who had used Masonic influence to have me charged in what was nothing more than a commercial dispute.”

“The sheriff after initially refusing to hear my submission that I wished a declaration of Masonic membership/status from the judge who would hear my case relented and after hearing me allocated this issue to another sheriff at a later date.”

“In another preliminary hearing convened to settle the question of my objection to a Mason hearing my case the Sheriff, Isobella McColl, at her discretion gave me the assurances I had sought, but said that the principle of the question of whether or not such assurances should be given on demand from a litigant was one for the Scottish Parliament.”

“This satisfied my immediate concerns as to my rights, but left the principle involved undetermined. With this in mind and so that others may not have to go through what I had to I decided to take the sheriff’s advice and before the outcome of my trial – which resulted in me being found not guilty of any offence – I petitioned the Parliament with my public petition PE 306.As my trial was still ongoing I did not give details of the case but dealt instead with the principles involved.”

The Public Petitions Committee website shows a brief synopsis of the main events in the life of PE 306 between 19 Dec 2000 and 28 Jan 2003.

Campaigner Mr Minogue’s website features a link HERE containing copies of the official transcript of all the meetings at which PE 306 was considered between 19 Dec 2000 and 18 Mar 2004 (that is including the last two censored meetings).

Mr Minogue told Scottish Law Reporter earlier today his petition is aimed at a court or tribunal user having the right to know if the person deciding their rights - or innocence or guilt – is a member of an organisation that has a sworn obligation to prefer their brethren over non-brethren, if such membership might be seen by a reasonable observer as possibly having an impact on the result of the court or tribunal.

Speaking this afternoon to Scottish Law Reporter, a senior legal figure said he agreed with the aims of Mr Minogue’s petition, saying “it is time such declarations were required of judges and juries given the lack of transparency of Scotland’s justice system.”

The late, highly respected QC Paul McBride called for tests, declarations from jurors. It is also worth noting the highly respected QC, the late Paul McBride called for similar declarations regarding jurors last year after the not proven verdict in the case of the assault on Celtic manager Neil Lennon. Mr McBride’s remarks and calls for disclosure were reported widely in the media Top QC calls for jury reform and on Scots law blogs such as Diary of Injustice HERE.

The Herald newspaper reported that Paul McBride said potential jurors should be interviewed to establish they can “read, write and speak English” and are not “riven with prejudice”.

Mr McBride believes potential jurors should be forced to disclose their occupation and whether they have been a victim of crime. He said Scotland’s jury system, in which 15 people can reach a decision on a majority of 8-7, made reform even more important.

His intervention follows a jury’s not proven verdict in the case of Hearts fan John Wilson, who was cleared of assaulting Celtic manager Neil Lennon during a match earlier this year. Wilson was accused of a sectarian attack on Lennon, but he was acquitted.

The verdict came despite Wilson admitting in court he had lunged at the Celtic manager and struck him.

Mr McBride said: “The question is, ‘can we improve our jury system?’ and the answer is undoubtedly yes.This is an area that lawyers have been discussing for some time. Judges and lawyers undergo a high standard of training. The only area where there is no scrutiny at all on the people who actually make the decision, which is baffling.”

“You don’t have to be able to read or write or speak English.We have got 15 people deciding whether a person is guilty and we know nothing about them.”

“In Scotland, unlike any other country on the planet, a person can be convicted by one vote. Following the Lennon verdict a lot of people, and newspapers were asking about the selection process for juries.”

“In every other country there is some kind of jury selection process to determine whether they have got the basic skills and whether they have committed a crime. A lot of trials are conducted by police statements. If a member of the jury can’t read or speak English that’s a bit of a disadvantage.”

Campaigners question costs of 86 appeals, use of outside agents by debt ridden Scottish Borders Council in fight over rateable values of school buildings

Scottish Borders Council are now fighting rates increases on school buildings. Scottish Borders Council, the £262 MILLION POUND debt ridden South of Scotland local authority is facing mounting criticism from local transparency campaigners over the high costs of the council launching no less than EIGHTY SIX appeals against increased rateable values set by the Regional Assessor on schools and educational buildings owned by local authority across the Scottish Borders.

Local campaigners have also pointed out that the costs generated by the Council refusing to use their in-house legal team and instead contracting in outside firms, in this case DM Hall, of 15 Alva Street, Edinburgh, who are representing Scottish Borders Council in each of the 86 appeals, could be significant and in the words of one campaigner, “appear to be a move designed to thwart any public disclosure of information on the appeals.”

Full details of the now disputed values placed on each school by the Regional Assessor can be found here : Valuation Appeal Committee Hearing Ettrick & Lauderdale Court Date : 21/11/2012

A Council insider has today agreed with criticisms of the way Scottish Borders Council were handling the appeals.

He told Scottish Law Reporter : “The new values have added many thousands of pounds to the council’s rates bill which is why SBC are fighting to have the valuations reduced, however this could have been achieved at a lesser cost with an in-house team rather than resorting to the use of outside contractors.“

The hearing of the Valuation Appeal Committee for Ettrick & Lauderdale was held earlier today at Old Gala House but was adjourned without a decision until next month to allow “further discussions” between the Council and the Assessor.

‘Public relations disaster’ & £150K costs loom for Scottish Borders Council over appeal of ICO £250K data breach fine

Scottish Borders Council face defeat & significant costs over their appeal against £250K ICO fine Scottish Borders Council, the regularly mired-in-scandal South of Scotland local authority which recently hit the headlines over its secretive treatment of a huge payout of £318,000 to former Chief Executive David Hume may be about to suffer another mishap, as it appears the Council is now about to lose its appeal against a £250,000 fine imposed by the Information Commissioner even though SBC had already agreed to pay £200,000 to the ICO in a ‘discounted fine’ for its breach of the Data Protection Act. The Council will also face costs of up to £150K whether it wins or loses the appeal to the ICO over the fine.

According to a report about the fine imposed on Scottish Borders Council by the ICO on Outlaw.com, an Information Rights Tribunal is to rule on whether organisations can pay a discounted fine for breaching UK data protection laws and still keep the right to appeal against the penalty.

However, in a statement reported on the Outlaw.com website, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has said that the fact the Council has paid the discounted penalty means the body has lost its right to appeal.

“The Commissioner operates an early payment scheme for all civil monetary penalties served,” an ICO spokesperson said in a statement. “Under that scheme, a data controller who has been subject to a penalty may obtain a 20% discount if the Commissioner receives the full payment of the penalty within 28 calendar days of the notice being served.”

“The objectives of the early payment scheme are to encourage early payment of the penalties and reduce the costs to the public purse entailed on pursuing enforcement action and responding to challenges to the notices. The scheme operated by the Commissioner is similar to that operated by other regulators, such as the Financial Services Authority,” the spokesperson added. “There is no provision under the scheme which allows a data controller to make a payment subject to reservations, for example, by reserving his right to appeal against the penalty. The effect of such reservations would be to nullify the advantages which the scheme is intended to achieve.”

Yet, an earlier Press Release from Scottish Borders Council, dated 22 October 2012 : Council appeals data breach penalty, reprinted below, claimed the discounted fine was only paid “with the caveat that SBC still reserved the right to appeal.”

Scottish Borders Council has launched an appeal over the size of a penalty from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) after a self-reported data breach. The ICO issued a £250,000 fine to SBC last month after files relating to the Council were discovered in a recycling bank.

The fine has been paid in order to achieve a 20% discount on the total amount but this was done so with the caveat that SBC still reserved the right to appeal. The appeal has been lodged in a written submission to the Information Tribunal.

The ICO has until 2 November to file a reply to the appeal. The case will then go to a three-judge panel for a decision, which is expected by the end of January.

Legal insiders have told Scottish Law Reporter “there is little legal basis for the claims made in the Council’s October Press Release”, and expect the local authority to lose its appeal.

Hawktalk, the blog of Amberhawk Training Ltd, has featured an in depth report on the ICO’s £250K fine of Scottish Borders Council,and sets out in some detail the costs of losses facing SBC if it loses its appeal. It is claimed there could be a public relations disaster for the Council if it’s appeal to the Information Rights Tribunal goes wrong.

Hawktalk reports that the Information Rights Tribunal could reinstate the full amount of the fine imposed by the ICO on the council which would result in SBC losing a further £50,000 and would also have to bear the costs of its appeal, thought to be around £80,000 to £100,000 and that even if the Council won its appeal, it would still have to bear its own costs.

Scottish Law Reporter featured a report on the £250K fine of Scottish Borders Council in an earlier article, HERE which also featured claims from Council insiders of “widespread abuse of data protection legislation within the council”.

No one from Scottish Borders Council was available for comment.

‘A bigger racket than legal aid’ as MSP asked to call for removal of contract from AIB Accountants who seized disability benefits, wrong house in sequestration scandal

John Park MSP (Mid Scotland & Fife, Scottish Labour) asked to call for costly AIB contracts scrutiny DOCUMENTS obtained by Scottish Law Reporter in connection with a sequestration of a client ordered by Perth Law Firm Kippen Campbell have revealed an MSP has been asked to call for the cancellation of highly profitable state funded contracts between the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) & WYLIE & BISSET LLP, a firm of Glasgow accountants who blocked a disabled person’s access to bank accounts containing his state disability benefits for more than SEVEN MONTHS.

The pleas to MSP John Park (Scottish Labour, Mid Scotland & Fife) come amid investigations into an on-going scandal involving the flow of millions of pounds of public money to firms of private accountants acting as ‘arms-length’ agents for hugely overstaffed Scotland’s Accountant in Bankruptcy, its luxurious headquarters located in Kilwinning, North Ayrshire.

The scandal of the multi million pound contracts, recently reported by popular Scots law blog “Diary of Injustice” have revealed a mere six firms of accountants are soaking up over EIGHT MILLION POUNDS of public money dealing with thousands of sequestration cases handed to them by the AIB.

Between April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Armstrong Watson has been paid £1,051,627.12 for the administration of 2062 cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy.

Between April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Hastings & Co have been paid £608,605.96 for the administration of 1040 cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy.

Between April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Invocas has been paid £284,346.77 for the administration of 875 cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy.

Between April 2009, until 31 March 2012, KPMG has been paid £3,706,744.79 for the administration of 6585 cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy.

Between April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Miller McIntyre & Gellatly (now mmg archbold) have been paid £303,745.48 for the administration of 710 cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy.

Between April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Wylie & Bisset have been paid £2,066,686.50, for the administration of 3703 cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy.

A legal insider who claims many of the firms are forcing people to pay their fees and sign up to unfair trust deeds, some of which have been running for years over their agreed timescale, has dubbed the AIB agent contract scheme “a bigger racket than legal aid”.

The legal insider also claimed many of those operating on behalf of the AIB appear to have been engaged in unregistered hospitality & professional lobbying efforts with local & Holyrood based politicians and civil servants at the Scottish Government. The insider went on to suggest such connections as a reason why the brewing scandal involving the unfair seizure of disability benefits by rich accountants paid millions from the public purse has attracted little parliamentary attention until now.

No one was available from Mr Park’s office to offer comment at time of going to publication, however, an insider at the AIB has acknowledged there are significant problems with agents who appear to be running up fees for unnecessary work in cases where there is little or no hope of any return.

SEIZE YOUR BENEFITS, GRAB YOUR HOUSE & RUN : Scottish Law Reporter previously exposed Glasgow accountants Wylie & Bisset who blocked a disabled victim’s access to benefits, then tried to seize his rented house for a small debt relating to disputed legal fees :

Accountant in Bankruptcy agents try to seize wrong house in bankruptcy of disabled client ordered by Perth law firm over disputed legal fees

Perth lawyers bankrupted ill client on benefits for disputed fees. A BANKRUPTCY ordered by Perth law firm Kippen Campbell against a severely ill client in receipt of disability benefits, over disputed legal fees of around £2,700 in connection with a damages claim in Scotland’s Court of Session which curiously collapsed under the law firm’s representation has today been highlighted as an example of harassment by Scots law firms for questionable fees after revelations in the media that agents acting for Scotland’s Accountant in Bankruptcy threatened to seize property belonging to a family completely unconnected to debts which Kippen Campbell claim are owed to them.

Wylie & Bisset – Your house or someone else’s house to pay your ex lawyers fees :

Threatening letters – Pay up for lawyers fees or we make you homeless say AIB’s agents. In letters sent to Mr Gordon, Wylie & Bisset demand a “required payment” of NINETY TWO THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS, and goes on to threaten “We require firm proposals for the realisation of the sum in question to your sequestrated estate as a matter of urgency. Should we not receive your proposals within 14 days of the date of this letter, then please be aware that we shall be forced to seek action for vacant possession of the property.”.

The property which Wylie & Bisset were attempting to seize and had valued, at £185,000, was located in Rattray, Blairgowrie, and owned by a family unconnected to Mr Gordon. Yet the debt allegedly owed to the Perth based law firm amounted to little more than £2,700, which now appears to have increased to some £6,600 taking into account several hearings at Perth Sheriff Court which have artificially inflated the original demand for the disputed legal fees.

The Herald newspaper also featured a report on the bankruptcy case against Mr Gordon, here :

Accountants target wrong Mr Gordon

AN accountancy firm handling the sequestration of a man was preparing to seize the home of someone with the same name.

William Gordon, who lives in a rented house in Perth, was stunned to receive letters from Glasgow-based Wylie & Bisset demanding to know how much equity he had in a detached home in Rattray, Perthshire. When he ignored the letter, another arrived telling him a professional valuation had been conducted and the firm would target his share in the equity to cover a debt of £5200 to Perth law firm Kippen Campbell.

In fact, the William Gordon who owns the home in Rattray confirmed he had no connection with his namesake.

He said: "You'd think professionals involved in such a serious business would carry out their job a bit more thoroughly."

The target of the sequestration added: "I pay rent on a modest home in Perth. Why would I be doing that if I owned a lovely detached house 15 miles away in one of the most desirable parts of Perthshire?"

Wylie & Bisset was appointed by the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) to pursue the legal firm's debt. Gordon Chalmers, a partner in Wylie & Bisset, said: "It would be inappropriate for me to add anything further to what you have from the AIB on the matter."

‘Too ill to work’ yet Ex-SLCC Chief Eileen Masterman resurfaces in Scottish Public Services Ombudsman investigation into death of baby at NHS Forth Valley Hospital

MacAskill meets Masterman, yet months later the SLCC complaints chief left on ‘ill health’ grounds.IT has been pointed out to Scottish Law Reporter that Eileen Masterman, the ‘too ill to work’ former Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) who was reported to have received a substantial, secret payoff personally signed off by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, swiftly returned to her previous employers at the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) to investigate complaints made by members of the public against public bodies poorly regulated by the SPSO.

Scottish Law Reporter last featured a report on Eileen Masterman’s bitter exit from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, negotiated by lawyers and backed up by the Justice Secretary in a rather strange, secret deal involving a huge payout, the size of which appears to have been buried in either the SLCC’s annual accounts, or those of the Scottish Government.

The popular law blog, Diary of Injustice featured an investigation into a cruel case involving the death of a baby at an NHS Forth Valley hospital, which was investigated by Eileen Masterman in her position as a “Complaints Reviewer” at the SPSO. The Diary of Injustice report raises serious concerns as to how & why Mrs Masterman was able to return to work in the public sector so quickly after being accused by the Scottish Government’s Finance Secretary John Swinney of lying over secret meetings with corrupt US Insurance Giant Marsh :

Deputy First Minister to look into death of baby McKenzie Wallace after parents complain of ‘whitewash’ report by SPSO investigator Eileen Masterman

Health Minister to look into NHS failures in case of death of baby in NHS Forth Valley hospital & SPSO report whitewash. SCOTLAND’S DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER Nicola Sturgeon has said she will look into the case of the death of little baby McKenzie Wallace at an NHS Forth Valley hospital after an exclusive report in the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed the baby’s grieving parents have fought a long & difficult battle to get answers over why little McKenzie died. The report in the Sunday Mail also revealed NHS Forth Valley FAILED to pick up on a rare heart defect in the couple’s baby which should have been detected during a 20 week scan but was missed after the scan, conducted by a trainee under the supervision of an experienced midwife was not properly interpreted. However, a senior consultant obstetrician who later studied the ultrasound pictures from the Stirlingshire hospital found a heart problem was visible and had been missed by both the midwife & the trainee.

On receipt of a further report into the tragedy, the family have accused the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) ‘Complaints Reviewer’, Eileen Masterman of producing a ‘whitewash’ report in the SPSO’s investigation of their complaints against NHS Forth Valley regarding the deadly failures in the provision of medical services which ultimately led to the death of McKenzie Wallace just five days after she was born.

While the death of baby McKenzie has been a terrible toll in itself for the family to bear, the nightmare continued when their complaints to NHS Forth Valley over the events which led to the death of their child were mishandled, leading to the family using Freedom of Information legislation to uncover more facts not disclosed by NHS Forth Valley during their investigations and ultimately, making a complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman who used an unnamed ‘expert’ to exonerate the hospital’s role in the death of the child.

The files accumulated by the family in their complaint to NHS Forth Valley can be read here : Complaint to NHS Forth Valley - Death of Baby McKenzie Wallace The responses received from NHS Forth Valley can be viewed here : NHS Forth Valley FOI - Death of Baby McKenzie Wallace and the report by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman into the way the hospital handled the case, can be viewed here : SPSO Report - Death of Baby McKenzie Wallace

Former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman wrote SPSO report which exonerated negligent medical staff at NHS Forth Valley. In what may come as a surprise to many, the author of the SPSO report now branded a whitewash is none other than Eileen Masterman, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), who took a six month sick leave from the SLCC and then employed teams of lawyers to negotiate a massive SECRET PAYOFF so large & subject to such a complex agreement, the secret deal was required to be signed off personally by Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. Legal insiders commenting on the case said today they were shocked to see Eileen Masterman show up again at the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman so soon after resigning under a cloud from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, with an official explanation of “ill health”.

FOI investigations by Diary of Injustice revealed Justice Secretary MacAskill personally signed off secret unpublished payment to Eileen Masterman. One Scottish Government insider who now claims he “did not agree with the terms of the settlement as put to Mr MacAskill” said the Justice Secretary was out on a limb over his involvement in the secret payoff to Masterman. The insider called for all details of the negotiations involving Ms Masterman, the SLCC & the Scottish Government along with the amount of the secret payoff to be made public.

The Scottish Government insider said : “Clearly there is a public confidence issue here were someone can resign from the highly controversial and underperforming Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claiming ill health and then go back to work at the highly questionable Scottish Public Services Ombudsman who have similar public confidence issues. There must be full transparency here otherwise there can be no confidence in the SPSO.”

One senior solicitor who does not wish to be named has already claimed the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had been told during the “bitter negotiations” that “Eileen Masterman’s health was so bad that she may never work again”. It has also been alleged that involvement from Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney, who accused Ms Masterman of lying over secret meetings she took part in with convicted US insurers Marsh who handle the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt Master Policy protection for negligent solicitors also ‘contributed to Ms Masterman’s alleged ill health’, an issue reported earlier by Diary of Injustice here : SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh

However it appears after only a few months of leaving the SLCC, Eileen Ms Masterman was re-employed by Jim Martin, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, whose organisation was savaged last year by Scottish Government Minister Alex Neil during his testimony to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, which Diary of Injustice reported along with video footage of Minister Neil’s testimony, here : Holyrood considers nine petitions against Scottish Public Services Ombudsman as Housing Minister dubbed ‘out of touch’ over accusations

The Sunday Mail newspaper spoke to the parents about their views of Ms Masterman’s report on the death of their baby. The Sunday Mail reported : “The couple have also criticised a report issued last month by Eileen Masterman, of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. She rejected the view of the Forth Valley doctor. Instead, she agreed with an unnamed expert who said there was no need for a second scan due to the limited nature of what could be seen. She said: “The advice indicated that, even if the scan had been done again, it would have been likely the results would have been the same.”

Andrew said: “I have no faith in Masterman. The SPSO have refused to say who the expert is or hand over their report. “McKenzie’s death cannot be for nothing. Some sort of lesson has to be learnt.”

SPSO refused to issue any comment on Eileen Masterman’s report. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman was asked for media comment on Ms Masterman’s position at the SPSO and to explain how she was able to return to work so soon. One of it’s Press Officers said : “I am sorry but we are unable to comment on the employment status of individuals. This would be unfair to those individuals and in breach of data protection.” Later, the SPSO angrily REFUSED to disclose any material in response to Freedom of Information requests regarding Ms Masterman’s apparent speedy return to work at the SPSO, with SPSO officials blocking all further attempts to secure disclosures via Freedom of Information legislation.

Scottish Deputy First Minister & Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon MSP. Deputy First Minister & Scotland’s Health Secretary, Nicola Sturgeon was asked by Diary of Injustice for a comment on the tragic events and the SPSO’s handling of baby McKenzie’s parents complaints against NHS Forth Valley. Questions put by Diary of Injustice journalists to Ms Sturgeon, which were accompanied by papers relating to the case asked : “Has the Health Minister any comment on how the complaint involving the death of the baby has been handled, the fact this family have received little support in spite of what appears to be a cover up by NHS Forth Valley, and why can one individual who travels between regulators show up again in an old post to carry on her work after claiming she could never work again.”

A spokesperson for the Scottish Government replied to the questions put to the Health Secretary, stating : “The circumstances surrounding this event are extremely tragic, and our thoughts are with the parents. Where recommendations are made in an Ombudsman’s report, we expect NHS Boards to fully implement all necessary steps to ensure that similar circumstances do not recur.”

The spokesperson continued : “The SPSO is an organisation independent of the Scottish Government and as such appoints its own personnel. The circumstances surrounding any appointment of any individual is a matter for the SPSO.”

The parents of baby McKenzie have since received a letter from the Scottish Government replying on behalf of Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon. Andrew & Joanne have now been told Ms Sturgeon has agreed to look at the papers relating to the circumstances of baby McKenzie’s death, and how Andrew & Joanne were treated by NHS Forth Valley & the SPSO. Ms Sturgeon also offered her condolences in the letter to Andrew & Joanne over baby McKenzie’s death. The parents of baby McKenzie have also asked for a meeting with Ms Sturgeon over the case.

Clearly, the tragic case of the death of little baby McKenzie Wallace, just five days into her live is yet another clear demonstration of medical negligence in the NHS and the cover ups which kick in to prevent any justice for the bereaved family. The family deserve answers and the life of a child cannot be lost in an SPSO report or a promise of “lessons will be learned” which are, as we are all now sadly too aware, never learned.

The Sunday Mail reports :

Grieving parents say medics missed tragic toddler's heart problem

Mar 25 2012 Exclusive by Russell Findlay

HEARTBROKEN parents yesterday told how they fear a midwife missed their baby daughter’s fatal heart condition because she was in the huff. McKenzie Wallace died just five days after being born because of a heart defect linked to rare genetic disorder Ivemark syndrome.

But mum Joanne Weir, 27, and dad Andrew Wallace, 31, say the condition would have been picked up at a 20-week scan if the midwife had not been annoyed that they asked the sex of their baby. The scan was conducted by a trainee sonographer at Forth Valley Royal Hospital in Larbert and was supervised by an ­experienced midwife, who did not flag up any problems.

But a senior consultant obstetrician who studied the ultrasound pictures from the Stirlingshire hospital found a heart problem was visible. He also stated that “he would have suggested a repeat scan or asked for a second opinion”. As a result, the midwife who supervised the trainee was ordered to undergo further training. The couple said that a consultant at Yorkhill Hospital, Glasgow, agreed the heart defect – known as right atrial isomerism – should have been spotted.

Joanne, who is due to give birth again in 10 weeks at Edinburgh Royal, said: “It should have been glaringly obvious and was ‘too big to miss’, according to McKenzie’s consultant at Yorkhill.”

Fuel tanker driver Andrew, who lost a brother and an uncle to the genetic condition, said: “A trainee carried out the scan but the supervisor was so busy moaning at us for daring to ask if we were to buy blue or pink that she was obviously distracted.“Apparently it’s all right, though, because she has now been for training – but this should not have happened.

“We had to make the decision not to attempt to treat McKenzie as all options were horrific and had life-extending probabilities of less than a few months. Had we known she had this condition, we may have considered ­termination early in pregnancy as it was incredibly unfair to put McKenzie through that.”

The couple, from Bo’ness, Stirlingshire, also said that another midwife ignored their concern about McKenzie’s blue appearance when she was born at Stirling Royal Infirmary. During Joanne’s labour, a sewage pipe became blocked below the maternity ward, which caused chaos. Andrew said: “They were distracted. They should have listened to what I was saying about McKenzie turning blue.”

It took 24 hours before they admitted any problem and the baby was immediately sent to the Royal Hospital for Sick Children at Yorkhill. From there, McKenzie was sent to the Rachel House Hospice in Kinross, where she died in her parents’ arms on February 18 last year.

The couple have also criticised a report issued last month by Eileen Masterman, of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. She rejected the view of the Forth Valley doctor. Instead, she agreed with an unnamed expert who said there was no need for a second scan due to the limited nature of what could be seen. She said: “The advice indicated that, even if the scan had been done again, it would have been likely the results would have been the same.”

Andrew said: “I have no faith in Masterman. The SPSO have refused to say who the expert is or hand over their report. “McKenzie’s death cannot be for nothing. Some sort of lesson has to be learnt.”

The NHS said: “We carried out an internal review and could find no evidence of errors in the clinical care provided by staff.”

Aberdeen abuse probe cover-up haunts Scots authorities as Highlands cottage of accused child abuser Jimmy Savile daubed with pleas for “Justice for Hollie Greig”

Justice for Hollie Greig slogans on Savile cottage have curiously not featured in national media coverage A cottage situated in Glencoe the Scottish Highlands which belonged to the deceased BBC celebrity Sir Jimmy Savile OBE KCSG who is now accused of hundreds of acts of child abuse, has been vandalised for a second time, with the words “Justice for Hollie Greig” painted in orange along its exterior walls.

However, while earlier graffiti painted on the cottage was pictured in the national media, consisting of masonic symbols and slogans of “Jimmy the Beast”, campaigners have today pointed out to Scottish Law Reporter that all further reports on vandalism at the cottage, where it is alleged abuse took place, have refrained from any mention of graffiti mentioning the Hollie Greig case, which saw a journalist & campaigner jailed for handing out leaflets calling for an inquiry into allegations of abuse against downs syndrome victim Hollie Greig, and the existence of a paedophile group in the Aberdeen area.

Scottish Law Reporter covered journalist & anti-abuse campaigner Robert Green’s release from jail after he was sentenced to ONE YEAR in Aberdeen’s Craiginches Prison for committing e breach of the peace, by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen. Reports on developments in the hugely expensive case also claimed Sheriff Bowen failed to declare relationships with key figures central to the case which included the now former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (née McPhilomy).

It was also revealed the case against the anti abuse campaigner ranked as Scotland’s most expensive ever Breach of the Peace trial which saw a record HALF A MILLION POUNDS spent on the investigation & trial of Mr Green, a case which tunnelled through the Scottish Courts system for over two years at huge cost to taxpayers.

A reminder of previous events in the trial of anti abuse campaigner Robert Green can be viewed in earlier coverage by Scottish Law Reporter HERE and further coverage of the Hollie Greig. Scottish Law Reporter recently published an investigation into the knighthood of Angiolini, apparently recommended by the Scottish Government. Dame Elish Angiolini was also appointed Ministerial complaints adviser to Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond. More recently, Dame Elish Angiolini was also appointed to the post of Principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford.

Former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini employed Levy McRae to go after anti abuse campaigner. Levy McRae are well known for a ‘colourful’ list of clients, including shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell and former Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini who took on Levy McRae to sue anti abuse campaigner Robert Green. Levy McRae proceeded to threaten several media outlets & journalists over their reporting of the case, covered by Scottish Law Reporter HERE & HERE. The Purcell scandal caused some newspapers to ‘evaluate’ their relationship with Levy McRae, details of which were featured in a report here : HERE. Levy McRae are also known to work for clients in the well known tax dodging haven of the Cayman Islands.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has ties to Levy Mcrae. As details of the Hollie Greig case began to be reported in the wider press, it emerged the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill has personal links to LEVY MCRAE, the law firm employed by the then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in legal action over the abuse case allegations. Mr MacAskill has made no comment on the fact he served his apprenticeship at Levy McRae and also worked at the firm for a considerable time during his years as a solicitor before he entered politics. The revelations of MacAskill’s links to Levy McRae, the same law firm who represented Steven Purcell, were reported by Scottish Law Reporter at the time, HERE

TOP TEN reasons why the Scottish Legal Aid Budget is so high, and why Scotland’s 5 years old Justice Secretary should go back to being a High Street solicitor

True to the traditions of David Letterman's Late Show, which among other things revealed the UK's Prime Minister is so thick he did not know what the term Magna Carta translates to in English (just proves all that Eton tosh fails when its critical) here is Scottish Law Reporter's TOP TEN reasons why the controversial Scottish Legal Aid Budget is so high, currently standing at £160 MILLION a year.

Mr MacAskill and SNP MSPS are now backing huge cuts to legal aid. reported yesterday HERE and propose to force anyone charged with a criminal offence, guilty or not, to pay the Crown Office for the privilege of it! .. queue threats of some much needed industrial action in Scotland’s legal community ! (Tally-Ho, chaps – Ed)

TOP TEN REASONS YOUR SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BUDGET IS SO HIGH ! :

No. 10 The Scottish Legal Aid Board cant count !

No. 9 Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill can't count ! (This is numbers, not bottles, the audience cried out !)

No.8 Sole practising solicitor Niels Lockhart from Kilmarnock walked away with £700K of legal aid in three years while SLAB sat on it's fat a$$ and looked on, did nothing !

No.7 The Crown Office likes to charge as many people as they can with crimes they did not commit (to keep the prosecution statistics up, and justify their high salaries, bonuses)then drop the case at the final moment before someone catches on !

No.6 The cost of having Police fit up suspects and manufacture evidence to suit the crime has gone up more than the rate of inflation !

No.5 The Law Society of Scotland spends too much time on regulation when it should have been looking after the interests of its members and the justice system !

No.4 Fat cat judges & sheriffs on £200K a year, three houses, a farm and a poodle dressed in leather shorts need to justify their appearance fees in court !

No.3 The current Justice Secretary has been 5 years too long in the job  !

No.2 The Scottish Legal Aid Board big wigs are too busy flying around the world on international airlines to learn how cheaply others do their legal aid budget !

and the No. 1 reason YOUR Scottish Legal Aid Budget is so high, is … : In the eyes of Scottish law, everyone is guilty until proven innocent !

Scots access to justice ‘at risk’ under MacAskill legal aid cuts plan as Law Society hits out over Holyrood vote to reject amendments over contributions

Disappointment reigns at Law Society HQ over Holyrood Legal Aid vote AS SOLICITORS stood outside the Scottish Parliament buildings today with placards, protesting against cuts to the legal aid budget, the Law Society of Scotland was today forced to issue a media release expressing disappointment after the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee backed the SNP Government’s legal aid cuts plan, which appears to undermine Scots access to justice & a fair trial, undermine the authority of the Scottish Legal Aid Board itself, and even force solicitors to become collection points for legal aid contributions from clients judged to have sufficient disposable funds to pay for their legal representation.

One keen observer of Scotland’s legal system condemned the move as “madness”, pointing out the current Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Lindsay Montgomery, had previously jibed that solicitors “could not count”, making the prospect of increased errors or fraud a significant possibility as solicitors become overwhelmed by sums in their care. However, the campaigner also pointed out a fair trial in Scots law must be a priority, particularly with Scotland’s prosecution service, the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) being well known as an untrustworthy “Institutionally corrupt” organisation, even apparently among senior Scottish Ministers.

In response to solicitors "threatening industrial action" over the collection of contributions, Oliver Adair, the Law Society of Scotland's Legal Aid convener, said earlier this week : "We have presented compelling evidence to the Scottish Government and to the Scottish Parliament that the Scottish Legal Aid Board is the body best equipped to collect criminal legal aid contributions.  We will continue to make this case to MSPs as the Bill goes through parliament. We understand the profession's frustrations, which we share, as the Scottish Government does not recognise the validity of our arguments in relation to the collection of contributions."

The Law Society of Scotland’s Press Release :

Society 'disappointed' by Justice Committee vote on legal aid

The Law Society of Scotland today expressed its disappointment after a majority of members of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee voted to reject key amendments to the legislation that introduces contributions in criminal legal aid. The votes followed a morning of protest outside the Scottish Parliament by over a hundred lawyers from across Scotland.

Oliver Adair, the Society's legal aid convener said: "The Law Society has argued that the proposed levels at which an accused person would be expected to make contributions towards the cost of their legal defence is far too low. We also explained how the Scottish Legal Aid Board is best placed to collect the contributions and that the burden of collection should not fall on individual solicitors.

"It is disappointing that, despite the Justice Committee's earlier report, a majority of members voted against important amendments that would have responded to these issues and improved the Bill as a whole.

"It is now important for us to listen to our members ahead of the Stage 3 debate in the Scottish Parliament later this month. We will be holding an early meeting with representatives from local law faculties from across Scotland and will use this to consider our next steps.  During the committee session, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice expressed a willingness to engage with us directly on the issues raised.  We will certainly be taking him up on that offer."

Austin Lafferty, president of the Law Society of Scotland who attended today's demonstration said: "The impressive turnout at today's protest showed the huge strength of feeling amongst solicitors. They believe passionately in protecting our legal aid system and are deeply concerned by some of the key aspects of the proposed changes which are thought to be unfair, both to those who find themselves accused of a crime and to the solicitors acting on their behalf.

"The Scottish Government's latest drive to reduce the legal aid budget cannot be seen in isolation from the savings already made over the last few years.  This has included significant cuts to the fees paid to solicitors for acting on behalf of people who cannot themselves afford legal representation.  The profession has always tried to work constructively with government in its bid to save money but the suggested collection proposal is simply unfair.

"It is great that so many chose to voices their concerns today.  However, it is regrettable that the compelling arguments they and the Society presented were not supported by a majority of the Justice Committee."

Lord Advocate’s £208K Crown Office ‘Communications Unit’, branded a charter for costly media manipulation of “Institutionally Corrupt” criminal prosecutions

Lord Advocate spends £208K a year of taxpayers money to run media policy known for half truths THE COST of running the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) “Communications Unit” which has been known to issue fantastical media releases relating to seriously inept prosecutions, and operate the occasional boycott of legal publications critical of Crown Office policy, has been revealed in details of a Freedom of Information request passed to Scottish Law Reporter.

Figures obtained via FOI disclose around TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHT THOUSAND POUNDS a year are squandered paid out by the Lord Advocate on a six person media unit who write Press Releases praising the policies of the Lord Advocate & Scottish Government and the results of criminal prosecutions (only the successful ones, not the failures or fiddles – Ed)

Grade Staff numbers Salary Range
Band C 1 £20,573 - £25,285
Band D 3 £24,707 - £29,736
Band E 1 £33, 072 - £40,364
Band F 1 £44,263 - £52,847

The total amount of expenses paid to staff in the Communications Department in the last two financial years is as follows: 2009 - 2010 £550 2010 - 2011 £1,049

Information on how COPFS recruits its media staff was also disclosed in papers passed to Scottish Law Reporter, stating : Recruitment for the COPFS Head of Communications post last took place in October 2010. The post was advertised on 28 September 2010 with a closing date of 15 October 2010. The post is based in Crown Office and is a permanent post.The salary range for the post was £44,263 to £52,847 with an additional allowance payable of between £3000 and £5000. There were three applicants for the post and 3 people were interviewed

Bungalow Boss : Ex-Law Society Chief craves suicide in roman bath slasher stushi The current Head of Communications for the Crown Office has been identified from the popular website Linkedin  as journalist Jennifer Veitch, who wrote an extensive article in the Scotsman newspaper some years ago on former Law Society of Scotland Boss Douglas Mill, who spectacularly fell from his position only weeks after a You Tube video surfaced of a bitter exchange between himself and current Scottish Government Finance Chief John Swinney during debates on self regulation at the Scottish Parliament.

Ms Veitch’s article reported the now former Law Society boss felt he was so underappreciated in Scotland, to the point he would rather commit suicide. Mill was reported to have said in the article, titled “A lawyer is never loved in his own homeland” (15 August 2006) : "But you go abroad and you get the feel-good factor, and you come back to what I have to deal with five days a week - and you feel like opening your wrists and lying in a warm bath."

It is generally known the Crown Office Communications Unit have operated a media boycott of Scots legal publication “The Firm” for some years after it consistently raised questions over COPFS conduct.

Anti-Abuse campaigner & journalist Robert Green speaks in interview on Hollie Greig abuse scandal cover-up

THE well known anti-abuse campaigner & Journalist, Robert Green, who was jailed for handing out leaflets in Aberdeen calling for an inquiry into allegations of abuse against downs syndrome victim Hollie Greig, has recently been interviewed by the UK Column, featured here :

Scottish Law Reporter covered Mr Green’s release from jail after he was sentenced to ONE YEAR in Aberdeen’s Craiginches Prison for committing e breach of the peace, by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen. Reports on developments in the hugely expensive case also claimed Sheriff Bowen failed to declare relationships with key figures central to the case which included the now former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (née McPhilomy).

It was also revealed the case against the anti abuse campaigner ranked as Scotland’s most expensive ever Breach of the Peace trial which saw a record HALF A MILLION POUNDS spent on the investigation & trial of Mr Green, a case which tunnelled through the Scottish Courts system for over two years at huge cost to taxpayers.

A reminder of previous events in the trial of anti abuse campaigner Robert Green can be viewed in earlier coverage by Scottish Law Reporter HERE and further coverage of the Hollie Greig. Scottish Law Reporter recently published an investigation into the knighthood of Angiolini, apparently recommended by the Scottish Government. Dame Elish Angiolini was also appointed Ministerial complaints adviser to Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond. More recently, Dame Elish Angiolini was also appointed to the post of Principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford.

Former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini employed Levy McRae to go after anti abuse campaigner. Levy McRae are well known for a ‘colourful’ list of clients, including shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell and former Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini who took on Levy McRae to sue anti abuse campaigner Robert Green. Levy McRae proceeded to threaten several media outlets & journalists over their reporting of the case, covered by Scottish Law Reporter HERE & HERE. The Purcell scandal caused some newspapers to ‘evaluate’ their relationship with Levy McRae, details of which were featured in a report here : HERE. Levy McRae are also known to work for clients in the well known tax dodging haven of the Cayman Islands.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has ties to Levy Mcrae. As details of the Hollie Greig case began to be reported in the wider press, it emerged the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill has personal links to LEVY MCRAE, the law firm employed by the then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in legal action over the abuse case allegations. Mr MacAskill has made no comment on the fact he served his apprenticeship at Levy McRae and also worked at the firm for a considerable time during his years as a solicitor before he entered politics. The revelations of MacAskill’s links to Levy McRae, the same law firm who represented Steven Purcell, were reported by Scottish Law Reporter at the time, HERE