SNP run Scottish Borders Council demand ‘500% rise’ £15K Common Good Fund admin fee from small town of Selkirk, includes £9K legal bill generated by Council’s own lawyer

SNP controlled Council inflate town’s legal bill 500% to £15K for Common Good paper shuffling. A SMALL COMMUNITY in the Borders is facing a staggering FIFTEEN THOUSAND POUND demand from the SNP led Scottish Borders Council for administering the town of Selkirk’s Common Good Fund, reveals local media who also report a whopping NINE THOUSAND POUNDS of the bill is for the work of one single lawyer employed by scandal hit Scottish Borders Council. The in-house council lawyer who the £9K legal fees are being attributed to, has been identified by council figures as Anne Isles, a solicitor who has been at Scottish Borders Council for over ten years.

However, Community leaders in Selkirk are demanding a full breakdown of the staggering FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT INCREASE under the new SNP controlled administration, after it emerged the Council had earlier been charging around £3-£4k a year prior to the Scottish Nationalists taking charge of the south of Scotland local authority, which is mired in a £262 Million pound mountain of debt and is regularly featured in financial scandals.

Reports in the local media also highlight the fact the SNP controlled Council is charging the small Borders town of Selkirk more money than its Common Good Fund actually brings in, while local transparency campaigners have also questioned why Selkirk’s Common Good Fund appears to bring in so little money under Scottish Borders Council’s management, even though the fund owns what appear to be highly prized assets such as salmon fishing rights, shooting rights, a golf course, commercial shops and also three farms.

The in-house whose work has apparently generated the £9K legal fees, Ms Anne Isles, is reportedly ‘well known’ to private law firms and their clients in the Scottish Borders. Ms Isles is also known to have once featured in reports in the Scotsman newspaper after parents of a special needs child living near to Kelso had publicised their concerns about the solicitor’s conduct during a court case in which Ms Isles represented the Council who fought to deny the little girl a public bus trip to her school of attendance. The parents alleged Ms Isles conduct & questioning of the young girl during hearings unnecessarily upset and reduced the infant to tears.

No one from Scottish Borders Council was willing to comment on why the SNP controlled local authority had upped its legal fees a staggering 500% to small towns. No one from the Scottish National Party was willing to comment.

Scottish Borders Council has featured in numerous, almost weekly scandals, notably one involving a controversy over a huge payout of £318,000 to former Chief Executive David Hume, who promptly went on to work for the Scottish Government, earning fees paid by Scottish Ministers via a ‘tax efficient’ Limited Company arrangement for work at Children's Hearings Scotland. The Council was also fined £250,000 by the Information Commissioner after an investigation found the incompetent local authority had abused personal data involving staff pensions.

Local media in the Scottish Borders, the Southern Reporter & Selkirk Advertiser report on the scandal :

Selkirk’s anger over £15K common good bill

Selkirk’s community leaders are demanding to know why charges to the town’s common good fund increased fivefold last year, and have called their treatment by Scottish Borders Council “hypocrisy”.

Selkirk Community Council has been asking Scottish Borders Council (SBC) for a breakdown of costs since March after SBC said its annual charge for administering the fund would be more than £15,000 for the previous year. The usual cost is £3-4,000.

Community councillors finally saw a breakdown of the figures at a meeting last week which showed nearly £9,000 going on the legal fees of one official.

Vice-chairman Dr Lindsay Neil said: “We are paying SBC more money than the common good fund has to distribute: the expenses outweigh the actual fund. I sympathise that the council has to try and scrape money as best it can, but it should not be raiding it out of the common good fund.”

He said the community council was initially told by ex-councillor and chairperson of the common good fund working group, Carolyn Riddell-Carre, that the £15,000 was due to their requests for Freedom of Information (FoI) enquiries.

Dr Neil commented: “You are not allowed to charge for FoI unless you let the person (who’s requested it) know it is going to cost more than a certain amount. None of that was done. We said, ‘This is crazy, if it’s FoI we need to question this’.

“It’s an obligation of the local authority to administer the common good fund, they should get on with it.

“But the council argues, ‘Why should Selkirk be relieved of the costs of its common good fund and all the people in the Borders help pay for it?’

“But SBC has undertaken to meet all the costs of the refurbishment of the Tait Hall in Kelso, which belongs to Kelso’s common good fund. It’s simple hypocrisy. They hold the purse strings, they have access to the funds and there’s nothing we can do about it. We don’t have control,” said Dr Neil.

“If necessary we will go to Audit Scotland (which audits the council’s financial matters),” he added. “We (community councillors at Monday’s meeting) were unanimous in wanting to find out why this money has been charged, and we are dissatisfied it has taken so long, and what was supplied at the end of the day was so woefully inadequate.”

TheSouthern asked Scottish Borders Council if they had charged for Freedom of Information requests.

A spokesperson denied this was the case, saying: “The recharge for council officers’ time is with full council agreement.

“These costs are not for work in response to FoI enquiries, and the community council has been fully advised of this directly through Dr Neil at a meeting of the Selkirk common good fund sub-committee in Selkirk on October 31, 2012, and previously.

“The council does not charge the common good funds in respect of work done in the furtherance of formal FOI requests,” the spokesperson said.

Asked why the charges had jumped so dramatically from £3-4,000 to £15,000, the spokesperson said: “The charges are based on actual work, so will vary year to year.”

She then pointed out: “Scottish Borders Council awards a block grant to the common good to offset a proportion of these costs which are shown in the Budget under Central Support Service Recharge.

“The current 2012/13 Central Support Service Recharges are £15,102, offset by the contribution from the council of £3,952.”

Asked for a breakdown of the £8,886 costs for legal work carried out by Anne Isles, the depute clerk in Galashiels’ council offices, the spokesperson answered: “The (£8,886 legal) costs were in relation to all legal work in that particular year for the common good fund, including drafting and reviewing legal documents – the fund owns three farms, two commercial shops, salmon fishings, shootings and a golf course, along with several other properties which are not occupied by third parties but require to be managed.”

“There was also work done (correspondence, meetings) in relation to the proposed wind farm.

“General correspondence is done in relation to all the grants and donations requests and payments by the funds. The cost also covers attendance at committee meetings, including travel to and from Selkirk as required. All general queries re the common good funds are also responded to whether from the community council itself, or members of the public.

“In total, approximately 157 hours of time were spent.”

SBC charges queried

COMMUNITY leaders are demanding to know why charges to the town’s Common Good Fund increased fivefold last year.

Selkirk Community Council has been asking Scottish Borders Council (SBC) for a breakdown of costs since March after SBC said its annual charge for administering the fund would be more than £15,000 for the previous year. The usual cost is £3-4,000.

Community councillors finally saw a breakdown of the figures at Monday’s meeting which showed nearly £9,000 going on the legal fees of one official.

Community council vice-chairman Lindsay Neil said: “We are paying SBC more money than the common good fund has to distribute: the expenses outweigh the actual fund. I sympathise that the council has to try and scrape money as best it can, but it should not be pinching it out of the Common Good Fund.”

He said the community council was initially told by ex-councillor and chairperson of the Common Good Fund working group, Carolyn Riddell-Carre, that the £15,000 was due to their requests for Freedom of Information (FoI) enquiries.

“It’s an obligation of the local authority to administer the Common Good Fund – they should get on with it. If necessary we will go to Audit Scotland (which audits the council’s financial matters),” he said.

An SBC spokesperson said: “The recharge for council officers’ time is with full council agreement. These costs are not for work in response to FoI enquiries. The (£8,886 legal) costs were in relation to all legal work in that particular year for the Common Good Fund, including drafting and reviewing legal documents.”

Other work included managing the fund’s properties, correspondence, meetings, travel costs and enquiries.

“The charges are based on actual work, so will vary year to year depending on the work carried out,” said the spokesperson, pointing out that SBC awards a block grant to the community council “to offset a proportion of these costs”.

‘Amateurish’ Justice Secretary launches consultation on Criminal Justice proposals, ending corroboration supported, jury majorities, not proven verdict & judges powers to be looked at

Caution, amateur at work - Justice Secretary launches another consultation aimed at loading the dice in court. THE Scottish Government has today launched a Consultation on additional safeguards to the legal system, issuing new proposals which include ending the not-proven verdict, increasing the jury majority required to return a verdict and increasing the powers of trial judges to abandon cases if they feel there is a lack of evidence. The move comes after stinging criticism from all quarters of the justice system against proposals put forward by High Court judge Lord Carloway in his Carloway Review Report & Recommendations 2011 which put forward proposals that appear to give Scotland’s institutionally corrupt Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) an unfair edge in criminal prosecutions by removing long held safeguards & procedures in criminal trials.

However, one of the key controversial recommendations of the Carloway review, the ending of corroboration – a move which is being opposed by most of Scotland’s legal fraternity and the remainder of the judiciary appears to be still on the table, according to a lengthy statement issued by Scotland’s five years in the job too long Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who said earlier today : “I agree with Lord Carloway’s recommendation that the requirement for corroboration should be abolished. The rule stems from another age, its usage has become confused and that it can bar prosecutions that would in any other legal system seem entirely appropriate.”

Responses to the Carloway Report from Scotland’s legal establishment almost unanimously opposed the judge’s plan to remove corroboration, and among those opposing the plan were Lord Carloway’s own colleagues in the judiciary reported here along with allegations of anger within the Crown Office, who are lobbying for corroboration to be dropped so they can obtain a higher conviction rate, even on the flimsiest of evidence.

Speaking to Scottish Law Reporter earlier today, a legal insider described Mr MacAskill’s moves as “amateurish” and little more than an attempt to appease and bolster the success rate of Scotland’s lacklustre prosecution service, the Crown Office.

He said : ”The SNP’s proposals to tinker with the justice system appear to have but one interest in mind, that of improving the Lord Advocate’s prosecution statistics at the expense of ensuring accused persons get a fair trial in Scotland.”

No one from the Scottish Government was willing to give further comment.

The Scottish Government issued the following Press Release : New safeguards for legal system proposed

New proposals for safeguards to the legal system are being proposed in the light of the responses to the Carloway consultation, published today.

The consultation responses show majority support for almost all the recommendations proposed by the independent review of Scottish law and practice, led by senior high court judge Lord Carloway.

However, while third sector organisations such as Rape Crisis and Victim Support were in favour of abolishing the requirement for corroboration, the majority of respondents from the legal profession were not in favour of this proposal. A large majority of respondents felt that safeguards should be put in place if corroboration was abolished.

Given this, the Scottish Government is today beginning a further consultation on what these additional safeguards might be.

The Scottish Government is now seeking views on:

proposals to increase the jury majority required to return a verdict;
to widen the trial judge’s power to rule that there is no case to answer and
on whether the “not proven” verdict should be abolished.

Currently a jury in Scotland can convict on a majority of 8 of 15 jurors. The consultation is now seeking views on whether this should be changed to require a majority of 9 or 10 of 15 jurors to return a verdict.

We are also consulting on plans to provide the trial judge with a power to withdraw a case from a jury on application by the accused where the judge considers that, on the basis of the evidence led, no reasonable jury could convict.

Lord Carloway stated in his report that, in the event that it was proposed to look at jury majorities, it would also be necessary to consider whether the ‘third verdict’ remained appropriate, and we are inviting views on this issue.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill [issued an even longer winded than usual statement, saying: “When we consulted on Lord Carloway’s findings, we made clear that we were open to considering whether any additional changes to the justice system would be required in the light of his recommendation that the requirement for corroboration should be abolished.

“It is clear from the consultation responses we have received that the great majority of respondents think that it is necessary to consider additional safeguards, and they have highlighted, in particular, the question of jury majorities and the ‘not proven’ verdict.That is why I have decided that a further consultation on these additional safeguards to the legal system is needed, to ensure that Scotland can continue to have a legal system that is rightly regarded as one of the best in the world.

“I agree with Lord Carloway’s recommendation that the requirement for corroboration should be abolished. The rule stems from another age, its usage has become confused and that it can bar prosecutions that would in any other legal system seem entirely appropriate.

“I am confident that in a system without a requirement for corroboration we would continue to see police and prosecutors striving to find the best evidence that can practically be made available to the court.  I trust Scottish judges and juries would continue to apply good judgement and would only convict on the basis of clear evidence.”

The review of the legal system, led by Lord Carloway, looked at a range of aspects of Scottish criminal law and practice in the aftermath of the Cadder decision, that detention of suspects by the police for up to six hours without access to legal advice did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

A consultation on Sheriff and Jury reform is also being published today. The consultation document seeks views on implementation of Sheriff Principal Bowen's key proposals and also includes draft bill provisions. It is intended that these provisions will be introduced to Parliament in the upcoming Criminal Justice Bill along with Lord Carloway’s recommendations.

The Bowen reforms seek to ensure that procedures in place in criminal courts for dealing with accused in sheriff and jury cases are as effective as they can be. The changes propose moving to a system where there is earlier and improved communication between the parties involved, active judicial case management and greater control by the court on the programming of cases.

Related information Consultation on additional safeguards , Carloway consultation responses , Bowen consultation

Ex-judge McCluskey to head Salmond’s Leveson group, Cayman Islands & Ex Lord Advocate Angiolini’s lawyer among ‘usual suspects’ to consider Leveson media muzzle for Scotland

Less than stellar First Minister Alex Salmond appoints Peter Watson of Levy McRae to Leveson ‘expert group’. A LAWYER who has represented controversial clients including shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell, & former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (née McPhilomy) and whose law firm has been accused by some newspapers of attempting to silence press reports over scandals involving the seedy private lives of some of its prominent public figure clients, has been appointed by struggling First Minister Alex Salmond to an ‘expert group’ charged with considering the proposals to regulate (or muzzle – Ed) the press, put forward by Lord Leveson.

PETER WATSON, of Glasgow law firm Levy McRae, the same law firm with personal connections to Scotland’s much derided and five-years-in-the-job-too-long Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who worked at the law firm for several years was named today in a Press Release issued by the Scottish Government as being appointed along with David Sinclair, Ruth Wishart, Professor Neil Walker to the First Minister’s ‘expert group’ which will be headed by retired judge Lord McCluskley (aged 83).

Glasgow based Levy McRae have hit the headlines in recent years over their representation of characters such as former Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini who took on Levy McRae to sue anti abuse campaigner Robert Green and recently, after the England based journalist Mr Green had been jailed for six months for handing out leaflets in Aberdeen, Levy McRae went back into court to silence further calls for an investigation into claims of historical abuse in the case of Hollie Greig, a downs syndrome victim who has alleged she was abused by several individuals in the Aberdeen area.

Documents presented to the court by Levy McRae, whose offices Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) told the court she resided at, also name a number of websites which it is claimed are linked to the campaign to out alleged child abusers. The Court interlocutor, which is a public document, can be viewed and downloaded here : Interlocutor Elish Angiolini v Robert Green re Hollie Greig case. Levy McRae were also identified by the Press Complaints Commission as being the authors of a complaint submitted to the PCC against Scots law title “The Firm”, who were forced to retract statements made regarding Angiolini’s alleged involvement in the abuse case.

Troubled law firm Levy McRae also featured in a recent report where one of it’s other partners, Legal Defence Union boss Bill Macreath (60) of Troon, is facing accusations of professional misconduct & inadequate service as a result of a Law Society of Scotland investigation.

Scottish Government Press Release : Leveson findings - expert panel appointed

A five-person panel has been appointed to consider the recommendations of the Leveson Report in Scotland. The expert group, to be chaired by former Solicitor General and Senator of the College of Justice Lord McCluskey, features Scots legal experts and representatives of journalism and those affected by malpractice:

Lord McCluskey of Church Hill LLD, former Solicitor General for Scotland and Senator of the College of Justice (chair)
David Sinclair, Director of Communications at Victim Support Scotland, former President of the National Union of Journalists and former assistant editor of The Herald
Professor Neil Walker FBA, FRSE, Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh
Peter Watson, Senior Partner of Levy & McRae and Visiting Professor at the School of Law, University of Strathclyde
Ruth Wishart, independent media production professional, former assistant editor of the Sunday Mail, Scotsman and Sunday Standard

The panel is tasked with considering the findings and certain recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson – particularly how statutory underpinning of a new independent system of self-regulation of the press could work in Scotland.  The terms of reference are set out below.

Panel members are invited to provide advice and recommendations to the Scottish Government within three months.

First Minister Alex Salmond said: “Press regulation is a devolved responsibility, there have been victims of press malpractice in Scotland and Scotland has its own unique legal system. It is therefore unarguable that we in Scotland need to make our own response to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson in his report – particularly on the proposal for statutory underpinning in Scots law of a new, independent self-regulation system for the press. This expert panel will offer advice on the most appropriate way to approach such statutory underpinning in Scotland, bearing in mind our legal system, developments elsewhere in the United Kingdom and experience internationally.  What happens thereafter will be a matter for the Parliament.”

Stressing the range of expertise within the panel, Mr Salmond added: “What is critically important is that this panel is representative of the broad spectrum of interests that need to be taken into account. It is a balanced panel that features experts in Scots law, respected journalists, legal practitioners and someone with a background in supporting those affected by crime and malpractice. This group of experts is independent and non-political and is chaired by a former Court of Session judge. I am grateful to each of them for bringing their knowledge, expertise and commitment to this issue and look forward to receiving their recommendations.”

Background

The terms of reference of the expert group are as follows: To consider the findings and recommendations made in the Part 1 of the Report of the Leveson Inquiry in respect of Press Regulation, and, accepting the main principles on which those recommendations are made, including in particular the need for statutory underpinning of a newly created, genuinely independent and effective system of Self-Regulation, to offer advice and recommendations as to the most appropriate means of achieving such statutory underpinning in Scotland, in the context of —

the Scottish legal system;
any other existing provisions in law that relate to publication by the Press in the UK;
any developments in Press Regulation elsewhere in the United Kingdom arising out of the Leveson Inquiry;
experience in regulation of the press outside of the United Kingdom, that might inform consideration of the recommendations made and the mechanisms suggested in the Part 1 Report of the Leveson Inquiry,

and to provide such advice and recommendations to the Scottish Government within 3 months.

Lord McCluskey (Chair)

John Herbert McCluskey, Baron McCluskey was Solicitor General for Scotland from 1974 to 1979. During this period he worked on the then Labour government's proposals for devolution. Lord McCluskey became a member of the Judiciary in 1984 and presided for 16 years as a High Court judge over some of the country's most famous criminal cases. He retired in 2000.  In 2011 he chaired the Independent Review Group examining the relationship of the High Court of Justiciary and the United Kingdom Supreme Court, whose recommendations were accepted both by the Scottish Parliament and the UK Government.  Lord McCluskey was for many years chair of the judges for the Bank of Scotland Press Awards and also Vice President of the West of Scotland Press Fund (the Journalists’ Charity).

David Sinclair

David Sinclair has been head of Communications at Victims Support Scotland since 2006, he is a former assistant editor of The Herald, having worked there from 1975 – 2006 and was President of the National Union of Journalists in 1990-91.

Professor Neil Walker

Neil Walker - LLB, PhD, LLD (Honoris Causa) (Uppsala), FBA, FRSE - is Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh His main area of expertise is constitutional theory. He has published extensively on the constitutional dimension of legal order at sub-state, state, supranational and international levels. Previously he taught public law at Edinburgh for ten years (1986-96), was Professor of Legal and Constitutional Theory at the University of Aberdeen (1996-2000), and, most recently, was Professor of European Law at the European University Institute in Florence (2000-8), where he was also the first Dean of Studies (2002-5). In December 2008 Professor Walker was asked by the Scottish Government to conduct an independent review of final appellate jurisdiction in the Scottish legal system.

Peter Watson

Peter is Senior Partner and Head of Litigation at Levy & McRae.  Under his leadership, Levy & McRae has built up a worldwide reputation in areas of expertise such as media law, licensing, aviation, international claims, public inquiries, employment law and tax and revenue investigations.  He is also a part-time Sheriff and Visiting Professor at the School of Law, University of Strathclyde, and is a former President of the Society of Media Lawyers, Chairman of the Association of Mediators and a Member of the Criminal Rules Council.

Ruth Wishart

Ruth Wishart is a journalist and broadcaster with extensive experience of the Scottish media. She has been  a columnist with the Daily Record, columnist and Assistant Editor of the Sunday Mail, columnist and Assistant Editor of the Sunday Standard, and  Senior Assistant Editor of the Scotsman. Currently she writes a column for Herald Society, and contributes regularly to The Scotsman. She has also presented radio series for Radio Scotland and Radio 4. With Deborah Orr and Paul Flynn she recently interviewed a range of journalists, the transcripts of which were used for Enquirer, the National Theatre of Scotland's response to the issues covered in the Leveson Inquiry.

COCAINE SCANDAL IN GLASGOW : HOW THE NEWSPAPERS SAW LEVY MCRAE & PETER WATSON

PR, politics and the press: A conflict of interest but no barrier to the truth

EDITORIAL COMMENT Published on 21 Mar 2010

The shockwaves emanating from the controversial departure of Glasgow City Council leader Steven Purcell have shaken the foundations of Glasgow’s political and business establishment.

The initial facts were bad enough: allegations of drug-taking, cover-ups, incoherent ramblings, paranoia, a stay at a clinic specialising in the treatment of drink and drug problems, and finally Mr Purcell’s retreat from Scotland, reportedly for up to a year.

Since Mr Purcell’s departure, speculation has grown ever more fevered, encompassing suggestions of a network of powerful figures working behind the scenes to influence the workings of the city. The suggestion that this so-called network includes leading figures from the media is now threatening to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Scottish press.

There have been hints that some Scottish newspapers have pulled their punches on the controversy because editors have been too close to Mr Purcell or, worse, they have been cowed into submission by Peter Watson and PR firm Media House. These suggestions have involved the Herald & Times Group, publishers of this newspaper, The Herald and the Evening Times. Other newspapers have also been referred to. We believe our readers should learn the facts here rather than read assumptions in the pages of other publications.

Glasgow is a large city but its political and business centre is small. Personal and business relationships meld together, contacts extend and overlap, boundaries blur. Business dinners become social occasions, colleagues become friends. Such social networking goes on in every city in the world. It only becomes a problem when a conflict of interest arises.

We believe our readers should learn the facts here rather than read assumptions in other publications

For the Herald & Times Group that conflict of interest arose when solicitors Levy & McRae, the firm we employ to ensure the legality of our editorial content, was engaged to act on behalf of Steven Purcell in the early stages of the controversy. The Herald broke the news of Mr Purcell’s resignation as council leader in a story by Paul Hutcheon on Tuesday, March 2.

Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, and Jack Irvine, of Media House, acted for Mr Purcell as the crisis unfolded. In the most recent documents lodged with Companies House, Mr Watson is listed as one of four shareholders of Media House, along with Mr Irvine and two other individuals. Mr Watson has told us that he holds the shares as a representative of a trust for Mr Irvine’s children.

Mr Watson and Mr Irvine denied reports that Glasgow City Council’s PR department planned to issue a statement referring to Steven Purcell’s “chemical dependency”. When released, the official statement referred only to Mr Purcell’s “stress” and “exhaustion”.

They warned that a story in The Scotsman newspaper revealing details of the deleted reference to “chemical dependency” could be a breach of the Data Protection Act and be referred to the Information Comissioner. The media was also warned that inquiring into Mr Purcell’s health might breach his right to a private life under the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Sunday Herald’s analysis of the Steven Purcell controversy on March 7 included an article criticising the tactics of Mr Watson and Mr Irvine. To avoid a further conflict of interest, the article was not scrutinised for legal problems by a full-time employee of Levy & McRae but by a QC acting as an independent adviser, although still under the overall umbrella of the Levy & McRae contract with the Herald & Times Group.

After the story’s publication, the Sunday Herald was contacted separately by both Peter Watson and Jack Irvine. We will not reveal the details of private telephone calls with Peter Watson but the results of those calls could be seen in last week’s Sunday Herald. We printed a correction of one factual inaccuracy: we had said Mr Watson and Mr Irvine had left Scotland to go “on holiday” around the same time as Mr Purcell had left the country. In fact Mr Watson and Mr Irvine had both left on business trips to the Cayman Islands. We also printed a letter from Mr Watson complaining about our coverage. We agreed to print the letter to fulfil our duty to offer a right of reply.

In response to separate complaints from Mr Irvine we offered the same factual correction and the same opportunity to submit a letter for publication, subject to our normal editing procedures. He refused both offers.

In an article in industry magazine PRWeek on March 10, Mr Irvine revealed he had lodged a complaint with the Sunday Herald. He said he had asked for an apology and that he would refer the matter to the Press Complaints Commission if his request was refused.

Mr Irvine has now submitted a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission against the Sunday Herald article. He has complained on two counts:

1: By stating that he and Mr Watson had gone on holiday the Sunday Herald implied that he had left Mr Purcell “in the lurch”.

2: The Sunday Herald launched a “vicious attack” on the methods he and Mr Watson had employed without giving either the right to comment or reply before publication, allegedly in breach of the Editor’s Code of Practice.

Mr Irvine referred to previous “problems” he had experienced with the Sunday Herald, including discussions this newspaper had had with Mr Watson over a story concerning another Media House client earlier this year.

Mr Irvine claims to the Press Complaints Commission that the Sunday Herald’s article on the Steven Purcell tactics was “heavily influenced by spite, bad blood and malice”. The Sunday Herald will defend itself against Mr Irvine’s accusations through the normal channels.

There have been other references in the media to the friendship between Steven Purcell and leading newspaper editors, including Herald & Times editor-in-chief Donald Martin. Mr Martin met Mr Purcell and prominent figures in the Glasgow business community on a fairly regular basis and both were part of a network dubbed “Team Glasgow”.

Mr Martin told the Sunday Herald: “I was glad to play a role in Team Glasgow along with other individuals who believed in co-operating for the good of the city. Our aim was to encourage actions which would help the city. As a newspaper editor it is an important part of my job to make contacts in the political, business and other spheres and I also believe it is part of my job to work for the good of Glasgow and indeed Scotland. There is no conflict between that aim and my commitment to publishing the facts of stories which are important to the lives of our readers.

‘‘The Herald broke the news of Steven Purcell’s resignation and has continued to inform our readers of the major developments in this story. We remain committed to uncovering the full facts surrounding Mr Purcell’s departure, many of which remain obscured. We will work to uncover the truth, no matter how long it may take. There is no evidence of a ‘conspiracy of silence’. Indeed, the facts render such an allegation ridiculous.”

There remains the question of a conflict of interest regarding Peter Watson in his roles as legal adviser to the Herald & Times Group and as a listed shareholder in Media House. Levy & McRae’s website offers a service described as “reputation management”. It states: “With a low profile, we aim to keep our clients off the front page and take swift, effective action where required. Being networked at the highest levels and having access to major decision-makers is key to our success.”

One media organisation asked the Herald & Times Group last week if such a statement could be reconciled with the aims of our newspapers.

Herald & Times managing director Tim Blott said he was extremely concerned at the conflict of interest which had arisen in the Steven Purcell case. He said: “We are taking this problem very seriously and are assessing our relationship with our legal advisers this week. We certainly need to be assured that there is no potential for similar conflicts of interest in future and we are making our position very clear to Levy & McRae.”

From New Zealand to Scotland : Public Petition launched at Scottish Parliament calls for a Register of Interests for Judges & Sheriffs

In Scotland’s best interests, a register of interests for judges. A PUBLIC PETITION calling on the Scottish Parliament to implement a Register of Judicial Interests for Scotland's judiciary will be looked at by MSPs in the New Year. The petition, authored by law journalist Peter Cherbi has its origins in New Zealand, where the Government are going ahead in bringing into legislation a register of pecuniary interests of the country’s judiciary via a bill from New Zealand MP Dr Kennedy Graham. Unlike what would happen in Scotland, the Law Commission of New Zealand is apparently supporting the move and has published a report on its views HERE

Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary is now open for signatures from the public, calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

From Diary of Injustice : The idea for a register of interests of judges comes to Scotland after investigations by law journalists revealed several members of the judiciary have criminal records, with one judge being convicted of benefits fraud and suggestions of financial irregularities including participation in offshore tax avoidance schemes. More on the investigation into the judiciary can be read on Diary of Injustice HERE & HERE.

The petition goes on to report how the Parliament of New Zealand is debating legislation to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Mr Cherbi says he believes it is time for Scotland to move in the same direction and create a similar register of interests for the judiciary of Scotland and all its members, increasing the transparency of the judiciary and ensuring public confidence in their actions & decisions.

The full details of the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, should be looked at for a model of similar legislation in Scotland, can be viewed online here  Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.

New Zealand MP, Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill on judicial interests states : It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach, and suspicion thereof. Public confidence in the standard of behaviour and conduct observed by leading servants of the people is a cornerstone of social harmony and political stability. A threshold of confidence to that end should ideally be enshrined in constitutional and legislative form. Little scope should be available for individual discretion or subjective perception.

The principle of transparency in this respect pertains in particular to issues of financial (pecuniary) interest. Nothing undermines public confidence in a nation’s institutions and procedures more than suspicion that a public servant may have, and especially proof that one has, suffered a conflict of interest arising from a pecuniary interest in a particular dealing in which he or she was professionally involved.

The correct balance in this respect appears to have been achieved over the years–the public interest in such annual statements is significant without appearing prurient, and few complaints have been voiced by those on whom the obligations are placed. There seems to be a general acceptance that such exercises are in the public interest and are neither unduly onerous nor revealing.

No such practice, however, has been observed in the case of the judiciary. Recent developments within New Zealand’s judicial conduct processes suggest that application of the same practice observed by the other two branches of government might assist in the protection of the judiciary in future.

Being obliged under law to declare pecuniary interests that might be relevant to the conduct of a future case in which one is involved would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgements about his or her personal affairs as each case arises. Having declared one’s pecuniary interests once, in a generic manner independent of any particular trial, a judge may freely proceed in the knowledge that, if he or she is appointed to adjudicate, public confidence for participation has already been met. Yet care is to be exercised to ensure that the final decision is left to the individual judge whether to accept a case. There should be no intention of external interference into the self-regulation of the judiciary by the judiciary.

This is the reasoning behind this draft legislation–the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as stated, is to promote the due administration of justice by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system, and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.”

Mr Cherbi said in his petition : “I believe the same aims of the New Zealand legislation as quoted above, are compatible with the public interest in Scotland and to promote the due administration of justice by providing the public with greater transparency within the judicial system.”

The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill is an example of similar legislation for a register of judicial interests in New Zealand, bought to the New Zealand Parliament by Dr Kennedy Graham.When asked whether a register of interests existed for Scottish judges, the Judicial Office for Scotland said “The Judicial Office for Scotland does not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so. The Lord President has set out formal guidelines to the judiciary in the STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS Para 4.9 and 7.2 address this particular point.”

However in an age of transparency where the decisions of Scottish judges affect all our lives, whether the case be criminal or civil, there must be a requirement for all public servants particularly those in positions of such importance as the judiciary to submit their interests to a publicly available register of interests.

New Zealand’s Law Commission issued paper supporting a register for judges interests. In New Zealand, the New Zealand Law Commission has argued for a wider remit to include all officials whose positions given them potential to influence a case to be included in such a register of interests. The Law Commission stated : “If there is to be legislation, should it apply to all judges, or only to judges of some levels, or to all judicial employees and officials such as prosecutors and registrars? An argument can be made that if there is to be financial disclosure it should be required of all officials whose positions give them sufficient potential to influence the outcome of a case, whether as a result of a bribe or other improper influence.” The New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests can be downloaded here :  NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges pecuniary interests? (pdf)

The Sunday Mail newspaper has reported on the petition for the register of Judicial Interests, here :

Petition to hold judges to account

by Russell Findlay
Sunday Mail November 04 2012

A legal campaigner has urged MSPs to create a register of interests for Scotland’s judges.

Peter Cherbi has secured a Scottish Parliament petition calling for all sheriffs and judges to declare financial interests and hospitality.

The legal blogger from Edinburgh, said: “Like those in other areas of public life, members of the judiciary should be required to disclose their interests, financial or otherwise.

“This would increase transparency and help to ensure public confidence in their actions and decisions.

“It has been suggested to me some judges have offshore investments for the purpose of tax avoidance while others may have shares or other connections to businesses.”

Cherbi was inspired by a similar proposed law which is being debated in New Zealand.

The closing date for the online petition is December 7.

Judges were issued with ethical guidelines which were drawn up by senior judges headed by Lord Osborne two years ago.

The Judicial Office for Scotland: “We do hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so.”

MSP John Park resigns seat to take up trade union role, insiders question SNP dirty tricks against politician who helped victim of AIB sequestration scandal

John Park MSP resigns to take up trade union role. AN MSP who helped a victim of a sequestration scandal involving agents acting for Scotland’s Accountant in Bankruptcy has surprised many by announcing his sudden resignation from the Scottish Parliament to take up a trade union role. MSP John Park, who represented Mid Scotland & Fife for Scottish Labour, and was the party’s Chief Whip, has resigned his seat effective 7th December and will be replaced by Jayne Baxter, who currently represents the Cowdenbeath ward on Fife Council.

Mr Park, who has formally notified the Presiding Officer, will work for the Community trade union as policy and strategy director.

Mr Park issued a statement, saying : “Representing the people of Mid Scotland and Fife has been an enormous privilege and I am really grateful to have had that opportunity. I want to thank everyone who voted for me and Labour Party members for the support they have given me. “This is a decision that I have not made lightly and I now have the opportunity to represent thousands of workers across the UK.

“I've tried to use my time in politics to make sure the issues important to working people – jobs, apprenticeships and a living wage – are centre stage. Now, as workers are under attack like never before, I am returning to my union roots to fight at the coal face.

“I wish Johann - who has been a good friend to me and all my friends in the Labour group - the very best for the referendum and upcoming elections. I am a strong Labour supporter who loves my country, so will be campaigning shoulder to shoulder with them in the months and years ahead.

“I would also like to thank Holyrood officials and my own staff who are undoubtedly the most dedicated group of people I have ever met. Their support and assistance has been invaluable.

The surprise resignation comes a little less than three weeks after Scottish Law Reporter reported on Mr Park’s continuing assistance to a Perth man caught up in a bitter sequestration battle which mushroomed into a scandal revealing huge multi million pound contracts awarded by the SNP Scottish Government to Scottish accountancy firms who act as ‘agents’ for the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

Mr Park had given significant help to his constiuent, Mr William Gordon of Perth, who had been the target of a sequestration ordered by Perth law firm Kippen Campbell in a dispute over fees, even though the law firm had left him standing on the steps of the Court of Session without legal representation in a medical damages claim.

Scottish Law Reporter further reported that Mr Park had been asked to query the contracts in the Scottish Parliament, and call for their cancellation after it transpired some of the firms, including Wylie & Bisset, the firm involved in the sequestration of Mr Gordon, were unlawfully freezing state benefits payments to victims of long term disabilities & illnesses.

However, when it became clear Mr Park was being asked to look into the issue, media agents for the Scottish National Party began distributing Press Releases calling for explanations from Mr Park over a 2009 incident in which the SNP had alleged Mr Park had paid a sum of money into a printing firm started by a Labour researcher.

Political insiders have tonight said the SNP wanted to force out Mr Park, and pointed to the recent “dredging up” of the years old accusations relating to the printing business as a factor in Mr Park’s sudden resignation. A former SNP spin doctor pointed to reports on a website Newsnet Scotland from 2001 and October 2012, the former of which was picked up by “The Courier” newspaper in February 2011 and reported HERE.

An insider said “Calls for scrutiny of the SNP’s hand-out of millions to law firms & accountants seems to be behind the SNP’s recent dredging up of the printing firm case so you can be sure there is a lot to hide over Mr Salmond’s handing of eight million pounds of taxpayers money to six firms of accountants.”

However, questions are now surfacing about links between accounting firms who have been handed millions of pounds of public money by the Scottish Government and SNP MSPs as well as others working for the party.

Speaking about the AIB contract fiasco, a Holyrood insider described the “questionable deals” with the agents as being “unnecessary”.

He also questioned why the Accountant in Bankruptcy requires to hire out so many private accountants while having a staff approaching 100 at it’s plush office in Kilwinning, North Ayrshire.