Tenant farmers face few rights after 2012 Landowners Human Rights ruling by Lord Gill & Court of Session - which resulted in suicide of farmer Andrew Riddell

Farmer shot himself in 2012 after Lord Gill ruled landowners Human Rights breached. TENANT farmers continue to fight eviction from their farms after Lord Brian Gill ruled in 2012 that landowners human rights were breached by legislation aimed at protecting tenant farmers passed by the Scottish Parliament.

This week, another eviction of a tenant farmer has been reported where a petition attracted over 19,000 signatures backing Andrew Stoddart, of Colstoun Mains Farm, Haddington, who is fighting eviction by his landlord -  the Colstoun Trust

Mr Stoddart and his young family have been told they have to leave by November 28, with the trust claiming it wants to have “greater involvement in the running of the farm”.

The Stoddarts, along with the two workers they employ on the 900-acre arable and sheep farm, will have to leave their homes and livelihoods behind. This would also be without compensation for the investment they have made.

The eviction follows a 
ten-year dispute over a rent review requested by Mr Stoddart.

It is worth remembering how these evictions have come about.

The quest by Landowners to eject tenants from land was made all the more easy by Scotland’s own landed gentry at the Court of Session after another ten year legal battle - which saw Lord Brian Gill rule in favour of landowners ‘Human Rights’ in 2012.

In the upheld appeal, senior judge Lord Gill ruled that measures put in place to protect tenants in such areas were not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Gill’s ruling in Salvesen v Riddell [2012] CSIH 26, 2012 SLT 633 allowed billionaire landlord Alistair Salvesen to evict tenant farmer Andrew Riddell (52) from land his family had farmed for 100 years.

After the ruling from the Court of Session, it was widely reported in the media Mr Riddell committed suicide. He was found dead after he had harvested his final crop.

The father of four killed himself just weeks before he was due to leave Peaston Farm, near Ormiston, East Lothian.

Andrew had been involved in a 10-year court battle with his landlord, Scotland’s third richest man Alastair Salvesen.

Mr Riddell's battle began in 2003 when he was given notice to quit by landowner Alastair Salvesen, who bought the farm in 1998.

The problem stemmed from an outdated law that left the family few rights despite being on the land since 1902.

Salvesen served notice to the farmer after a ruling from Lord Gill and the judiciary enforced a notice for the farmer to quit.

The ruling overturned Mr Riddell’s previous security of tenure award in 2010 that meant he could stay living on the land.

Speaking in 2012 after the suicide of Mr Riddell, his neighbour and close friend George Mudie, 60, said: “The farm was Andrew’s life. He was affected very badly by the court’s decision.”

Lord Gill: The Landowner

Records now show at the time of Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill’s ruling against tenant farmer Andrew Riddell, Lord Gill owned or had an interest in several properties, among them - a large Victorian mansion in one of the richest parts of Edinburgh.

The mansion – owned by the top judge was put on the market last year for £1.7m just before the independence referendum in 2014.

Gill also declared in his now publicly available register of Scottish Court Service Board interests he owns or holds property interests in London identified by an entry in the SCS Board register as “Vestry Court Ltd” –which leads to a multi million pound property listing in London.

Documents at Companies house list Lord Gill and his wife as holding interests in “Vestry Court Ltd” dating back to the mid 1990’s.

CLUB TIE JUDGES: Diversity in judiciary proposals dubbed ‘window dressing’ as Law Society recommend back to school approach for angry old white male club tie judiciary

Scotland’s judiciary - elderly, white, rich and male. CALLS to promote diversity within Scotland’s predominantly elderly, white, wealthy judiciary will not be significantly advanced by today’s publication of recommendations by the Law Society of Scotland to widen the club class ranks of Senators of the Court of Session, Sheriffs & even the occasional JP.

Scotland’s judiciary - many of whom share the same private school backgrounds and jealously guard their secretive earnings & business interests need fear not for any impending change to their club class ranks and tap on the shoulder techniques for recruitment.

The latest instalment on judicial diversity, in which the Law Society promotes outreach work in schools, mentoring and reviewing the current skill set for sheriffs and judges as a method of creating a more diverse judiciary means current ways will be preserved for a few pounds years more – much to the relief of the many ermine clad ranks of Scotland’s current judicial fraternity.

Law Society publishes recommendations to improve diversity in Scotland’s judiciary

The Law Society of Scotland has published a series of recommendations in a paper responding to a judicial appointments diversity steering group (DSG) report on its conference ‘Merit and diversity – Compatible aspirations in judicial appointments?’.

The Law Society, a member of the DSG, believes that while good progress has been made in increasing diversity within the judiciary, more can be done to bring about further improvement.

Rob Marrs, head of education at the Law Society, said: “There have been great strides made since the inception of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland in improving transparency in the appointments process and other more recent changes resulting from the conference held last year on merit and diversity within the judiciary, including a review of its application process to make it more accessible and increased engagement and outreach work with interested parties.

“However it’s undeniable that there is currently a lack of diversity in our judiciary and, with men making up more than 70% of judicial posts, it is not representative of the legal profession or of the population at large.

“Our key recommendations include reviewing the existing criteria for judicial appointments and examining if there are unnecessary barriers which prevent potential candidates from applying. It’s important that as well as considering those recommended for appointment, we look at what can be done to broaden the pool of potential candidates.

“We also think there should be more consideration given to career development and ensuring that judicial appointment is an attractive option for a range of would-be candidates. This could include developing a distinct judicial career path– a model adopted in several European jurisdictions – with specific training for advocates and solicitors who are interested in a career on the bench.

“Informing and engaging groups who may be interested in becoming a sheriff or a judge should start at the earliest opportunity and there could be outreach work done in schools, during university and at the early stages of people’s legal careers. Providing shadowing and mentoring opportunities for less well represented groups has also worked well in England and Wales, where there has been a lot of work done on this, and could easily be adopted here to encourage those who may not previously have considered applying for judicial appointment.”

The Law Society has also recommended a review of the current criteria and eligibility for those who can apply for a judicial appointment.

Marrs said: “It’s important that we consider the attributes needed by those on the bench. For example, at the moment a key part of the criteria to become a sheriff is experience in court work and case presentation skills. This means that more court practitioners will apply as they can more easily provide evidence to meet the required competencies for the role. However, while this type of experience may be highly desirable, it is important to consider the full range of skills required to prevent any artificial barrier to potential appointment.

“In our view the relevant competencies for a judicial appointment are the ability to make good reasoned decisions within a reasonable time frame, knowledge of the law, knowledge of the rule of law and court procedure. These sit alongside the ability to deal with and understand those appearing before them and to be able to communicate complicated concepts in straightforward language – something which could become increasingly important if more people choose to represent themselves in court if they are unable to access legal aid.”

The Law Society has also recommended having specialist judges who have an in depth knowledge of certain areas of law and a review of the current barriers in place which prevent tribunal judges, who are experienced in dealing with highly complex cases, from moving to judicial posts in Scotland’s courts.

“Our paper sets out several areas where we think there are opportunities to improve diversity within our judiciary. Instigating change will take a coordinated approach from all the organisations which are involved or have an interest in judicial appointments and I look forward to discussing our ideas in more detail with them.”

The Judicial Appointments Diversity Steering Group (DSG) is a collaborative group of organisations with an interest in diversity in the judiciary. Its diversity conference report is available to read on the Judicial Appointments Board website: Judicial Appointments Diversity Steering Group report.