Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

Hermitage Academy Ice Cream Van Man

2010-03-10T23:33:00.003Z

The former Head Teacher of Hermitage Academy, Donald Matheson, failed to appear at his disciplinary hearing before the General Teaching Council yesterday (9 March 2010).

The Daily Record, which covered the story tells how Matheson had a sick note, but sent his lawyer to protest his innocence. The hearing heard evidence in his absence from office manager Mrs. Maureen Purves.

Mrs. Purves gave evidence that in October 2003 an ice cream van moved into the grounds. She said: "Mr Matheson told us the ice cream man would be bringing in money on a regular basis."

"They would come in on a Friday or whatever day was the end of that school week. It was always in denominations of £10 per day."

Clerical assistant Ann Holmes gave evidence that Mr. Matheson gave her an envelope full of notes totalling £1,650 the day auditors showed up to examine the books in May 2005.

She said: "He said I was to be sure to bank this money that day and put it under donations from the ice cream van."

Criminal fraud charges against Mr. Matheson were dropped in 2006 because of witness problems. That same day, he retired on full pension from his £70,000-a-year post at Hermitage.

None of which is in the least bit suspicious.

The hearing, which could decide to remove his name from the register of teachers altogether, continues.

I used to go to Hermitage Academy, though not during Mr. Matheson's tenure. My favourite purchase from the ice-cream van was those little 5p bags of pickled onion crisps.

Courts Clamp Cars

2010-03-09T01:40:00.003Z

You can now read my latest Yell.com blog post, all about new wheel clamping powers for the Scottish Court Service to assist in collecting unpaid fines. It's called: New wheel clamping powers in Scotland.

If someone were to clamp our car, I'd be delighted as the value of the clamp would be more than that of the car!

Madonna and the Winding Yarn

2010-03-06T22:45:00.003Z

Now that Scotland is enjoying it's very own Da Vinci mystery, I thought I should have a shot at unravelling the tale for you. This potted version is taken from various newspaper reports I have been reading over the past few days. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin...

Once upon time there was a Duke, and the Duke had a very expensive painting of Jesus, and his Mum (that is to say, the Virgin Mary, not the Duke's Mum). Anyway, some bad men stole the painting, and this made the Duke very sad (not to mention about £50 Million poorer). Needless to say, the little gnomes who worked for his insurance company were not too pleased about it either.

Because the Duke had never seen The Thomas Crown Affair, or Entrapment or Ocean's Twelve or any of the other classic art theft movies (like Bean) he doesn't appear to have invested in even basic security devices like infra-red trip wires or anything. The bad men stole the painting by basically lifting of the wall in the Duke's nice house (well, enormous Castle really), climbing through his window and waving an axe at a startled gardener.

Anyway, even though the police looked really hard, they couldn't find the painting anywhere. This made the Duke even sadder, and he died about four years later, still wondering where his lovely painting might now be.

Then some very clever lawyers got involved. One lawyer was contacted by some mysterious people (who were definitely not the bad men who stole the painting, but nonetheless didn't really want anyone to know exactly who they were). The mysterious people said they had the Duke's painting (although they didn't say how they had got it).

So the clever lawyer told the mysterious people that as the painting was stolen, they should give it to the police immediately so that the Duke's family could have it back.

Sorry, my mistake! Actually, what the lawyer did was to get in touch with some more lawyers who had a think about what would be the best thing to do. The best thing, they decided, was to contact the insurance company gnomes, and ask them if the Duke's family would be interested in having their painting back? And also ... if the family might be willing to pay the mysterious people a reward of, say, £4.25 Million?

The insurance gnomes asked why the mysterious people didn't just tell the police about the painting. But the clever lawyers were worried that the mysterious people were a little bit volatile and might do something "very silly" with the painting if the police wanted to take it away from them (like, for example, wearing it as a dress).

But insurance gnomes aren't stupid, so they pretended not to call the police - and actually they did call the police. And the police prentended to be the Duke's servants while they went to (and covertly filmed) a meeting at the offices of some very respectable and clever lawyers in Glasgow. The clever lawyers wanted to drink some tea and talk about the reward for the mysterious people, but the Duke's servants (who were really the police in disguise) had come with a warrant, and only wanted to get the Duke's painting back, and arrest everyone - without waiting for them to finish their tea.

The painting of Jesus and his Mum playing with some wool doesn't stay at the Duke's Castle any more. It has gone to live at a big Museum with laser beams and guard dogs (probably) - where it will be nice and safe. And the mysterious people and their clever lawyers have gone to court, where a serious judge and fifteen nervous jurors have to decide whether they should go to jail for a very long time.

Even though, as the clever lawyer's clever lawyer (Donald Findlay QC) says, there was "Nothing covert, nothing secretive, nothing, on the face of it, underhand about this at all."

According to Wikipedia, the painting of Jesus and his Mum playing with some wool is called The Madonna of the Yarnwinder (Madonna dei Fusi). It depicts the Virgin Mary with the Christ child, who looks longingly at a yarnwinder which the Virgin could use to measure off yarn. The yarnwinder serves as a symbol both of Mary's domesticity and the Cross on which Christ was crucified, and may also suggest the Fates, understood in classical mythology as spinners.

Compensate Me for Living in Inverness

2010-03-04T00:17:00.003Z

A Scottish businessman's ex-lover has claimed £500K compensation from him for having to live in the Highlands.

The red-tops in Scotland today were full of the tale of the high-value "divorce" between Julie Anne Zelent and former Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC Chair Alan Savage.

Although they were never married (she says they discussed tying the knot, he denies this) family law is now such that cohabiting partners can claim a financial settlement if sharing bed and table doesn't work out as planned. So, Ms. Zelent is suing her former lover for damages, including the costs to her - she claims - of having to live in Inverness. These include the job she quit to move there and other "economic disadvantage".

Still, it could have been much, much worse. Imagine how much she could have sued for if she'd had to move to Coatbridge!

Ex wants £500000 ... for living in Inverness The Sun, 3 March 2010;
Tycoon sued by former lover for £500k for 'cost of moving to Scotland' Daily Record, 3 March 2010.

A Welsh Man in The Scotsman

2010-03-01T23:17:00.005Z

Look at me! Look at me! I'm in the Scotsman, and on St. David's Day as well - how ironic.

In case you're wondering why I'm not quoted, it's because I forgot to phone the journalist back until he'd gone on holiday! So the following has been cribbed directly from our website, I think.

" Mr Nisbet is a partner at GLC and head of its national Education Law Unit, which he set up in 2002 soon after joining GLC. He acts for parents and pupils in education cases involving discrimination or additional support needs, but also offers training or advice on all aspects of education law to education bodies and schools. "

PS. Just realised that the heading is richer in innuendo than I had intended. No matter - you know what I meant!

Motorist Snot Guilty

2010-02-27T23:31:00.003Z

I see from a number of blogs (mostly from India, for some reason) Michael Mancini has evaded justice.

As you may remember, Mr. Mancini was the motorist issue with a £60 fixed penalty notice for not being in control of his vehicle while blowing his nose in a traffic jam. Outraged, he refused to pay.

He was prepared to face the judgement of the court but prosecutors in Ayrshire decided to take no further action. He is quoted as saying "I'm relieved it's now all behind me and I've cleared my name. I was determined to fight this and go to court because I know I did nothing wrong,"

It was also reported that the police officer who issued out the notice has earned the nickname "PC Shiny Buttons" for his over-zalous approach to policing. This is the same man, apparently, who last year issued a £50 fixed penalty to a man who accidentally dropped a £10 note in the street.

Of course, that guy's not my favourite policeman. No, that would be these guys ...

Independent Scotland would be part of EU

2010-02-23T23:16:00.003Z

At the same time as the Scottish Government were revealed to have plans to set up a special body to run a future referendum on independence (thus bypassing the Electoral Commission), an interesting legal opinion has been released on an independent Scotland's place in the European Union.

According to the Barcelona Reporter, the unnamed professor from Stanford University opines that as the EU Treaties do not explicitly provide for "internal expansion" caused by the cecession of territories within Member States, "the rules of customary international law" would apply.

Therefore, the report indicates, such new States (e.g. Catalunya; or Scotland) would not require to apply for membership of the EU, but simply to ask for recognition of their new status.

The report even lays out ways in which the fledging States could make straight a highway to internal expansion: i.e. preparing the "founding documents" that is, a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution; and submission to the European Court of Arbitration.

Scotland's approach to hate crime law

2010-02-17T21:25:00.003Z

I note that October's edition of the Safer Communities journal has an interesting article called "Scotland's approach to hate crime law."

The abstract reads as follows:

Hate crime law and the criminal justice system in Scotland are different and distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom. This article presents an overview of the development of hate crime legislation in the country, including: racist hate crime; religious prejudice statutory aggravation covered by section 74 in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 and dealing with Protestant/Catholic sectarianism; and the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009, relating to offences motivated by malice and ill will on grounds of disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity, the coverage of the last being unique in Europe. The legislation was enacted after lengthy consultations and achieving a broad consensus. It was agreed that a statutory aggravation of motivation by prejudice was not the appropriate way to deal with age related and gender based crimes and more work was needed. Scotland has not extended the offence of stirring up racial hatred to other forms of hatred. Compared to England and Wales, hate crime prosecution rates are significantly higher in Scotland, and the number of racially aggravated charges, per population, are four times higher. To what extent this is due to more crime, more reporting or a different approach to dealing with crime is not yet determined. The country's proactive approach to dealing with race and religion hate crime was to be extended to disability, sexual orientation and transgender soon after the legislation was enacted.

I tend to think that this approach to crime is prone to difficulties as inevitably more and more categories are added to the list of aggravations. What about gender? Or age? Or social class? Shouldn't we be stamping out these hate crimes too? And if the list is too long then all offences end up being aggravated and, therefore, none of them are. To quote W.S. Gilbert from The Gondoliers "When everybody's somebody - then no-one's anybody."

Prohibition Proposed

2010-02-17T20:48:00.005Z

Fergus Ewing MSP, Community Safety Minister has written to the UK Government suggesting a radical rethink of Britain's drug laws. Concerns raised by the increasing use of mephedrone (a plant food) as a recreational drug and other such "legal highs" have prompted the head scratching.

The current approach is to prescribe a list of banned substances. The problem being that clever folks involved in the sale of such substances can come up with new legal highs which are sometimes only slightly different to the banned drugs, and it then takes time for the law to catch up.

So, for example, it is only after reports of injury and death being linked to the use of mephedrone (or "bubbles" or "meowmeow" - so cute!) that steps are being taken to ban it under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

This, says Mr. Ewing is not a Scottish approach to things and the mens rea or "evil intent" should be criminalised instead. One possible approach is that the new definitions will criminalise the sale of anything in situations where it can be "reasonably expected" to be used as a hallucinogen or intoxicant by human beings, regardless of what its other uses are.

By the way, that definition could include caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, kava, nutmeg and some toads. And in the case of my older son, sugary orange drinks, too!

This approach concerns me. Surely, in a liberal society, the state has to make a case before banning something? I believe that Scots law is already flexible enough to prosecute if there is likely to be harm caused. Note the proposed test does not mention "harm" or "danger" anywhere. It would simply introduce a blanket ban on the sale or supply of any hallucinogen or intoxicant no matter how mild or innocuous.

The infamous case of Khaliq v. HM Advocate 1984 JC 23 already establishes that "the wilful and reckless administration of a dangerous substance to another causing injury or death is a crime at common law in Scotland". The shopkeeper who sold the glue-sniffing kits in that case received three years in jail.

What's wrong with that as a legal solution? Why this insistence on banning everything that hasn't been pre-approved by a government watchdog and administered by a first-aider with a risk assessment form and disclosure cerificate?

Image from the following article: Mephedrone: The Facts.

Robert Green Arrested

2010-02-16T22:17:00.004Z

The Press and Journal have today reported the arrest of campaigner Robert Green on a charge of breach of the peace. He was on his way to distribute leaflets in Aberdeen to draw attention to the plight of Hollie Greig, a 30 year old woman with Down's Syndrome. She claims she was sexually abused as a child but, despite naming several people as having been involved, no prosecution has taken place.

The P&J article can be found here: Legal aide to Hollie's family in abuse claim appears in court. There are even more shocking allegations elsewhere on the web - try Googling "Justice for Hollie" for more.

It's the only way you'll ever leave The Slammer ...

2010-02-16T22:07:00.004Z

My new Yell.com solicitors blog post is all about the new HM Prison Low Moss, which is just down the road from where I live.

However, I will confess that in our household, the only prison we take an active interest in is HM Slammer.

What does the twitter-sphere say?

2010-02-13T11:43:00.005Z

My first tweetle (is that the right word?)! My previous post on CCTV in the workplace made such a huge impression on the Interwebs that Yancey Thomas, with his Work Privacy tweddle-feed made a link to it with this twootum.

I love twitter - maybe I should twitling too? What do you think?

Working for Big Brother?

2010-02-11T22:17:00.004Z

So, for no reason at all, I was wondering today about CCTV at work. So, I did some internet based research, and here's what I came up with.

Apparently, the Information Commissioner has published an Employment Practices Code (Data Protection), which has a whole section on workplace monitoring (Part 3). Here are some sections I have selected at random:

"where monitoring goes beyond one individual simply watching another and involves the manual recording or any automated processing of personal information, it must be done in a way that is both lawful and fair to workers."

"Monitoring may, to varying degrees, have an adverse impact on workers. It may intrude into their private lives, undermine respect for their correspondence or interfere with the relationship of mutual trust and confidence that should exist between them and their employer."

"In broad terms, what the [Data Protection] Act requires is that any adverse impact on workers is justified by the benefits to the employer and others."

"Where possible, any video or audio monitoring should be targeted at areas of particular risk and confined to areas where expectations of privacy are low. Continuous video or audio monitoring of particular individuals is only likely to be justified in rare circumstances."

There is also a CCTV Code of Practice, and again I have selected some random paragraphs:

"When you install CCTV in a workplace, such as a shop, it is likely to capture pictures of workers, even if they are not the main subject of surveillance. If the purpose of the CCTV is solely to prevent and detect crime, then you should not use it for monitoring the amount of work done or compliance with company procedures."

"Example: You suspect that your workers are making mobile phone calls during working hours, against company policy, and you consider installing CCTV cameras on their desks to monitor them throughout the day. This would be intrusive and disproportionate. Continuous monitoring should only be used in very exceptional circumstances, for example where hazardous substances are used and failure to follow procedures would pose a serious risk to life."

"Is CCTV limited to areas which workers would not expect to be private? CCTV should not be used in toilet areas or private offices."

I should add to this my own advice that it is never, ever acceptable for an employer to use CCTV footage to earn money by submitting it to You've Been Framed! - even if the footage is as funny as this:

Seven paragraphs the Government didn't want you to read ...

2010-02-10T23:58:00.004Z

So, here they are, the seven redacted paragraphs from the Binyam Mohamed case. The UK Government are now okay about them being in the public domain because the US has effectively put them in the public domain and, in any event, the courts have now told them that the information must be released. Despite Mr. Milliband's best efforts to the contrary.

The UK Government is claiming a technical victory in that the "control principle" has been upheld - i.e. where intelligence is shared with the UK by the USA (or indeed any other country) we have to promise not to tell anyone else (unless they say it's okay first). Cross our hearts and hope to die and all that.

And here are the offending 7 paragraphs from the original court decision:

It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.

vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities

Okay, so it's not exactly genital mutilation (which Mr. Mohamed also alleges took place while he was held by the US in Pakistan) but the court was quite clear that such actions would be likely to have amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The USA are signatories to the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The reference above to 1972 is to the 1972 ruling by the UK government which banned the use of hooding, stress positions and deprivation of food, noise and sleep.

Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve is quoted as saying "Today's decision is very welcome, but the paragraphs revealed are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to British complicity in torture - much more is to come."

As Foreign Secretary David Milliband told Parliament: "it's about our values as a nation. It's about what we do as well as what we say". This from the party who promised an ethical foreign policy.

Torture: Myths & Facts

More Megrahi Musings

2010-02-09T22:47:00.004Z

Yet more developments in the ongoing saga of the "Lockerbie Bomber" Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi are discussed in my Yell.com blog post: Lockerbie release criticised by Justice Committee.

With news of the justice committee's divided censure of the Justice Secretary and Judicial Watch going to court in the USA to get Lockerbie files from the FBI, it's well worth a read.

And here's the link to the Justice Committee Report SP Paper 383: The decision on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

Human Rights Confusion Predicted

2010-02-08T23:25:00.005Z

There has been much discussion here and there on the subject of Liberty's claim that introducing a new Bill of Rights to the UK would be constitutionally awkward.

As the Scotland Act and the Good Friday agreement both have the Human Rights Act 1998 "hard-wired" into them, then introducing a new standard, whether to supplement (Labour) or replace (Conservative) the HRA, would not override the devolved standards.

As the excellent Aidan O'Neill QC points out: "All major claims against the Scottish government for human rights violations have been brought on the basis of the Scotland Act since before the Human Rights Act came into force. Abolishing the Act in Britain would not stop it being used in Scotland."

The Equality and Human Rights Commission warns of the "bizarre situation where there was different set of rights in devolved matters and non-devolved matters, and people in England would have fewer rights than people in the devolved jurisdictions."

It occurs to me that if Westminster were to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, it would be straightforward enough to amend the Bill of Rights (or whatever you'd call it) to refer to that legislation rather than the HRA. That's legally no problem at all even without the consent of Holyrood, though I accept that politically such a unilateral act may provoke some measure of controversy.

Furthermore - there are very many situations in life in which the rights in Scotland are different to those in England and Wales. That's part of grown-up devolution / federalism - not "bizarre" at all.

Fiona Murphy of the Committee on the Administration of Justice is quoted as saying "There is a huge backlash against a bill of rights in Scotland." Really? I can't say I'd noticed. Although Kenny MacAskill did take a pop at the Magna Carter for being too English.

It also seems to me that most people don't have a problem with the rights themselves, just with some of the things that some sections of the popular media reprt under the heading of human rights. And with the fact that bad people (or people we're pretty sure are bad) get to have rights as well.

Perhaps the new Bill of Rights will only apply to nice people (and their pets) and then everyone will be happy. Except bad people. Who have no right to be happy anyway.

The logo used in this post is that of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Consumer Guides Promotion

2010-02-08T00:56:00.003Z

A new campaign to promote Consumer Focus Scotland's series of specialist consumer guides has been launched. The guides provide detailed information and advice on a range of issues important to consumers in Scotland, and include my very own "A-Z of Scots Education Law" now in its 3rd edition and available in all good bookshops at the bargain price of £6.99!

The promotion involves contacting key organisations and individuals and undertaking targeted advertising to raise awareness of the guides, what they offer to consumers and how they can be accessed.

Have you ever seen Dumbarton Rock?

2010-02-06T02:14:00.004Z

That august publication, the Lennox Herald, reports that the High Court will, as of 22nd February 2010 sit in Dumbarton for the first time.

The Scottish Court Service confirms that Dumbarton has been added to the High Court circuit for the West of Scotland for 2010. The plan is for the High Court to visit Dumbarton five times this year but this will "depend on demand".

Of course, as an anonymous advocate once told a colleague of mine, there's just one problem with hearing cases in Dumbarton - it's a sh**hole!

It does remind me of a joke I told at least once a day during my second year at law school, while commuting between Helensburgh and Glasgow. Have you ever seen Dumbarton Rock? No, but I've seen Auchenshuggle!

No appeal in St. Ninian's case

2010-02-04T23:29:00.005Z

According to the BBC News website, East Renfrewshire Council have decided not to appeal against Lord Uist's recent decision which ruled their admissions policy to St. Ninian's (and as a result their consultation exercise to alter the school's catchment area) unlawful.

... because they would obviously lose.

Call that job satisfaction? 'Cos I don't.

2010-02-04T22:57:00.003Z

Absolvitor is shocked, suprised and saddened to read of "bunfights", "skulduggery" and "ambition, jealousy and outrage" at the Supreme Court - all over who would be the new Justice at the country's highest court.

According to Frances Gibb at The Times (and picked up by Charon QC) all is not as it seems in the appointment of the Supreme Court's No. 12. Specifically - the circumstances in which Jonathan "brain the size of a planet" Sumption QC was first of all seen as a shoo-in for the job and, then ... not so much.

In the words of Steve H, posting a comment on Gibb's article online: "Let us have excellence at the top, not rewards for time serving at the upper staff college level."

With thanks to Harper Macleod LLP

2010-02-02T23:36:00.004Z

Just a brief note to say thanks very much to Professor Lorne Crerar and Rod McKenzie, both of Harper Macleod who, together with Bill Dunlop (another Scot) formed the independent ERC appeal committee which downgraded Lee Byrne's two match ban to a 5,000 Euro fine - leaving him free to face England on Saturday.

If I'd known Lee Byrne was in Glasgow today, I'd have offered my services to assist. I don't known anything about sports law, but I do make a nice cup of tea, and Lee used to play his rugby in Bridgend, same as cousin Gareth - so we'd have had stuff to talk about too!

Bring it on!

Tired and shagged out followin' a long squawk!

2010-02-02T23:08:00.003Z

According to UPI, a Scottish teen who threatened his granny's parrot was ordered by an Edinburgh Sheriff to buy her some chocolates by way of apology.

Stefan McKinsley, 19, pled guilty to breach of the peace on Monday 1 February 2010. His gran had called police in the early hours of Saturday morning with a complaint that her grandson was drunk and was hitting the parrot's cage.

The teen threatened the bird with violence if it did not quiet down and allow him to sleep, and was not placated even after his grandmother placed a cloth over the parrot's cage.

The precise wording of the apology is not recorded, but perhaps it went something like this?

If you don't stop squawkin' you'll be no more! You will cease to be! You'll expire and go to meet your maker! You'll be a stiff! Bereft of life, restin' in peace! You'll be pushing up the daisies! your metabolic processes will be 'istory! You'll be off the twig! You'll kick the bucket, you'll shuffle off your mortal coil, run down the curtain and join the bleedin' choir invisibile!! YOU WILL BE AN EX-PARROT!!

Was Anwar right all along?

2010-02-02T00:20:00.004Z

Don't forget to check out the latest Yell.com blog post called "Miscarriage of justice in Scottish terror case", which concerns the decision of the High Court of Justiciary sitting as an appeal court in the case of Mohammed Atif Siddique v. HM Advocate.

In brief - the appeal court has determined that not only did Lord Carloway incorrectly suggest that Aamer Anwar was guilty of contempt of court for his criticism of the jury's decision, but that he (Lord Carloway) had misdirected the jury as well. So perhaps, Mr. Anwar's criticism had some merit after all?

The case will call again later in February to allow the Crown Office to decide on a possible fresh prosecution, but in the meantime you should feel safe(r) to download the Anarchist Cookbook without fear of prosecution. Just don't try any of the recipes.

Photo courtesy of JK Davidson.

Compensation bill for NHS Scotland soars

2010-02-01T17:48:00.004Z

The latest figures for compensation in the NHS indicate that the bill for hospitals in Scotland was £26 million last year, up 80 per cent on the year before. However, half of that total was the result of just 3 high value cases.

Cabinet Secretary for Health, Nicola Sturgeon stated that the high bill was down to a lack of accountability for staff. Where mistakes occur, staff are not usually held to account - even in the case of fatalities. The Scottish Government hope that the Patients Right Bill may alleviate some of the problems once it is introduced.

Good to see that the Government are not proposing "tort reform" as a solution, as is the case in the USA.

New Model Law Centres?

2010-01-30T20:13:00.004Z

I learn, from eGovmonitor, that a new business model for law centres in England & Wales is being piloted with the South West London Law Centres (SWLLC).

Support from the Ministry of Justice, together with investment from a number of large city firms, has been developed into a joint project between government, SWLLC, the Law Centres Federation, city law firms and independent funders. The centre, which had been in financial difficulties, is now the focus of a new business model designed for more sustainable operations in law centres and other specialist advice providers.

Legal Aid Minister, Willy Bach is quoted as saying: "Law centres deliver vital civil law advice and representation to hundreds of thousand people every year across England and Wales. They are responsible for transforming people's lives, helping them stay in their homes, keep their families together and get into employment and education."

In terms of cold, hard cash the package includes £235,000 from the Ministry of Justice and £80,000 from private funders including big, shiny law firms Clifford Chance, CMS Cameron McKenna, Lovells & Simmons & Simmons.

I like the idea of large commercial firms paying towards the costs for funding law centres - but what happens if you are due to be represented by the law centre, and your landlord / employer / creditor is represented by one of the firms which help to fund it?

If the law centre is making life too difficult for their funders and opponents, does that put at risk future donations? Or if the relationship is too cosy, does that mean that clients will lose confidence in the law centre?

Watch this space, as if the pilot is a success it will surely be considered as a model north of the border before too long.