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!

Labels: criminal law, Glasgow, Scottish Court Service, Yell.com Solicitors Blog

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.

Labels: criminal law, Glasgow, law firms, News

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.

Labels: Education Law, Glasgow, News

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!

Labels: Glasgow, News, Sports Law

The latest Absolvitor offering on the Yell.com solicitors' blog is a piece which asks the question "Are pre-paid card charges legal?".

And before you ask, this is not a variation on the bank charges campaign theme. In fact, this is a more serious, potentially far more sinister issue.

As concerns rise that some pre-paid card firms are targeting poorer areas of Glasgow with their wares, the situation many benefit claimants find themselves in involves card firms skimming off an admin fee for receiving their money and another fee for releasing it through an ATM or similar. The charges vary from card to card, but if social security benefits are meant to be inalienable (which they are) then is it legal to take a cut before the claimant can get at their money?

To put it another way, if it is/was a criminal offence for someone to take your benefit book (even with your permission) receive your social security money, then take a proportion to satisfy a debt before passing the remainder on to you - then why is this okay?

Join the debate at the Govan Law Centre blog.

Labels: Glasgow, Law Centres, Yell.com Solicitors Blog

Interesting news reaches us that has lead to the licensing laws of Glasgow City Council being labelled "Sissy".

According to UPI, recent changes to licensing requirements within Glasgow, require a parent to escort children under 16 years old to the toilets in licensed establishments, including restaurants. Arguably, this would mean that a teenage boy would have to go to the ladies with his mother.

The regulation states: "While children are in any part of licensed premises and in particular the toilet areas, they must at all times be within sight of an accompanying adult."

According to the Scottish Child Law Centre, it is not against the law to leave children of any age unattended by an adult - but it is against the law to leave children in circumstances which are likely to put them in any kind of danger or risk of injury. And, as they point out, anyone under 16 is still legally a child.

So why the new rules from Glasgow? Child protection, say the Council. They are also quoted as saying they expect people to apply the rule with "a degree of common sense".

As non-compliance potentially puts a restaurateur's livlihood at stake, it might have been better to use "a degree of common sense" in drafting the conditions in the first place?

Labels: Children, Glasgow, News

Spotted on obscure blog (hey, it takes one to know one) "The Jacobite Intelligencer: Jottings of a Jacobite Antiquary" an article on "Why 'Devolution Max' is not enough", and at the foot of that article, the following:

Furthermore, few have realised that an independent Scotland would almost inevitably result in the disestablishment of that strange monster, the Church of Scotland. An independent Scottish Government would be unlikely to look with favour on the idea of an established church, especially given the growing population of Glasgow and its Catholic majority.

And my posted comment on that same point:

The Church of Scotland is not established. It is the national Church, but the Church of Scotland Act 1921 confirms its independence from the state in matters of discipline, doctrine, worship and government. The head of the Church of England is the Queen, the head of the Church of Scotland is Jesus Christ. As recently as the late 1990's, the Court of Session have confirmed this position. The Scottish Parliament (independent or not) is in no position to alter the constitutional position of the Kirk.

Strange, but true.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Ecclesiastical Law, Glasgow, Scottish Parliament

You can now read my latest Yell.com blog regarding the proposed changes by East Renfrewshire Council to the catchment area of St. Ninian's High School. The blog is titled "School catchment area division".

Which works on a number of levels, you see...

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Education Law, Glasgow, News, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament, Yell.com Solicitors Blog

You can now read my latest Yell.com blog post on Tommy Sheridan's latest day out in court.

I am particularly intrigued by the suggestion that the perjury trial could last upwards of 60 days. A hugely good use of the High Court's time, I'm sure everyone would agree.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, Defamation, Glasgow, News, Yell.com Solicitors Blog

In this poast (sic), I just wanted to bring you up to date with my latest court outing, which just so happened to be an exciting, adventurous and - above all - victorious jolly to the Sheriff-Principal in Glasgow and Strathkelvin (my first). Extra gratifying as little ol' me from Govan Law Centre was up against the might of counsel.

It was a disability discrimination case (against an independent school) and the decision says some interesting things to say about where the onus lies in terms of the reasonable steps duty (largely with the school, as it turns out). It also confirms that a failure to take reasonable steps might lead to an exclusion being overturned - even if the decision to exclude does not amount to less favourable treatment.

You can read the full judgement here: ES. v. K. School. And you can post your congratulations in the comments box below! ;o)

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Children, Discrimination, Education Law, Glasgow, Law Centres, News

If there really are 8 Jedi in Strathclyde Police, how come the crime detection and clean up rates are so low?

Also, since it is now apparently fine to declare a fictional religion to your employer, is it also okay to declare fictional racial groups too? Who's up for declaring themselves as Elvish in the next Census?

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, Glasgow, Just for Fun, News

According to BBC News, Glasgow City Council and South Ayrshire Council are facing legal action over claims they discriminate against shops which sell Buckfast Tonic Wine.

J Chandler & Co, which distributes the popular drink, said it had evidence officials in Glasgow and South Ayrshire had singled out the product. Both authorities have denied the claim and said they had always acted in accordance with licensing laws.

J Chandler & Co will seek a judicial review of the actions of both licensing boards at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Spokesman Jim Wilson, is quoted as saying: "They shouldn't be discussing or alluding to particular products, so why is Buckfast being targeted? We are taking legal action because this has got to stop."

"We know what Glasgow licensing board is up to. They're using euphemisms to refer to Buckfast and we are not prepared to let this continue. This is not sabre-rattling."

According to my extensive Internet research, one of the more popular euphamisms for Buckfast is "electric soup".

I suspect the only people who will get any "buck(s) fast" out of this will be counsel for the opposing sides!

Labels: Glasgow, News

An article from the Nearly Legal housing law blog alerts draws my attention to the imminent (well, 1st April 2009) coming into force of Section 11 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003.

This long awaited jigsaw piece of the legislation will require landlords to notify the local authority before taking action to recover a rented property. It will allow the authority (with the assistance of other agencies) to take early action to assist the tenant and prevent unnecessary homelessness.

Section 11 will put into statutory force the protocols agreed with many local social landlords in Glasgow as part of Govan Law Centre's prevention of homelessness project (POHP).

Labels: Glasgow, Law Centres, News, Scottish Parliament

The Scottish Government's recent consultation paper "The Modern Scottish Jury in Criminal Trials" has raised an interesting dilemma for Kelvin Holdsworth, the Provost of St. Mary's Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow.

He asks (as does the consultation) "whether or not you think that clergy should have an automatic right to be exempt from jury service if they wish it. Currently the law in Scotland is that clergy can be called for jury service but they have the right (as do a small number of people in other roles) to opt out if they choose."

The list of those who may opt out of jury service currently includes: members of the armed forces, MPs, MSPs, doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists and vets.

As Kelvin asks "As the court hears what you are accused of and you raise your eyes nervously towards the jury, do you want to see me, in a clerical collar perhaps, sitting there?" Well, do you?

Labels: criminal law, Glasgow, News, Scottish Government

So, other than Gavin Henson's return to first team rugby with the Ospreys, what else has caught my eye today?

Well, Mark Irvine of Action 4 Equality has discovered that the cost to Glasgow City Council of all the "independent" lawyers advising equal pay claimants on their compromise agreements back in 2005 was a hefty £347,477.76 - quite a pay packet. Fortunately, the Council made doubly sure that they were paying the female lawyers the same rate as their male colleagues.

I also came across an equal pay campaign initiated by the Conservative party (sic) which reveals that over a lifetime the cost of being female in lost wages alone is £300,000! (And that's before you add in the price of killer heels and matching handbag for the interview.) The campaign's slogan, "Women - Like men, only cheaper." is a good one in that it's not at all open to misinterpretation or innuendo.

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, Glasgow, Tax

The Scottish Ministers have decided (on 3rd September) not to call in an application by Go Ape! to build an adventure playground in Pollok Park and have sent it back to Glasgow City Council. The volume of objections is not technically allowable as a reason to review the planning decision - so campaigners are now at the stage of challenging the Council's legal competence to grant a lease at all.

Campaigners argue that the Council had no legal right to approve in principle a lease for Go Ape! in Feb 2007 and the Councillors were misinformed at the Committee which did this.

A solicitor on behalf of Save Pollok Park wrote in April 2008 to the City Council, reminding them that the disposition of Pollok to the Council prohibits developments such as Go Ape! without the agreement of the National Trust for Scotland and the Maxwell family.

It has further been argued that Pollok falls within the definition of "Common Good" and that the Council has failed so far to place it on the Common Good register.

Labels: Environmental Law, Glasgow, News, Scottish Government