A quick update of Mr. Matheson's case. I learn from The Metro this morning that Mr. Matheson, the former Head of Hermitage Academy, has been struck off as a teacher for pockling money given by the ice cream van for renting space in the playground.

Labels: Education Law, News

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.

Labels: Education Law, News

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

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.

Labels: Family Law, News

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!

Labels: Law Centres, News

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 ...

Labels: criminal law, Just for Fun, News

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.

Labels: criminal law, News, Scottish Government

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.

Labels: Children, criminal law, Defamation, News

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

Labels: Human Rights, News

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

Labels: criminal law, Freedom of Information, News, Yell.com Solicitors Blog

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.

Labels: Human Rights, News

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!

Labels: criminal law, News, Scottish Court Service

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

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!!

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

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.

Labels: criminal law, Edinburgh, News, Yell.com Solicitors Blog

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.

Labels: News, Scottish Government

Howls of protest from the Scottish Grocers' Federation on the passing by the Scottish Parliament of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill.

The Bill will do some very exciting things. Specifically it will soon be a criminal offence:

• for a shop to sell cigarettes to anyone under the age of 18;
• for an adult to buy cigarettes on behalf of anyone under the age of 18; and
• for anyone under the age of 18 to buy (or attempt to buy) cigarettes.

Obviously, all of this applies to cigars, rolling tobacco etc. too.

Given that the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is still 8, that could be some very young children saving up their pocket money to pay fines!

As part of the same drive to cut down on under-age smoking (still a big problem in Scotland - especially among girls), cigarette vending machines will be banned - as will displays of cigarettes in shops. All cigarette sales will in future be " under the counter".

Which is where the retailers have a problem. They want to keep their ciggies on display - there was even a petition in my local SPAR (which I did not sign). The small shops worry that it will affect sales.

Given that the legislation is designed to stop people smoking, it is a reasonable expectation that the number of cigarettes sold will diminish. The grocers are quoted as saying "SGF agrees with the Scottish Government that young people should not smoke and should be actively discouraged from doing so." - so long as it doesn't affect sales.

But the gloomy outlook may not be necessary - perhaps the money teens save by not buying cigarettes, they will simply spend on other products sold by small retailers like high-energy caffeine drinks; magazines with lots of pictures; and 5p plastic forks from the Chinese take-away.

Labels: Children, criminal law, News, Scottish Parliament

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

Professor Neil Walker of the University of Edinburgh today (22 Jan 2010) published his report to the Scottish Government on the position of the new (UK) Supreme Court within the context of the current constitutional settlement (in Scotland).

As you know, the current position is that in civil cases, a right of appeal lies from the Inner House of the Court of Session to the Supreme Court. In criminal matters, the High Court of Justiciary (sitting in an appellate capacity) is the final court of appeal. Unless there is a "devolution matter" raised (usually a human rights point), in which case the Supreme Court will take a look. Happy so far? Good.

It is also worth noting that civil appeals to the Supreme Court from the Court of Session do not require leave to appeal (from either Court) - unlike in England & Wales.

So, Prof. Walker (ably assisted by a select steering group comprising Sir David Edward, David Johnston QC and Prof. Tom Mullen) has now delivered his view on appeals to the Supreme Court concluding as follows:

1. If Scotland were to become independent, then the judicial system should also be independent, with all cases being determined in Scots courts and no further appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Under current arrangements (devolution), then in cases (civil or criminal) involving only devolved issues - the Court of Session / High Court should be the final stage of appeal. However in cases (civil or criminal) which involve a reserved matter (e.g. employment law or tax fraud) then a final appeal should lie to the Supreme Court.

I happened to share a train back from Edinburgh today with one of the steering group, who was kind enough to share his thoughts on some of the implications. For what it's worth, I share the view that if Scotland became an independent country, then rights of appeal to the Supreme Court should cease altogether. If we're leaving home, then those apron strings must be cut too (is that the correct expression?).

The proposals for the devolution (or "devo-max") scenario would involve a decrease in the number of Scottish civil cases being heard by the Supreme Court, but an increase in the numbers of criminal cases. Such changes would also require to be enacted (at least in part) by the Westminster Parliament, rather than by Holyrood alone.

The prohibition in the Act of Union 1707 that "no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-hall;" (Article 19) has presumably been overcome now that the Supreme Court has moved across the street to Parliament Square?

Labels: criminal law, Inner House, News, Scottish Government, UK Supreme Court

Don't forget to check out my latest Yell.com blawg post for all the latest developments in the unfolding saga of the minimum class sizes rules.

You can read all about it here: Primary school maths.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

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

Oh dear. A valuable painting by Scottish watercolourist Tom Scott has been stolen from the Signet Library, home of the WS Society.

The painting, "I Cannae Hear Ye" is thought to have been taken over the Christmas holiday period from its home in Parliament Square off the Royal Mile in Edinburgh.

The library hosted a New Year party for approx. 200 people and some time between then and 5 January, the watercolour (worth up to £4,000) went missing.

Lothian and Borders Police are quoted as saying: "This has been an opportunistic theft of a relatively expensive piece of artwork, and we are eager to ensure it is returned to the library."

According to Wikipedia, Tom Scott (1854-1927) was born in Selkirk. Known as the "Borders Painter", his historical paintings reflect his lifelong interest in the archaeology and history of the area. His highly accomplished work is mainly depictions of the landscapes of Southern Scotland, and illustrative tableaux derived from local Legend and story.

Drawing from both the Arts and Crafts movement and the work of the Romantic School, he is however, little known outside of Scotland, where he has a loyal (but not necessarily honest) following.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, Edinburgh, News

A 600 member strong London Church won its legal battle this week against Lambeth Borough Council in a last minute out of court settlement.

The All Nations Centre in Kennington was served by Lambeth Council with a noise abatement notice on 25 September 2009, preventing the Church from amplifying their music or sermons to the congregation on threat of prosecution.

Although the Church has been at its current location for over 45 years, a small number of residents began complaining to the Council about noise levels shortly after the Church began a leaflet drop in the local community. A noise abatement notice was then served against the Church in September without any warning or discussion.

Church leaders believed the timing of the notice and the procedural irregularities meant that there were motives involved in the case. In October 2009, senior Pastor Abraham Sackey said: "The complaint has nothing to do with the noise and everything to do with our faith. Lambeth Council are driving us out and we feel harassed."

The Church sought the advice of the Christian Legal Centre. The All Nations Centre decided to go to court with the help of the Christian Legal Centre in order to appeal the notice issued against them but at the last minute the notice was withdrawn.

CLC has noted the increasing use of Noise Abatement Notices being used to effectively to categorise worship or the singing of hymns as Noise Pollution.

Local MP Kate Hoey has backed the Church throughout. In December 2009 she said:

"They have been serving the local community for many years, consistently helping to improve the quality of life and overall well-being of people within the local community ... It was therefore with a mixture of surprise and concern that I learned that they were served with a noise abatement notice."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Discrimination, News

On Wednesday, The Times reported that a certain Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi had gone missing - prompting outrage from politicians in Scotland and the United States.

One of the conditions of his release on compassionate grounds was that he stay in touch with the authorities in Scotland after his release. He is, after all, not (strictly speaking) a free man. And, in the words of The Examiner, "Libya just isn't one of those countries where the authorities don't know where people are."

Contrary to the impression given by some commentators it was not a condition of realease that he actually die of prostate cancer within three months - but the coming and going of those 90 days have been noted on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

In any event, it all turned out to be a false alarm and the hard working social work officials from East Renfrewshire Council have managed to track him down. Good job!

Maybe we should let them take a crack at finding Bin Laden next?

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, News

Westlaw Business and the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB) have announced their agreement to provide global business law professionals with IFSB's unique direction on Sharia law within the Westlaw Business Islamic Finance Centre.

The IFSB is an international standard-setting organization that issues global prudential standards and guiding principles for the industry, which includes banking, capital markets and insurance sectors. It also conducts research and coordinates initiatives on industry-related issues.

"Structuring capital transactions to be compliant with Sharia law requires current and authoritative information," said Mazen Zein, product manager, Westlaw Business.

"Our agreement with IFSB enables us to provide their invaluable insights on Islamic Sharia law and regulations to our customers worldwide. Business law practitioners need to understand the developments and issues within the Islamic finance industry. Together, Westlaw Business and IFSB will further the availability and understanding of this information, ultimately increasing the transparency of the Islamic finance industry."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: News

Breaking news from the Christian Legal Centre:

The deadline for Alison Davis to challenge the House of Lords' decision is today. Alison Davis's challenge claims that Lord Phillips, senior Law Lord at the time and now President of the Supreme Court was biased in favour of assisted suicide when he and the other four Law Lords made the decision that the law on assisted suicide was "unclear" and required offence-specific guidance for prosecutors concerned with deciding whether to prosecute a suspect for assisting the suicide of another person. Miss Davis's evidence centres on Lord Phillips' comments in The Daily Telegraph on 10th September 2009, in which he expressed "enormous sympathy" for terminally-ill patients who want to commit suicide, but need assistance to do so.

Lord Phillips said in his interview with The Daily Telegraph: "I have enormous sympathy with anyone who finds themselves facing a quite hideous termination of their life as a result of one of these horrible diseases, in deciding they would prefer to end their life more swiftly and avoid that death as well as avoiding the pain and distress that might cause their relatives."

Alison Davis of No Less Human will present a petition arguing that Lord Phillips' personal sympathy invalidates the House of Lords' last decision, in the same way that Lord Hoffman's links to Amnesty International did when he gave a judgment in the case regarding the immunity from prosecution of General Augusto Pinochet of Chile. The legal challenge states that the Purdy ruling is "vitiated by the principle of apparent bias", and that "the decision of the former House of Lords is 'unconstitutional' and usurps the powers of Parliament". It calls for the Supreme Court to be convened "to reconsider and hear fresh argument on the case of Purdy". The argument continues: "the expression of the private 'political' view of Lord Phillips in The Daily Telegraph after the judgement clearly raises a question in the minds of reasonable and informed people of apparent bias".

Miss Davis, a wheelchair user with spina bifida, hydrocephalus, emphysema, osteoporosis and arthritis, wrote a letter to accompany her case papers. She said: "The DPP's guidelines are unfair, unjust, and fatally discriminatory against suffering people, who deserve the same presumption in favour of life as any able bodied person would automatically receive. They have no place in a civilised society."

Campaigners, argue that Lord Phillips' personal sympathy for those who wanted to commit suicide means that the proposed interim prosecution policy should not be finalised. The changes made by the interim policy could make it easier for people to coerce their family members, friends or the people for whom they care into killing themselves.

The Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, has already indicated that no similar guidance will be issued in Scotland, stating that "The Crown recognises the importance of this issue, but any change in the current law related to homicide is properly a matter for the Scottish Parliament."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, House of Lords, Law and Ethics, News, Scottish Parliament, UK Supreme Court

Good news, you can now read my most recent Yell.com blog post on the weighty topic of Scotland's constitutional future.

It was written in light of the Scottish Government's new white paper "Your Scotland, Your Voice", which is in no way a dig at any opposition parties.

The blog post is called "How many referendums does it take to change a constitution?" - which is a clever play on the ol' "How many [whatever]s does it take to change a lightbulb?" joke. Here are a few of my favourites, feel free to add your own...

• How many politicians does it take to change a lightbulb? - None. They only promise change.
• How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb? - None. The seeds of revolution and change are within the lightbulb itself.
• How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb? - Just one. But the bulb has to really WANT to change.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

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

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

The most recent edition of Chambers UK was launched on 11 November 2009. Chambers is the leading directory of the legal profession.

I am pleased to report that I'm in it! I'm listed under "Other Notable Practitioners" in the Education Law (Individuals) category - Band 3.

According to the guide, "New table entrant Iain Nisbet of Govan Law Centre draws client praise for his understanding and handling of the local authorities."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Education Law, Law Centres, News

Good news! You can now read my most recent Yell.com blog post, which is all about Lord McCluskey's recent views in favour of the legalisation of heroin and other drugs. He calls for heroin to be provided for addicts for free on prescription, thus eliminating the criminal market.

Warning - this blog post is highly addictive.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

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

Scotland's newest law centre, Fife Law Centre, officially opens its doors for business tomorrow, meeting the unmet legal needs of the good people of the Kingdom of Fife.

The launch, in Kirkcaldy, will be attended by Principal Solicitor Afshan Rathore; Elish Angiolini QC the Lord Advocate; and Derek O'Carroll, Advocate.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Events, Law Centres, News

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

An additional support needs unit at a school on Skye is to be investigated by HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) following complaints from parents, backed by Govan Law Centre.

Allegations include claims that one pupil was forced to do excessive levels of physical exercise, contrary to medical advice and that another was left to soil himself and then changed in a play area that was not designed for this purpose.

Parents of three children attending the unit at Portree High School contacted Govan Law Centre, which notified the Scottish Government through a statutory complaints mechanism. The Scottish Government has asked HMIE to visit the school to investigate the claims.

Solicitor Iain Nisbet felt the nature of the complaints was such that they should be referred to the Scottish Government.

He welcomed the action taken by ministers. "The legislation allows Scottish ministers to investigate and intervene in cases where there has been any breach of education law,".

"Because we had been approached by a number of parents from the same school, we felt it was appropriate to alert the Scottish Government to these ongoing concerns.

"I am very pleased to see the prompt and effective response of the government and will await the report by HMIE with interest."

A government spokesperson said: "Ministers have asked HMIE to visit the Portree High School special needs unit following concerns raised through the Govan Law Centre."

• Claims of neglect trigger inquiry at special needs unit The Herald, 19 Oct 2009;
• Special needs unit to be probed BBC News, 19 Oct 2009.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Children, Discrimination, Education Law, Law Centres, News, Scottish Government

You can now read my latest Yell.com blog post on EC law and minimum pricing plans for alcohol.

Enjoy (but in moderation)!

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: European Law, News, Scottish Government, Yell.com Solicitors Blog

Following a suggestion by Prof. Dirk J. Vandewalle that they had been leaned on to deliver a conviction, three of Scotland's most senior judges: Lords Sutherland, Coulsfield and MacClean have taken the unusual step of writing a letter to the New York Times in which they deny that they were ever "under any pressure to return any particular verdict" in the Lockerbie Trial.

Isn't it still a criminal offence to murmur a judge?

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, News, Scottish Court Service

Local pressure group, Communities Opposed to New Coal at Hunterston (or CONCH) are to launch a legal challenge to plans for a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston. The judicial review of the plans is to be brought on the grounds that the Scottish Government have not consulted the public according to standards required by European law and that assessments that were carried out did not adequately examine alternatives to a coal-fired power station.

The campaigners claim that the Scottish Government have failed to comply with their obligations under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the European Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42).

Maggie Kelly, of CONCH and a local resident, said: "The proposed power station would have a devastating impact on our community, damaging our health, our livelihoods and destroying the local environment. It would also mean unnecessary and damaging increases in Scotland's CO2 emissions leading to further climate chaos which will affect us all: across Scotland and globally. Yet under the National Planning Framework, we have been denied the opportunity to object to this major development."

Hunterston coal fired power station was a late addition to the Scottish Government's National Planning Framework (NPF) and was first mentioned four months after the main consultation was closed. As a result the public were unaware that this major development was proposed until it was too late to comment. Once developments are named in the NPF it is almost impossible for people to object to them. People can influence details such as the design and landscaping when the application goes in, but basically the presumption is that the development will go ahead.

According to The Guardian the campaigners are to be represented by the Environmental Law Centre Scotland Limited, who appear to be hosted by Jon Kiddie's Renfrewshire Law Centre (the law centre formerly known as Paisley) and about which I know nothing else.

Still, the fight seems a good one and therefore, good luck to all concerned.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Environmental Law, European Law, Law Centres, News, Scottish Government

Congratulations to Govan Law Centre on winning the prestigious Chairman's Award at the Law Awards of Scotland 2009.

If you look very carefully through the picture gallery on the Awards website, you may find a pic of me, strutting my stuff on the dance floor at the party afterwards!

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Law Centres, News

The World Prison Brief from King's College London was released yesterday (you can read about Scotland's prison stats here) and was the subject of much discussion in the news.

As report cards go, it didn't make happy reading, according to the commentators. Our official incarceration levels have now overtaken even Turkey, to put us at the top of the Western European league table for banging people up (at last, something we excel at!). Actually Spain and Jersey lock up more people, but most of those are foreigners. Scotland leads the way in locking its own citizens away.

All of the commentary I have seen (e.g. this article in the Scotsman) decries this as bad news. An "international embarrassment" even. Rising numbers in prison, despite falling crime rates.

Okay, just pause a minute and consider that last sentence. Rising prison numbers, despite falling crime rates. Of course, there is another way of looking at those same facts. How about: crime rates falling as a result of rising prison numbers?

Maybe, just maybe, locking more people up prevents more crime? If you are in jail, you cannot commit more crime - and perhaps you being behind bars deters your friends and neighbours from following your path into a life of crime.

If so, the current ideas to stop putting people in jail and let them do community based disposals instead seems like a risky move. And I'm not just blindly speculating - a bit of careful internet-based research led me to an academic paper: "The Effect of Prison Population Size on Crime Rates: Evidence from Prison Overcrowding Litigation" by Steven D. Levitt of Freakonomics fame.

It's a little bit wordy and complex, but as far as I can work out the conclusions are as follows:

• increased prison populations appear to substantially reduce crime;
• the marginal costs of incarceration are at or below the accompanying social benefits of crime reduction;
• incarcerating one additional prisoner reduces the number of crimes by approximately fifteen per year.

The paper also suggests that, where feasible, rehabilitation or prevention are preferable to imprisonment (both from a cost-benefit and humanitarian point of view) but it is concerning that the policy debate in Scotland begins from a standpoint that prison "isn't working" when a proper consideration indicates that (at least in terms of crime reduction) it is probably working very well indeed, thanks very much.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, News, Scottish Government

The Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini Q.C. has asked appeal judges to increase the minimum jail terms which must be served by murderers, which would see the worst offenders receiving "rest of life" sentences.

The Crown has taken the cases of three men convicted of murder to the Court of Criminal Appeal, claiming that the sentences they received were "unduly lenient".

At present, anyone convicted of murder receives a life sentence, but the sentencing judge must set a period - the "punishment part" - which must be served before the killer can be considered for parole. This system was introduced following the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights and informs the murderer of the minimum time he or she must serve in jail.

Angiolini told the court that an appeal case in 2002 had led to an understanding that the range of punishment parts available to reflect the seriousness of the crime was "a relatively compressed scale from 12 years to 30 years". In that case, the murderer, who shot three people, had his minimum term reduced from 30 years to 27.

She continued: "As lord advocate I consider that is inadequate to reflect the wide range of conduct which may amount to murder and fails to reflect adequately the exceptionally serious cases of murder, particularly those involving multiple victims, terrorism or persistent sexual violence against vulnerable adults or children.

"I am asking the court to consider issuing a guideline opinion which will recognise that 30 years is not the absolute maximum punishment part and recognises explicitly that in some exceptional cases a punishment part which exceeds the natural life expectancy may be appropriate."

This has been widely reported as a desire on the part of Scotland's senior prosecutor to see killers "rot in jail" or for life to mean life in the most serious cases.

In England, the worst cases of murder can already attract "whole life" orders.

The close proximity in timing with the Megrahi case invites the impartial observer to draw parallels between the two. Of course, the Lord Advocate had lodged her own appeal against Megrahi's sentence for undue leniency - an appeal which was subsequently withdrawn as academic following his compassionate release.

Although she did not put it in quite this way, the headlines have it that Angiolini has specifically demanded: "Let worst killers die in prison" (BBC News). And in giving examples of the types of cases which may attract the longest sentences, she specifically listed "those involving multiple victims" and "terrorism".

Is this co-incidence or is the Lord Advocate telling us what she really thinks of Kenny MacKaskill's decision?

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, News

A survey by RNID Scotland found that only a fifth of venues in the Edinburgh Fringe provided induction loops for audiences.

RNID Scotland found only a fifth of venues surveyed provided induction loops for audiences. The equipment, which amplifies speech over background noise, is essential to help hearing-aid users access information about the shows and fully enjoy the performances. The charity is now calling on the Edinburgh Fringe organisers to improve provision for deaf and hard-of-hearing people before next year's events.

Director of RNID Scotland, Delia Henry, said: "The Edinburgh Festival is a wonderful event that should be enjoyed by as many people as possible. We think that the organisers and festival customers will be disappointed to learn that there are barriers to accessing shows because induction loops are not available at the box offices and at 76% of the venues we surveyed.

"We're hoping to work with organisers and individual venues to make sure that hearing aid users have a better experience next year."

Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 requires service providers to make "reasonable adjustments" to allow disabled people to access a service. It means that shows who do not provide facilities for those who are deaf could leave themselves open to legal action.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Discrimination, Edinburgh, News

South of Scotland MSP Alasdair Morgan has written to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill calling for alterations to new drinks laws which are set to come into force on Tuesday.

As the Galloway News reports, soaring costs and bureaucracy have been blamed for almost 30 per cent of Stewartry outlets not bothering to apply for a new license. The average drop out figure in the region stands at 22 per cent.

Mr Morgan, is quoted as saying: "One of the basic principles of the 2005 Act was to tackle the irresponsible sale of cheap alcohol.

"[However] Anti-social behaviour in the Stewartry ... is not fuelled by small amounts of alcohol sold in B&Bs and gift shops.

"The number of people who are not applying for a new license is having a direct impact both on their own businesses and on the high quality local products they previously were suppliers for. This was never the intention of the legislation.

Huge cost increases and red tape that, for example, requires everyone selling alcohol to have undergone a training programme, have been highlighted.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: News, Scottish Government

Scottish Ministers have delayed plans to reform the children's hearing system in following concerns over the proposals, which led to some current children's panel members threatening to resign over the proposals.

The Scottish Government's plans include the creation of a new national body - the Scottish Children's Hearings Tribunal. The new Tribunal structure would cover the 32 local panels and be responsible for training and recruitment nationally.

Cabinet Secretary for Education, Fiona Hyslop MSP, is quoted by the BBC News website as saying "We are seeking to strengthen that system and protect it from the increasing threat of legal challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights."

A revised Children's Hearings Bill is now expected to be laid before the Scottish Parliament early in 2010.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Children, Human Rights, News, Scottish Government

I noticed a letter in the Financial Times, pointing out that they had in error stated that "Scotland has had a separate legal system and prison service since 1999"

In fact, as our correspondent points out "the Scottish legal system and prison service have never, before, during and after the 1707 Union, been other than 'separate' from those of England." Quite so.

The conclusion drawn from this is that even without devolution the decision on whether to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Meghrahi on compassionate grounds under the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 would have been taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland and not by a UK Justice Minister or Home Secretary.

The letter's author is one James McLean of Edinburgh. I wonder if he is any relation to James McLean, IT/IP expert and partner at Burness LLP?

Posted on Absolvitor.: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, Edinburgh, law firms, News, Scottish Government

Eighteen year old Keeley Houghton has become the UK's first cyber-bully to be jailed for bullying via a social networking site. She posted death threats on her Facebook page that she would kill Emily Moore, also 18, who she had bullied since they were at school together.

She was sentenced to three months in a Young Offender's Institution, having pled guilty to harassment. She was also issued with a restraining order banning her from any contact (of any sort) with her victim.

On 12 July 2009, Houghton wrote on her Facebook site: "Keeley is going to murder the bitch. She is an actress. What a fucking liberty. Emily Fuckhead Moore."

The sentence may seem a little on the short side, especially when you consider that Keely had two previous convictions: in 2005, for assaulting Emily as she walked home from school; and in 2003, for causing criminal damage to her home by kicking her front door.

When it comes to issuing death threats it seems that it is better to do so by Facebook (3 months) than by good ol' fashioned letter (9 months). Other innovative ways of delivering death threats have included:

• postcard in a Bible;
• in open court, before a judge and jury; and
• by text message, to yourself.

Posted to Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, News

Back from my holidays and Perth Sheriff Court and just reading this article in The Herald about Consumer Focus Scotland's findings on how user-unfriendly the courts are.

The findings were that the "dearth of information" people received before and during their case "appears to heighten their levels of fear and anxiety". And that therefore, party litigants should be allowed to bring "Mackenzie friends" with them to court.

I find it slightly strange that Parliament (which as the source of legislation must bear some of the responsibility for any complexities which arise in interpreting it, surely?) is being asked to solve the problem of non-lawyers finding court too complex by ... um ... sending more non-lawyers into court! Is it just me, or am I missing something?

If Court is too complex or imposing or whatever for non-lawyers to access effectively, then surely, obviously, the answer is either:

1. reform the system completely, so that it is accessible to everyone (having all cases decided by user-friendly "Justice Tribunals" or somesuch); or
2. make sure that everyone can have access to a lawyer (more Legal Aid, or more Law Centres, perhaps?).

Perhaps I am indeed missing something. Maybe my Mackenzie friend can explain it to me.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Law Centres, News, Scottish Parliament

This snippet from the Belfast Telegraph caught my eye: "In Scotland, there are courts where Gàidhlig can be heard every day."

Really? Certainly the Scottish Courts Service has a small collection of information leaflets available in Gàidhlig, but is it heard? And every day?

Which of our Sheriffs is dispensing justice in the language of the Gaels? I'd like to know.

This article in The Scotsman suggests that it was only in 2005 that a lawyer first used Gaelic in court, and that with special permission from the Sheriff to mark the Mod. It goes on to note that it is it was now "possible" to use Gaelic in the sheriff courts of Stornoway, Portree and Lochmaddy - following the ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Gaelic, News

I note from the Greenock Telegraph that the partners from Lyons Laing have both been suspended from practice by the Law Society of Scotland following heavy fines imposed earlier by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal in February for breaches of accounting rules.

Tssk. And indeed, tssk.

Clients of the firm are advised to contact the firm's judicial factors or the Law Society.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: law firms, News

Brodies LLP reveal on their website the latest in their attempts (on behalf of the insurance industry) to have the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 struck down by the courts as outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

As their article correctly points out "An Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP) is not law to the extent that it is outside that competence. ... If an ASP is claimed to be outside the legislative competence of the Parliament this amounts to a devolution issue."

What the article does not explain is why it should be outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament to decide that exposing someone to asbestos so that abnormal growths appear on the lining of their lungs should be financially compensated. The industry reply that "pleural plaques are a good thing". Even if that's true, so what? Paying statutory damages where there's no harm or damage is hardly without precedent (I can think of some examples in employment law).

So, pay up and shut up!

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: News, Scottish Parliament

An article in the Times Educational Supplement reports that a court in Germany has ruled that schoolchildren may rate their teachers online.

The Court rejected the case of a woman who argued that her pupils had infringed her rights by giving her poor grades on the popular site spickmich.de. The German Federal Court of Justice found that pupils had the right to offer their opinions so long as their teachers were not hindered professionally.

Similar controversy (though, to my knowledge, no litigation) has followed sites such as RateMyTeachers in the UK with teachers complaining about unfavourable comments from pupils.

To my mind (outside the ordinary laws of defamation) there is absolutely no reason why teachers should not be subject to pupil evaluation on the web. After all, pupils' views are now sought as an integral part of HMIe school inspection reports - which are reported online too.

Maybe it's time for a RateMyLawyer website? Or is that why we have Chambers and Legal 500?

Labels: Children, Defamation, Education Law, News, Privacy

From the good offices of NO2ID, the following.

"The ID scheme has not been shelved, cancelled, or even significantly changed.

"Once more government spin has triumphed and much of the media has got it wrong. The new Home Secretary Alan Johnson has not made any significant changes to the scheme. Compulsion by stealth is still the order of the day, just as it always was. Someone joining the ID scheme "voluntarily" will still be placing control of their identity in the hands of the IPS for life.

"The Home Office line remains the same. No compulsion (as the Home Office defines it) was going to be applied until almost everyone had "volunteered" and then it was only a matter of rounding up a minority of resisters and marginalised people.

"The Home Office's idea of "voluntary" is not the same as yours and mine. Since 2004 the scheme was (and it still is) to proceed by "designating" one-by-one under the Identity Cards Act 2006 other documents issued by official bodies -- in the first place passports.

" Once a document has been designated, you won't be able to apply for one without also applying to be entered, for life, on the national identity register. If you don't agree to be registered it won't be that you are refused (say) a passport; you'd have voluntarily decided not to apply. There's no compulsion to have a passport. It is useful for travelling. But you aren't compelled to travel.

"Or (say) to drive. Or to work as a security guard. Or with children. Or in healthcare. To get parole from prison. To practice as a lawyer. ... Any official licence, registration certificate or permit can be designated, and -- in the home office's skewed logic -- handing control of your identity to the Home Office's Identity and Passport Service will still be entirely voluntary.

"That they were due for a confrontation with the airside worker's unions over designating new passes at Manchester and City Airports is an illustration of just how voluntary "voluntary" really is. But the fact they have now ducked that fight for political convenience suggests saying no does work - if you say it loudly enough."

"It is still not too late for MPs to derail the scheme by repudiating the regulations due to be debated next week and detailed in the last newsletter. Only one of those statutory instruments has been dropped. If you have not done so already, please contact your MP: www.writetothem.com.

"(NO2ID's lobbying guide, written for us by the former assistant of a very distinguished retired minister, is brusque but absolutely to the point: http://www.no2id.net/downloads/print/NO2ID-HowtoLobby.pdf).

"Peers will also have a vote on this; so if you happen to know one (or be one), then it would be a good idea to alert friends in the Lords now that the matter is soon to come up."

Since when can you make one right (to privacy from the State) dependent on surrendering another (the write to travel freely) and still call it a voluntary scheme.

No to ID.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: News, Privacy

More Primary School Maths, I'm afraid. I was also on Breakfast TV this morning with this (tho' I missed it and can't find on iPlayer or anything).

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Children, Education Law, News

News reaches us that an Edinburgh solicitor has been accused of dealing drugs from the law firm where he worked as a partner.

According to the BBC News website, he is alleged to have supplied cocaine to four men from the offices of Allan McDougall Solicitors in Dalkeith in January 2009. One of the men later died of a suspected overdose. He denies charges of possessing and supplying class A drugs, has been bailed and is due to stand trial in December.

So, does the legal profession have a drugs problem? I conducted my own deeply unscientific survey of the BBC News site and came up with the following:

• A solicitor in Nottingham convicted of smuggling £15 of cannabis in her bra to a client in custody (2007) She got 15 months in jail.
• A London solicitor convicted of fraud and attempting to pervert the course of justice by inter alia providing false alibis to drug gang members (2007) He got 14.5 years in jail.
• A Glasgow solicitor convicted of supplying heroin and diazepam to a client in Barlinnie Prison (2006) She got 2 years 8 months in jail.
• A senior defence solicitor convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice by concocting lies for a man (actually a BBC researcher in a sting op) caught in possession of cocaine (2006) He was sentenced to 3 years in jail.

I follow this with an article from The Times which suggests that drug use in legal circles is "absolutely endemic" and the link to LawCare - an advisory and support service to help lawyers, their staff and their immediate families to deal with health problems such as depression and addiction, and related emotional difficulties.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, Edinburgh, News

It has been reported in The Herald that an award of expenses has been made directly against the Scottish Legal Aid Board in a matrimonial case.

The paper reports "Solicitors acting for William Bohannon repeatedly raised problems in the action against him with the board and asked, without success, that legal aid granted to Carol Young be suspended. Mr Bohannon, 62, successfully defended two actions but was left with lawyers' bills of more than £33,500 and possible bankruptcy."

Lord Brodie, in the Court of Session, decided to grant expenses against the Board after concluding that that Mr Bohannon would suffer financial hardship if an order was not made. He is also reported as noting "The board has not chosen to defend its conduct in the matter."

Ah, SLAB ... "provid[ing] access to justice for those eligible and in need of it, in a cost-effective manner."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots law online.

Labels: News

The Scottish Parliament has been asked to support a campaign to clear the name of Captain Kidd, who was hanged for piracy over three hundred years ago.

But - wouldn't we be sending out a message to the world that Scotland was soft on pirates?

Labels: News, Piracy, Scottish Parliament