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.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Scottish Government

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 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

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

I note from browsing human rights and anti-terror law blog, The Lift that a report commissioned by the Scottish Government has called for an immediate review of the funding of CCTV cameras. The report reports that the cost of operating the snooping devices over the next three years is more than 40 Million pounds. It also points out that there has been little research into their effectiveness in preventing crime and disorder.

Apparently, there are about 2,200 CCTV cameras in public spaces such as city centres, parks and shopping centres across Scotland (except Aberdeenshire, which has none).

And, according to the Telegraph, in London just one crime is solved a year by every 1,000 CCTV cameras. As the leader quite pointedly asks: "If they do not stop crime or catch criminals, what are they for?"

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Blawgs, Human Rights, Privacy, Scottish Government

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

Good news! You can now read my latest Yell.com blog on the topic of high hedges and nuisance vegetation - which often becomes the cause of neighbour disputes. It is also the natty title of a recent Scottish Government consultation.

The blog is called "The root from which a tyrant springs" which is a play on words because the campaign group Scothedge describe high hedges as a "tyranny".

The full quote is: This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. (Plato).

Perhaps I'm trying too hard?

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Scottish Government, 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

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

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

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

In this article in the Scotsman, the Minister for Children and Young People, Adam Ingram MSP is quoted as saying that paying for lawyers for vulnerable adults at the Children's Panel is a "moral duty".

In the face of opposition concerns that new regulations would lead to an increasingly legalistic approach at children's hearings, the Minister said, in relation to parents with limited literacy and language skills: "how can we honestly expect them to have their say, to put their perspective across, without help and support?"

Quite so.

I am reminded, in listening to this, in comments made by the same Minister about representation of parents before a different statutory Tribunal - the Additional Support Needs Tribunal which is (I would argue) a more legally complex forum - "I want to make lawyers redundant in the tribunal situation, which we can do through the rules and procedures of the tribunal.".

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Children, Education Law, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament

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

The Herald reports on plans afoot to introduce a "no fault" compensation scheme in the NHS for those injured at the hands of its doctors. This would avoid the need for complex negligence claims.

It would, it is said, be similar to the current system for criminal injuries compensation.

What is not immediately apparent to be is why those injured by the health service would be fast tracked for compensation, but there are no similar plans for injury or damaged caused by other public services like social work, education, nationalised banks or watching too many episodes of tronji on the BBC.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: News, Scottish Government

From the website of the Scottish Government, I learn that a pilot project to provide parents with improved access to information about known sex offenders who may be in contact with their children will be trialled in Tayside from September 2009 until the end of May 2010.

Under the scheme, members of the public within the pilot area will be able to register a child-protection interest in a named individual who has unsupervised access to their child or children.

Police will be alerted to concerns, with a presumption that they will inform the parent, carer or guardian if the named person has convictions for sex offences. If the child is found to be at serious risk of harm then child protection measures will also be instigated.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is quoted as saying: "I'm pleased to confirm that Tayside will be the area for the sex offender disclosure pilot and that we are now liaising with all the criminal justice partners in the region as they prepare for implementation."

"While we must all rightly be alert to stranger danger, most sexual offences against children are committed by individuals known to the child's family - adults who abuse a position of trust with that child. This project provides another link which will assist in identifying vulnerable children and families who are unknown to police and care agencies to ensure that correct help and advice are provided."

It will be interesting to see by what criteria the pilot will be judged, what counts as a "child-protection interest" (can you check up on your next door neighbours? the local shopkeeper? members of your own family?), and what will happen post-disclosure? Should we be stocking up on torches and pitchforks?

Labels: Children, criminal law, News, Privacy, Scottish Government

The Herald reports on a novel solution to the thorny problem of teenage pregnancies - more nudity!

This counter-intuitive suggestion comes as part of a formal submission to the Scottish Government on child welfare - courtesy of the British Naturist Society.

According to Andrew Welch, of the British Naturist Society: "There is strong evidence that conventional attitudes towards the human body contribute significantly to a wide range of problems, some of them serious - but there is incredible reluctance to face the implications."

"Westminster Government figures published recently show that the UK has the worst teenage pregnancy figures of any country in Europe, while the figures are even worse in Scotland. The UK is probably the most censorious country in Europe about anything to do with the body."

"This pattern of less body tolerance, worse outcomes is repeated across the Western world. Our research shows conclusively that this is no chance connection."

"Governments, authority figures and social and community leaders should accept that the human body is not something to be ashamed of or embarrassed about and that being more open about it would benefit society. The evidence is clear but there is incredible reluctance to face the implications. It is time to leave prejudices behind and do what is right for the young people of this country."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

Labels: Children, News, Scottish Government

News from the Scottish Government of the "Enhanced Tobacco Sales Enforcement Programme" launched today. Under this scheme, Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs and Trading Standards officers throughout Scotland will be working together to:

• stepping up enforcement of tobacco sales law to prevent underage cigarette sales; and
• stemming the flow of smuggled or counterfeit cigarettes.

Public Health Minister Shona Robison said: "With over a quarter of retailers willing to sell cigarettes to under 18s, it's clearly an area that must be addressed."

A "sustained" test purchase programme to identify those who continue to sell to under 18s will be undertaken. Those retailers who flout the age restrictions will face legal sanctions, including a maximum fine of £2,500 upon conviction.

According to the Scottish Schools Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Abuse Survey (2006) 47 per cent of 13 year old smokers and 82 per cent of 15 year old smokers reported buying cigarettes from a shop. A recent trading standards operation in Glasgow found that a quarter of shopkeepers still sell cigarettes to 16 year olds.

Since October 1st 2007, the minimum age for buying cigarettes was raised to 18.

And, with the health risks of smoking all too clear now, it's perhaps just as well this new crackdown is being launched.

Read here about how Superman helped in the fight against underage smoking back in 1980.

Labels: Children, News, Scottish Government

The Times Online reports that David Hartnett, head of Revenue and Customs, is to write to Scotland's top civil servant saying that there is no legal basis for a local tax and that the Revenue would refuse to collect it.

The letter to Sir John Elvidge, Permanent Secretary at the Scottish Government, will apparently state:

"[T]here is no legal basis for a local income tax along the lines outlined in the SNP consultation document."

"Your proposal for a tax where the rate was set by the Executive and the proposed tax was collected and administered by HMRC is a reserved matter under The Scotland Act 1998, and therefore a matter for the UK Government."

"HMRC does not have the power to collect or administer a local income tax: its role in relation to the devolved administration is confined to administering the Scottish Variable Rate,"

According to The Times, the letter puts pressure on SNP ministers to concede to demands by the Scottish Liberal Democrats to allow all 32 local authorities to set their own local rate.

A spokesperson for the Scottish Government is quoted as saying: "It's still arrant nonsense. Scrapping the unfair council tax and introducing a fair local income tax based on ability to pay is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine not for the Treasury to dictate from London. This latest intervention is constitutionally confused and politically inept. The Scottish Government and Parliament is not a Whitehall department which can be bullied by the Treasury. We represent a country, and we have every right and ability to scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax."

It may be illegal, but we should probably just press on ahead regardless, eh?

Labels: News, Scottish Government, Tax

Don't forget to check out Mike Dailly's new blog in The Firm Magazine. Entertainingly titled "Dailly's Weekly Blog" it kicks off with an attack on proposals to introduce ABS (Alternative Business Structure) to the legal profession in Scotland, concluding (with a crescendo) in labelling the SNP Justice Secretary Mr. Kenneth MacAskill "spoon boy"!

LOL! (As I believe they say in cyberspace). It is believed that this is the first time that any serving member of the Scottish Government has been compared to a character in The Matrix. (Although, in a certain light Fiona Hyslop looks a bit like Carrie-Anne Moss). Presumably, Mr. MacAskill will remember that - there is no spoon. Also that Matrix Chambers are English barristers and, therefore not subject to Scottish legislation.

Labels: Just for Fun, law firms, Scottish Government

John McFall MP, who is the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, has called for a change in the law to help Scotland tackle serious "white collar crime". He has raised concerns that Scotland has no equivalent body to the Serious Fraud Office which investigates financial crime in the rest of the UK.

The Scottish Government have released a statement saying it had set up a working party to look at the issue.

Labels: criminal law, News, Scottish Government

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

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has re-appointed existing Board members Sheriff Kenneth Ross, Elaine Rosie and Susan McPhee to the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB). Their first terms of appointment ended on March 31, 2008.

Labels: News, Scottish Government

Nicola Sturgeon MSP, the Health Secretary, has been reported as saying she was "not persuaded" that assisted suicide should be made legal, after independent MSP Margo MacDonald said she hoped to bring legislation on the subject before Holyrood next year.

Ms. Sturgeon (with whom I once worked) said that she was not sure safeguards could be put in place to prevent the system from being abused. However, she is quite comfortable (as I understand it) to see organs harvested from those who haven't got round to "opting out" (i.e. declaring officially that you'd like to hang onto your organs after you're dead).

Labels: Law and Ethics, News, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament

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