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 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

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

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

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

Good news! You can now read my latest Yell.com blog posts by clicking on these links. And jolly interesting reading they make too.

• Innocent until presumed guilty;
• Court threat in election debate row; and
• Flyglobespan's customers not protected ATOL.

In particular, I'd be interested in people's comments on the proposal to allow evidence of previous convictions in criminal trials.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, Yell.com Solicitors Blog

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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Harvie MSP's Bill was unanimously passed by the Scottish Parliament today. So perfectly drafted was the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill that it was not amended at all during its passage through Parliament.

Surely, this type of legislation requires at least one MSP to yell "Thought Crime!" - maybe they did and were outvoted? At any rate, it will be law soon and any offences motivated (in part or in whole) by the victim's sexual orientation or disability will be punished with extra severity. And who could argue with that?

I suppose one of the problems with this kind of provision is that people start to feel left out. There are now aggravations in relation to race, sexual orientation, disability and religion. Now, what about gender? Or age? Or social class? Shouldn't we be stamping out these hate crimes too? And if the list is too long then all offences end up being aggravated and, therefore, none of them are. To quote W.S. Gilbert from The Gondoliers "When everybody's somebody - then no-one's anybody."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: criminal law, Discrimination, News, Scottish Parliament

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

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

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

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

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

The Morning Call website in Pennsylvania, USA reports on an usual defence to a drink driving charge.

The law doesn't apply to him, he claims, because he is a "sovereign man". He continued, "I don't live in the state of Pennsylvania ... I live inside myself," The 44 year old man told the judge that to convict him would be tantamount to "committing acts of treason, usurpation and tyranny."

The judge has ordered a psychological examination of the man.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

Labels: criminal law, Just for Fun, News

I learn from the online edition of the Jerusalem Post that a group of activists from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC) who disrupted a concert by the Jerusalem String Quartet in Edinburgh during the 2008 Festival have been charged with "racially aggravated harassment".

At a performance in Edinburgh's Queens Hall on 29 August 2009, four members of the SPSC interrupted the concert by shouting at the musicians and audience. It was claimed that the activists caused distress to both the orchestra and members of the audience.

The protesters had originally been charged with disturbing the peace, but at Edinburgh Sheriff Court those charges were dropped in favor of the more serious charge of "racially motivated conduct."

Sofia Macleod, one of those charged, is quoted as saying: "We think it's totally ridiculous. Our actions and campaigning are based on international human rights. We take the allegations seriously, but there is no question whatsoever that any of our actions are racist in any way."

She added that the Palestine solidarity movement was "an anti-racist movement based on anti-racism,".

In a statement put out by the group, SPSC chairman Mick Napier, who is also due to appear in court at a later date, said, "We thank the court for providing us with the forum to explain that opposition to the violent, racist state of Israel is motivated by a commitment to universal human rights. We support the Palestinian people faced with Zionist savagery, and we are contemptuous of attempts to smear such a struggle for justice with the taint of racism. I hope these charges are not quietly dropped and we will have the opportunity to meet our critics in open court."

This brings to mind several questions, including: is being "racially motivated" the same thing as "racism"? As I understand that the string quartet are not accused of personally being involved in any human rights violations, they are being targeted due to their nationality. This is covered in the term "race" or "racial" in UK law. So in that sense, I guess the actions of the SPSC were "racially motivated" - but their support for the Palestinian people through charitable donations might also be described as "racially motivated". Is that always a bad thing?

And is therefore "racially motivated" harrassment quantitively worse than plain old "alcohol motivated" harrassment? On one view, SPSC would argue that their motivations were a mitigating factor to any crime committed - however it may lead them to incur heavier penalties. Should we be prosecuting "thought crimes" anyway? And would this pass the "Nelson Mandela test"?

Labels: criminal law, Edinburgh, Human Rights, News

The Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill has been passed - meaning anyone using a designated spaces without a blue badge faces a fine of up to £60.

The law is a private member's bill by Dumbarton MSP Jackie Baillie. The move won cross-party support, but some MSPs raised concern about the costs of implementing the legislation.

I have long proposed an alternative solution - simply introduce a new statutory defence to a charge of smashing a car with a baseball bat. This way, no-one would dare to park in a disabled parking bay without the proper authority as a smashed car is much more of a deterrent than a measly £60 fine. Also it provides useful (and lawful) exercise for our young people - while allowing them to contribute to a better society.

A classic win-win. Now, what about those people who park in the parent and child spaces, when their child is obviously at least 14 years old and/or at home watching TV?

Image: Department of Transport, Crown copyright.

Labels: criminal law, News, Scottish Parliament

As a Welsh rugby fan myself, I was both heartened and disappointed to note on the BBC News website that a travelling fan had had a scrape with the law.

Kristian Bowen, 19, from Neath, admitted assaulting a police officer in Hawick in the Scottish Borders on Saturday. Sheriff Colin McClorey is quoted as saying "I hope you are thoroughly ashamed - in a real sense you have let the side down here. Welsh rugby supporters have a tremendously high reputation with mutual hospitality with Scottish rugby supporters especially in this area. I hope you show contrition by having a look at your drinking habits and getting them under control."

He was fined £600 and ordered to pay the officer he assaulted £150.

Photo copyright of Brainless Angel.

Labels: criminal law, News

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

Campaign groups have expressed concern over the "limitations" of new legislation which aims to strengthen the law on rape.

The groups, including Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and Victim Support Scotland, presented their worries about the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill to MSPs on the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.

The MSPs heard that although the groups generally welcome the new legislation, they had a number of concerns that provisions in the bill could, in certain circumstances, make it more difficult to prove rape.

They also called for action to stop a complainer's personal history being brought up in trials. Sandy Brindlay, national co-ordinator of Rape Crisis Scotland reported that medical records, including mental health problems and use of anti-depressants, are increasingly used in court by the defence counsel.

She said: "We need to be clear about its limitations. It doesn't look at evidence at all. The particular area we are concerned about is sexual history and character evidence."

Although the bill defines "consent" for the first time in law, Brindlay also highlighted concerns over "advance consent". The bill indicates that, even if the complainer is subsequently unable to with withhold consent because they are asleep or under the influence of drink or drugs, there may still be consent if it was agreed at an earlier stage.

Labels: criminal law, News, Scottish Parliament

As reported in many different places in the Scottish media, a man accused of robbing a Post Office has been banned from Scotland.

The man in question lives in England (only just) and has been charged with assault and robbery. He appeared at Selkirk Sheriff Court and was granted bail with the condition that he does not enter Scotland (other than to stand trial, of course).

It is hoped that other potential criminals will be deterred by the Scots Border Guards established to enforce the bail conditions. If convicted, the man faces deportation to St. Kilda.

Labels: criminal law, News

BBC News reports that Sheriff Hogg in Edinburgh Sheriff Court has fined a Polish man £100 for breach of the peace for taking a photo of an unwell (the report suggests possibly drunk) woman outside a pub.

The Sheriff is quoted as saying: "I'm going to impose a fine to remind him chivalry is not dead and when somebody is in distress you leave them to it."

Wait a moment, I'm not sure where the Sheriff gets his information on chivalry from, but I have it on good authority that the knight's approach to the damsal in distress is not to "leave her to it". In fact, the amateur photographer ought to have assisted the woman, then laid seige to the inn which had served her the offending food/drink instead.

For more on this peculiar judgement, see zero point nine.

Labels: criminal law, Just for Fun, News

Just a brief post, to draw your attention to the good news story in the Herald about prisoners making time to help themselves and their communities by contributing to community time banks.

Heartwarming isn't it? Community service in the truest sense. If you're not familiar with time banking, see TimeBank UK for details.

The image accompanying this post shows the jaw-dropping Italian Chapel in Orkney - an example of what a few prisoners and a lot of time can do.

Labels: criminal law, News

The Stornoway Gazette reports that Calmax Construction Company, based in Lewis, were fined a total of £10,000 for waste and pollution charges.

It seems that Calmax were demolishing a house and the rubble left over contained a substantial amount of asbestos. Rather than, I don't know, calling in some experts to get rid of this hazardous substance safely, Calmax decided to simply burn it. Their crime was only detected by the eagle eyes of "a passing officer" from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Am I alone in thinking that the fine in this case is not set at a level likely to deter? I don't know what the going rate is for safely disposing of a houseful of asbestos, but I reckon that it's expensive enough to make an asbestosis bonfire a profitable venture at that level of fine. To my mind the directors of the company should be ordered by the court to eat anything they haven't disposed of correctly.

The image shows a close up of asbestos (when not on fire).

Labels: criminal law, Environmental Law, News

The following caught my attention while browsing PanGloss on the subject of suicide websites.

The UK Government has announced that the law on "suicide websites" is to be rewritten to ensure people know they are illegal. It follows concerns that people searching for information on suicide are more likely to find sites encouraging the act than offering support.

It is already illegal under the Suicide Act 1961 to promote suicide, but no website operator has yet been prosecuted.

Lilian Edwards (the author of PanGloss) worries that this will lead to a blanket blocking of all suicide related websites, including those offering valuable support. She also points out that suicide law is different in Scotland and predicts that if this is not adequately dealt with, we might see an upsurge in suicide websites hosted on Scottish servers!

Image is the logo from the website: To Write Love On Her Arms, a non-profit movement dedicated to presenting hope and finding help for people struggling with depression, addiction, self-injury and suicide.

Labels: criminal law, News

Just came across this post on the extradition of the Howes family by/to the USA.

According to the website, the family ran a small business selling chemicals over the Internet from the home in Bo'ness. However two of the substances they sold were iodine and red phosphorus. The former has medical uses and the latter is often used in the manufacture of fireworks and other pyrotechnics.

Their business was perfectly legitimate, had been checked by the Health & Safety Executive and neither substance is controlled under Scots (or UK) law. However, they are ingredients in crystal meth, and as such US enforcement agencies have decided to take action.

Under the terms of the draconian extradition treaty our government has kindly signed with the United States, US law enforment agencies no longer have to provide evidence of a prima facie case in order to secure extradition.

And so, due to our efforts to fight the "war on terror", a Scottish couple running a legitimate business have already spent 7 months on remand and may well end up spending the next twenty years of their lives doing hard time in an Arizona prison.

Which seems a little harsh, doesn't it?

Labels: criminal law, Health and Safety, Human Rights, News

In an outstanding example of joined-up government (or, depending on your view, hypocrisy and stupidity), Aberdeen City Council are calling on the Scottish Government to allow them to pass local laws to criminalise begging on the streets.

This, just months after the Council cut £900,000 of funding from the Cyrenians, a homeless charity, forcing the closure of several shelters for the homeless.

The picture is Bartolomé Esteban Murillo's "Beggar Boys Eating Grapes and Melon"

Labels: criminal law, News

More news in the Sunday papers about the evil Glasgow Bar association. Hot on the heels of revelations that the GBA had hired a PR firm (No!), is the news that a number of the lawyers involved in the GBA actually make money from Legal Aid.

This presumably gains its shock value from the fact that most people assumed that the Scottish Legal Aid Board's budget had already been reduced to the extent where no-one made a living from it any more.

The response from the press to the GBA's campaign highlightng the dangers of "diversion" has - to my mind - been missing the point. Even if we were to assume that the whole campaign is fuelled by greed, can we please address the points it raises? Should offenders who are guilty of the kinds of criminal activity noted in the examples given (including serious assaults, offensive weapons, firearms etc.) be dealt with by way of diversion from the courts?

If we (as a society) are happy with that, then all well and good. If not, then let's address these genuine concerns and shut up about the nasty lawyers who are raising them. If they're really making as much money as some claim, then surely Gordon Brown PM will be levying a windfall tax before too long?

Labels: criminal law, News

A peculiar one this, but if it's true then never again will I scoff at the requirement to run money laundering checks on clients who seem unlikely candidates for organised criminals. It seems even our four-legged friends are getting in on the act!

Blogger on the "War on Terror" Minstrel Boy makes the following claim about the 2005 London "7/7" bombings, which I reproduce exactly for you to make of what you will:

"After the July 2005 London transit bombings, police knocked on the door of a sheep farmer in Scotland to inquire about a livestock deal gone sour. The farmer, Blair Duffton, confirmed that he had lost more than £200,000 when he sent several truckloads of sheep to a slaughterhouse in Leeds, England, but never received payment.

"The slaughterhouse specialized in halal meat, or food prepared according to Islamic law. Detectives informed Duffton that the person who had stiffed him for the sheep was an associate of Shehzad Tanweer, one of three bombers who had lived in Leeds.

" "I almost went bankrupt," Duffton recalled in a telephone interview. "I couldn't believe it when they told me that this might have been connected to terrorism."

"British authorities have not commented publicly on the sheep scam or said if any of the proceeds were used to finance the attacks. Three men accused of providing support to the suicide bombers are currently on trial in London."

Labels: criminal law, News

The Sunday Mail reports that prosecutors will be retrained to improve Scotland's appallingly low conviction rate for sex crimes - one of the worst rates in the western world.

The Sunday Mail blames the figures on inexperienced prosecutors and victims' lack of confidence in the system.

However, by next summer, fiscals will only be allowed to handle rape cases once they have approved training. The two-day course is said to offer refresher training on rape law and will teach lawyers how to support victims. It will include discussions with forensic examiners, senior police officers, victim support workers and High Court prosecutors.

The Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini is reported as saying: "This training is a vital part of ensuring there is a professional, determined approach to gathering evidence and bringing prosecutions before the court."

The latest figures for Scotland show convictions for rape have dropped to an all-time low of 2.9 per cent. In both Tayside and Dumfries and Galloway the rate was zero.

Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland, is quoted as saying: "The development of this course is an important step in improving responses to rape."

Labels: criminal law, News

A concerning post on William Beck's "SCCRC Deny Justice" website. (Worth visiting if only for the Billy Joel soundtrack!)

By all accounts, Mr. Beck has been informed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that in revealing Jurors' Names and Addresses to him (I assume these are same jurors who once tried and convicted Mr. Beck?) they have acted properly as the information is "in the public domain" being held by National Archives of Scotland.

I imagine that this will be both a surprise and a matter of concern for anyone called as a juror. In the meantime, Mr. Beck has taken SCCRC at their word and posted the juror's names and addresses on his Flickr page.

Labels: criminal law, News, Privacy

With the Scottish Premier League kicking off on Saturday 9 August, Strathclyde Police has teamed up with partners across North Lanarkshire to launch a poster campaign aimed at tackling discrimination and hate crime: "We're On The Ball."

Posters will be displayed in public places across North Lanarkshire and will help reinforce key messages of the nation-wide "Show Racism the Red Card" which campaigns against racism in football and society.

But it's not just about racism. The "We're On The Ball" campaign will highlight the fact that discrimination and hate crime might not just be on grounds of race alone; it could also be about age, disability, gender, religious belief or sexual orientation.

The posters, which have been designed by officers from the community safety department at Wishaw, will encourage local communities to report any incidents of this type to the police (via their local police office or the online reporting facility at www.strathclyde.police.uk) or to North Lanarkshire First Stop Shop.

The campaign is backed by North Lanarkshire Council, NHS Lanarkshire, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, Broadwood Stadium Management, Show Racism the Red Card, Crimestoppers and the four senior football clubs in the area - Motherwell FC, Airdrie United FC, Albion Rovers FC and Clyde FC.

Crime Reduction Officer Dougie Denholm from Wishaw Police Office hopes that the posters will make people think twice about their actions and how they treat others. He said:

"As football is such a huge passion for so many people in the West of Scotland, we thought that it would be a good idea to base the posters on a football theme."

"Football is a marvellous medium for delivering such an important message to local communities and we are therefore extremely thankful that all four senior football clubs in North Lanarkshire are supporting our work."

Labels: criminal law, Discrimination

News has reached us from the Norwich Evening News that former Celtic FC goalkeeper, David Marshall has been fined £800 for not having a TV licence. This is on top of an existing £90 fine for driving whilst using a mobile phone - which is now overdue and, as yet unpaid. We are told that he also had to pay costs and a £15 victim surcharge - though I'm not quite clear to whom that may be. Is TV licence dodging the ultimate victimless crime?

A spokesman for TV Licensing in East Anglia is quoted as saying: "This demonstrates just how effective our detection methods are. .. We have also introduced high-tech handheld devices which we use alongside the fleet of detector vans." And I had always thought that the detector vans were a myth to get TV viewers to behave themselves ...

Labels: criminal law, News

You may have read or heard, in various media, the story of Robin Jenkins, the accountant and fraudster who embezzled nearly £100,000 from his employers. He was jailed for almost 5 years by the Sheriff in Falkirk Sheriff Court on Friday.

As it became clear to him that he was facing imprisonment, his solicitor Simon Hutchison recounted, "He basically jumped in a car and visited all the places he ever wanted to visit and was eventually caught in Callander."

In Callander? He went to all the places he ever wanted to visit and that included Callander? No offence to the good people of Callander, but that certainly wouldn't top my list. Here's where I'd go - feel free to add your idea by leaving a comment below.

1. Statue of Christ the Redeemer in Brazil;
2. Geysir, in Iceland;
3. Rocky Mountains in Canada;
4. Gaudi's Sagrada Familia in Barcelona (again);
5. Great Pyramid of Giza, in Egypt;
6. Locations for filming of The Lord of the Rings in New Zealand; and
7. if you have to stick to Scotland, the Italian Chapel in Orkney (again).

Photo: Mogens Engelund, Wikipedia

Labels: criminal law, News

The Scotsman is reporting that a company which pled guilty to polluting of the water environment was fined a mere £3,000 for causing an oil slick that spread for nine miles across the Firth of Forth.

The maximum fine faced by Ondeo Industrial Solutions at Falkirk Sheriff Court, was up to £40,000. The Firth of Forth is designated a Special Protection Area due to the number of wading birds which call it home.

Lloyd Austin, head of conservation policy at RSPB Scotland, is quoted on the subject of fines for environmental crimes in Scottish Courts: "There's a history of them being so low that they don't provide an effective deterrent," he said.

Labels: criminal law, News

A judgement in Aamer Anwar's case is expected at 10am on Tuesday 1st July at the High Court in Edinburgh.

High profile solicitor Aamer Anwar awaits a decision in contempt of court proceedings brought over statements that he released on behalf of his client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, who was convicted in September 2007. The case is the first of its kind and has drawn widespread criticism from the profession and beyond.

The case was heard by three judges at the High Court of Judiciary in Edinburgh on Tuesday 29th April.

Labels: criminal law, News