The Scotsman, Saturday, 16 March 2019

Proper Justice

Neil Mackenzie's operatic song of praise for how the Faculty of Advocates facilitates the training of advocates in Scotland is reflective of the periodic propaganda produced by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland to persuade a sceptical laity that only the selfless input of lawyers can produce effective access to justice (Scotsman, 11 March).
Mr Mackenzie proudly informs us that "there has always been a training culture at the Faculty as it seeks to uphold values of: a commitment to excellence; a commitment to the noblest ideals of professional conduct; and, above all, a commitment to justice for all in our society".
Surprisingly, he failed to mention the fact that more than a few pompous advocates regularly subvert those lofty commitments by peddling absurd advice and untenable opinions - thereby ruining, at great expense, their clients' cases.
Consequently, many clients remain convinced that effective access to justice would be greatly enhanced if solicitors, advocates and QCs were removed from the process.  In response to the rapid development of artificial intelligence, many experts have speculated that lawyers could soon be replaced by ultra-efficient machines.  If true, access to real justice in Scotland, uncontaminated by the input of lawyers, would become a real, and welcome, possibility.

Thomas Crooks
Dundas Street
Edinburgh

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, Wednesday, 27 November 2013

In the context of the Lockerbie trial, a Maltese newspaper has published extracts of police documents that said Mr Gauci had “a clear desire to gain financial benefit” from his evidence.
Documents released since the trial have repeatedly suggested the Gaucis expressed an interest in being paid for their testimony under the Reward for Justice programme controlled by the Department of Justice in the US.
A senior investigator in the inquiry has conceded that the brothers would have known about possible payments, but that nothing was offered before the trial and it had “never been discussed with them at any time prior to the trial – so it’s absolutely above board. There is no suggestion that there was anything underhand. It was all above board.”
After the trial, the senior investigator wrote to the US Department of Justice to recommend the pair receive a reward because he said the Gaucis fitted the criteria.
Last month the Crown Office stated: “No witness was offered any inducement by the Crown or the Scottish police before and during the trial and there is no evidence that any other law enforcement agency offered such an inducement.”
Arguably, no direct “inducement” was required.  The Gaucis would have known they “fitted the criteria” for the reward.  They had, before the trial, in the context of the justice programme, imbued their “evidence” with a monetary value.
The entire proceedings were scented with the aroma of reward – and it is arguable that the aroma scented the quality of the evidence provided by the brothers.  Any jurisdiction with a reputation for the pursuit of justice would be concerned with the implications of such an aroma.
In this jurisdiction, the integrity of the proceedings reign supreme – irrespective of the objective material that points to the possibility of a colossal miscarriage of justice.

Thomas Crooks
Dundas Street
Edinburgh

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Scotsman, Thursday 28 November 2013

Without wishing to detract from the merits of the fine contributions of Iain McKie and Thomas Crooks (Letters, 27 November) regarding the Lockerbie witness reward monies, I was convinced that the trial was a farce long before the reward information was made public.
My disgust at the trial proceedings came when the United Nations appointed observer, Professor Hans Köechler published his first report in 2003 and criticised the interference in the presentation of evidence to the court by representatives of foreign governments.
Reporting on the appeal, Prof Köechler was similarly critical, to which the Crown Office responded by stating that it is a matter for the court itself to regulate who should be present. Explaining that the High Court of Justiciary has, “for long accepted that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate and Crown Counsel whom they choose to have in court in their support”.
Of course, the Crown Office can do as they like, but they should not be surprised if by having anonymous United States ­officials supervising in the dock of a Scottish court they have abandoned any hope of appearing impartial in a political sense.
That was how Prof Köechler saw it and we shouldn't be surprised if the world (excluding the US) views the Lockerbie trial and appeal verdicts as the work of Uncle Sam via a puppet state.

Tom Minogue
Victoria Terrace
Dunfermline,
Fife

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, 12 May 2012

YOUR revelations regarding the failure of the Crown Office to provide the defence with the material pertaining to the Heathrow break-in just hours before the Lockerbie bombing seriously undermines the integrity of the prosecution's case and, therefore, the integrity of the Scottish legal system.

The Crown Office dismissed the pre-trial significance of the break-in thus: "Even if this evidence had been heard by the trial court, it would not have reached a different verdict." This appears to derive from the wisdom of a Crown Office spokesman who said: "The Appeal Court was satisfied that, having heard direct evidence about the break-in at Heathrow, the verdict of the trial court was not a miscarriage of justice."

Arguably, that conclusion was influenced by the same kind of insular and complacent mindset that persuaded the Crown Office to withhold the Heathrow information from the defence.

The legal establishment in Scotland does not always react with optimum objectivity when confronted with challenges to its authority. When the Supreme Court overturned the unanimous decision of the High Court of Justiciary to dismiss Peter Cadder's appeal against his conviction (the appeal derived from human rights law regarding access to legal representation subsequent to arrest) the reaction of the legal establishment in Scotland was almost hysterical.

An informed bystander might be concerned that the Heathrow break-in should have been the subject of more robust and objective appraisal during Megrahi's first appeal.

Thomas Crooks,
81 Dundas Street,
Edinburgh.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, May 2004

The Herald should be commended for its front page lead (18 May), “Complaints against lawyers soar”, which denoted public dissatisfaction with the industry’s representative body, “The Law Society of Scotland”.
The Legal Services Ombudsman’s call for a full-scale investigation into the Law Society for failing to follow up scores of complaints is also welcome, even though it is just a small step in the right direction.
The campaign group “Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL)" has for years consistently disclosed that “According to the Law Society’s own guidance manual for lawyers, Better Client Care & Business Management, only 4 per cent of unhappy customers make their concerns known”.
There were 2,036 complaints in 2003, which the Law Society “decided” should be dealt with through conciliation or investigation, so how many complaints were discarded and not investigated?
All the figures should be registered and made available to the public.  Furthermore, if the total number of complaints lodged - which is probably at least double 2,036 - represents only 4 per cent of aggrieved clients, it is a monumental indictment on lawyers and the Law Society.
This Herald article provoked opinionated responses in your Letters pages from some legal reactionaries, although, as reported in The Herald the day after the article was published, the leader of the Scottish National Party John Swinney, on behalf of the SNP, called for decisive government action to reform the way in which complaints against solicitors are handled.
Alan Davies, convener of the client care committee of the Law Society, claims (Letters, 20 May) that the Society introduced many changes over the years to improve the way it handles complaints.  If its present state is an improvement, it only illustrates how woeful it was previously.
Mr Davies also refers to the Justice 1 Committee’s inquiry into self-regulation of the legal profession, but without elaboration.  He did not mention that the Committee was inundated with members of the legal profession. LINK
It was SACL who initiated the development of the inquiry, but the remit was greatly reduced to exclude the Faculty of Advocates and the judiciary from investigation and to evidently vindicate the Law Society’s exclusive right to preside over clients’ complaints.
What was supposed to be a “public” inquiry allowed extensive documents from the legal fraternity – even those excluded from the remit – to be submitted, while much of the submissions from the public were tampered with and totally disregarded.
This is borne out by the files on the parliamentary website.  Members of the legal profession were also permitted to make lengthy oral submissions while members of the public were not.
Only a fresh and unpretentious inquiry will fully satisfy the legal consumer, with no sections of the legal profession excluded from the Committee’s remit.

William Burns
Shore Road
South Queensferry
Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, June 2004

The letter by Duncan L Murray, President of the Law Society of Scotland (31 May) is extremely misleading. Although, as he says, the LSoS was established by an Act of Parliament to promote the interests of the Scottish solicitors' profession and the public in relation to the profession, the Scottish legal consumer is only too well aware that it is impossible for the LSoS to serve two masters.
And since the LSoS is responsible for licensing solicitors to give audience in court and for playing the role of a union for solicitors, collecting what might well be defined as union dues from them on an annual basis, complainants know beyond any shadow of a doubt where the LSoS’s priorities lie.
Why should we expect it to be otherwise! It is the Act of Parliament that ought to be rescinded and new legislation enacted to provide the public with a complaints body that has no input whatsoever from the legal profession.
It is not difficult for a layperson to look at the evidence, put it into context, and make a reasoned, judicious assessment with complete impartiality and with no vested interest in either party.
By his own admission, Mr Murray says the society's client relations office received 2,959 items of complaint, albeit a small number of them were misplaced as they related to other members of the legal profession who are not currently in the society’s “union”, for example judges and advocates.
However at page 6.1 of the society’s own guidance manual to all lawyers and law firms, “Better Client Care & Practice Management”, it concedes that only 4 per cent of unhappy customers make their concerns known.  If 2,959 represents only 4 per cent, they might well have received complaints in the region of 700,000.
According to the LSoS’s latest Annual Report, there are 9,120 members holding practising certificates, so the number of potential complaints could average out at around 77 for every solicitor in Scotland.  That is a worrying statistic for the legal consumer.
Another exceedingly misleading statement by Mr Murray is that “the LSoS has been supported in its work by the conclusions and recommendations of the Scottish Parliament's Justice 1 Committee, as well as by the Scottish Parliament, which passed the Council of the Law Society (Scotland) Act, 2003, with cross-party support.”
Mr Murray must know that this inquiry was a complete farce.  Even though “Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL)”, the campaign group that initiated this inquiry into self-regulation of the legal profession, and that persistently urged the Scottish Parliament to replace the lawyer presence in the Justice 1 Committee, their numbers were actually increased, ensuring that the evidence from the opponents of self-regulation was fragmentary in a totally one-sided, prejudiced “show hearing“ designed to retain the status quo. LINK
SACL has recently submitted another petition, calling on the Parliament to disband the justice 1 Committee and re-visit the original inquiry with its original remit and with a lawyerless tribunal. LINK
SACL will continue to shatter the myth that the Law Society takes complaints of the legal consumer seriously.  And why should they?  Does the fox put the interests of the chicken before its cubs!

William Burns
Shore Road
South Queensferry

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Scotsman, June 2004

Waste of time voting

For the first time in almost 3½ decades, I did not vote in an election.  This was after a letter from the Scottish Executive on polling day convinced me it was a complete waste of time.
In a letter to the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson of 8 May 2004, I made enquiries about an independent complaints body, or Working Group, that was being set up to handle grievances against solicitors.  I stressed that I believed it would be just another toothless tiger if members from the campaign group, Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, were not invited to provide some real hands-on expertise and sincerity.
In an acknowledgement, she advised me that my letter had been passed to her “officials” for a response.  This prompted me to query who in fact were these officials to whom she was delegating her responsibilities.  On Thursday, 10 June, I was informed by letter from an employee with the Scottish Executive that, basically, the old-guard reactionaries who have done nothing on the score of modernising and improving the complaints procedures over many years would suffice for handling grievances against solicitors in the new set-up.
More significantly, I was “assured” by this civil servant, that they make these decisions with complete impartiality.
Besides the many civil servants employed by the Scottish Executive, it was reported recently that there are 100 lawyers also employed full-time.  My immediate and sustained thoughts were, “If I was living in a dictatorship, I would at least know who was making the all-important decisions that affect all our lives, but in our would-be democracy, we may well know who we are voting for, but we have no idea who the faceless people are who make all the crucial decisions that affect all our lives.
After some poignant reappraisal, I decided I had no other choice but to tear up my official poll card.

William Burns
Shore Road
South Queensferry

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Scotsman, Friday 26 September 2003

With regard to the recent speech by Jack McConnell, the First Minister, on reforming the legal system, he has failed to address civil law, where, due to collusion between the Law Society of Scotland’s members, many litigants cannot get legal representation and face losing their life’s work.  At least in criminal law the state is forced to provide legal representation

Duncan Shields
Ashton Terrace

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, Saturday, 23 June 2004

Self-regulation by lawyers is a farce

Douglas Mill of the Law Society of Scotland (June 21), in response to the legal services ombudsman's lame criticism of self-regulation, almost deified his organisation by carefully missing the point: self-regulation is a farce, a comedy of manners calculated to create the illusion of objectivity.
He tried to defend a system of regulation that intrinsically favours solicitors by revealing that the law society has "introduced a new system of regulation which aims to speed up the complaints process". That is a fallacy: there is nothing "new" about the "system" because it is still run by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers.
Even if the "speed of the complaints system" exceeded the speed of light squared, the result would always be the same: the total exoneration of almost every solicitor whose conduct merited a complaint to the law society.
Only total abolition of self-regulation and the creation of a totally independent system of regulation will suffice, and only the Scottish Parliament can deliver that.
It will be a long wait.

Thomas Crooks
  81 Dundas Street
Edinburgh

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, Thursday, 5 January 2017

I cannot agree with Christopher Frew, who is opposed to the holding of a public inquiry into the Lockerbie case because it would upset US public opinion (Letters, January 4). Far too many questions hang over the conviction of the late Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the horrific bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, and these questions will not go away.
If Megrahi was innocent, justice demands that his name must be cleared for the sake of his family, for all the bereaved families, and for the reputation of the Scottish justice system.
Anything less than the truth should be unacceptable to the public on both sides of the Atlantic. Let a full public inquiry be held and the true facts be known.

Ruth Marr
Stirling

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Scotsman, Wednesday 27 November 2013

Lockerbie logic

The effects of the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 reverberated across Scotland and the world and many hoped that when Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was found guilty of the atrocity in 2001 that healing could start, comforted by the fact that Scotland’s justice system had served the 270 victims and their families well.
Unfortunately, as the 25th ­anniversary of the tragedy approaches, your latest revelations (15 November) only serve to highlight just what a miscarriage of injustice this was.
I follow the logic that “the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct”. It is not the complex legal, political and forensic “facts” about the case that convince but the “simple” ones.
At the Camp Zeist trial the “star” prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, identified Megrahi as the person who had purchased clothes in his shop in Malta which were identified as having been packed in the suitcase containing the bomb which destroyed the aircraft.
To this end over many years Mr Gauci was interviewed more than 50 times and produced over 20 different statements before he arrived at his eventual “identification” for the court.
Conclusive documentary and witness evidence now proves that since 1989 Mr Gauci had regularly expressed an interest in monetary reward for giving evidence at the trial and that eventually he was paid $2 million with the full knowledge of the UK and Scottish authorities.
Forget the complexities. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who can, from these simple facts, come to any conclusion other than Mr Gauci’s evidence is so seriously compromised as to be worthless and that, as a result, a critical plank of the prosecution case is left without a shred of credibility.
Logic would also appear to dictate that our Scottish Government seeks an immediate inquiry into why prevarication and procrastination have become the default position of the authorities for nearly 25 years.

Iain A J McKie
South Beach Road
Ayr

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, 12 May 2012

Jim Swire, father of Lockerbie victim, on the murderers: 'They have been framed'
Related article: Secret report: Megrahi is not the Lockerbie bomber

I WENT into the Zeist trial court convinced that I would see two of the murderers of my daughter convicted.
I was but a layman. Having heard the evidence, I emerged believing they had been framed.
It seemed obvious that the prosecution's story of a man (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi) using a fully adjustable and long-running digital timer and setting it so that, after two changes of aircraft, it still only cleared Heathrow by 38 minutes, was a little unlikely.
During the trial it seemed more likely to me that an air-pressure-sensitive improvised explosive device (IED) perfected by the PFLP-GC terrorist group centred in Damascus and allied to Iran, might have brought the plane down.
We heard the details of these devices in the Zeist courtroom from Crown witness Herr Gobel, a West German forensics expert, how these IEDs were available in the terrorist world in December 1988, and that they had a non-adjustable interval of 35-45 minutes from take-off to explosion if put on an airplane.
The Lockerbie aircraft managed just 38 minutes before the explosion. Herr Gobel's evidence made it plain that such a device could not have been flown from Frankfurt to Heathrow let alone from Malta, unless it was armed at Heathrow airport. Otherwise, it would have had to be introduced at Heathrow to avoid explosion en route. Yet there was no known evidence to support introduction or arming of such a device at Heathrow. We now know that there was precisely this evidence available but that the police/Crown Office had failed to pass it to the defence team or the court ("Vital evidence on Lockerbie was withheld", The Herald, May 3).
The point at issue is simple: why was this evidence not available to the trial court? The UN's special observer to the trial, Professor Hans Koechler, described the trial as not representing justice because of failures of the prosecution to share information with the defence.
Sooner or later the truth will out, but I fear that the longer it takes, the greater will be the damage to our legal system's reputation. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was correct in eventually deciding that "there may have been a miscarriage of justice". The appeal which followed, held in the knowledge of the plaintiff's progressive illness, seemed to some also to be subject to unwarranted delaying tactics by the Crown Office, though combined with the illness of a judge.
The Scottish Government does have the powers to order an inquiry. The relatives and the people of Scotland have a right to know the truth.

Dr Jim Swire,
Rowans Corner,
Calf Lane,Chipping Campden,
Gloucestershire.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Scotsman, Monday, 31 December 2007

Alternative take

IAIN MCKIE, father of former detective Shirley McKie, from Ayr, warns the forensic foundation of our entire legal system is under threat.
FOR well over a century police, lawyers, judges and juries have accepted forensic evidence without question.  But now as "light is being let in on the magic", fingerprinting, DNA, footwear, firearm and the other such evidence is being challenged and found wanting.
The Omagh bombing, the World's End Murders, the Templeton Woods murder and the SCRO fingerprint case have all shown that previously infallible evidence is indeed fallible and finally the prosecution system is being forced to review its whole forensic strategy (your report, 22 December).
While this is bad enough, Lockerbie and other cases have also revealed evidence of police and Crown Office incompetence, political intrigue and a court and legal system struggling to cope.
A system where justice takes forever and at a prohibitive cost.  Slowly the realisation is dawning that we are faced with a justice system no longer fit for purpose.  A system where there is very real danger of the innocent being found guilty and the guilty escaping punishment. Instead of the usual face saving "first aid" aimed at preserving the power and privilege of those within the system, the time is long overdue for broad ranging public and political debate aimed at creating an open, accountable and accessible system.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Scotsman, Monday 12 October 2009

Legal review guilty of ignoring justice

Michael Campbell's critical analysis (Letters, 10 October) of Lord Gill's proposals for "reforming" Scotland's oppressive legal system implies the following: appointing members of the judiciary to investigate our legal system with a view to "improving" it almost guarantees that any reforms will be cosmetic.
The complexion of the legal system might be improved, but the heart of the system will remain intact – to the detriment of those who are obliged to use it and the benefit of those who operate and, therefore, control it: solicitors, advocates, sheriffs, QCs, judges, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland.
Lord Gill's depiction of party litigants as irresponsible children who use the courts as a "playpen" is alarming and offensive.   Party litigants who attempt to vindicate their rights in a Scottish court (as a consequence of their hapless and hopeless lawyers) are confronted with incomprehensible rules of court, hostile judges, colossal costs, tactical delays, scheming lawyers and less than optimum judicial neutrality.
Lord Gill recognises the benefits of allowing party litigants to use McKenzie Friends, but the party litigant will not determine when and how to deploy them – that will be left to the "discretion" of the judges.
If Lord Gill really wanted to improve access to the courts, he should have ensured that their use was determined not by the court but by the party litigant and he would have allowed them (if appropriate) to actually advocate the party litigant's case.
Lord Gill's 674-page report will not effectively improve access to justice in Scotland because it doesn't address the fundamental issue: many of Scotland's lawyers are seldom held to account for the consequences of deploying their very expensive gifts - thanks to the expertise of the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates.

Thomas Crooks
Dundas Street
Edinburgh

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, 20 Aug 2007

There is an urgent need to have a completely independent regulator for solicitors

GRAHAM Bryson’s letter (August 17) is a breathtaking example of the power of delusional thinking. His contention that the Law Society “is rigorous in its inspection and regulation of solicitors”, impliedly for the benefit of the laity, is risible.
The Law Society, like the Faculty of Advocates, was created exclusively to protect lawyers from the consequences of their frequently appalling conduct.  An alarming number of Scotland’s lawyers are astute purveyors of operatic numptitude, balletic incompetence, neo-classical ineptitude and postmodern cupidity.  Many of them also possess an almost bestial appetite for bloated pomposity.
Surprisingly, many recipients of that kind of genius are far from grateful and consequently waste their time complaining to the Law Society or the Faculty of Advocates.
Very quickly they learn that unless their legal “advisers” engaged in conduct just short of first degree murder, they will almost certainly be exonerated – such is the quality of the bias that inheres in the minds of the rigorous regulators.  Hence the urgent need for a completely independent regulatory system, untainted by the influence of lawyers.
Mr Bryson depicts the Scottish legal system as “a signficant bulwark against oppression of the individual”.  What led him to that conclusion?  The Lockerbie trial? LINK

Thomas Crooks
81 Dundas St,
Edinburgh.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Scotsman, Friday 26 September 2003

Campbell Deane’s article, "Why the website campaign against ‘crooked lawyers’ is missing the point" (Law, 23 September), was like a breath of fresh air.  For the first time since our campaign group, Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, came into being three years ago, it has been acknowledged by a lawyer that there is such a thing as a "crooked lawyer".  
It is only right, as he said, that breaches of trust and theft should be cracked down on by the courts.  But he obviously has no idea how reluctant police and the prosecuting services, including the Lord Advocate, are to press charges against lawyers. They customarily say a grievance must be pursued through the civil courts, which is aimed at protecting "citizens above suspicion" in the legal profession.
Inter alia, it also ensures more money is spread round the legal fraternity in fees and legal aid assistance. Mr Deane also said: "At the end of the day, the aggrieved party is not the one who is out of pocket. The stolen money is reimbursed from the solicitors’ guarantee fund." Has he any idea of how seldom aggrieved parties succeed through the complaints procedure provided by the Scottish Parliament? Our entire membership will warrant that it is virtually impossible.

William Burns
Shore Road,
South Queensferry,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Herald, Monday, May 2004

Your “Accountancy & Law” page (24 May) featured a singularly inaccurate briefing: “Usher on the warpath again.”   The aristocrat Stuart Usher certainly submitted a petition to the Scottish Parliament, but he did so on behalf of the campaign group Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL), providing The Herald with a copy of the petition. LINK
Having read the terms of the petition, it must have been patently clear to your reporter, Paul Rogerson, that - although Stuart Usher acts as a tireless coordinator of SACL - the petition was lodged on behalf of its entire membership.  It was a gross misrepresentation to associate it with him alone.
Your main feature that day was about the Law Society of Scotland’s master insurance policy facing an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, along with accusations from the Scottish Consumer Council that aggrieved clients believe that solicitors Marsh UK, who broker the policy, LINK and the insurance companies, are in league to the detriment of complainers.
You have also recently published the criticisms of Linda Costello Baker, the Legal Services Ombudsman (front page lead, 18 May) regarding the failure of the Law Society to follow up scores of complaints that the country’s legal watchdog believes warrants a full-scale investigation.

For over 3½ years, SACL have been at the forefront of trying to effect radical change to our draconian legal system and believe it is a consequence of our persistent efforts that has compelled these less effective offices to illustrate they are not just paper tigers.

Perhaps if SACL’s petition to the Scottish Parliament had reached the hands of someone other than your legal-page brief, our group, our petition, and our coordinator would have been accorded a modicum of appreciation.

William Burns
Shore Road
South Queensferry

PS   The petition followed. LINK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This page contains letters to newspapers by Tom Crooks and others discrediting the self-regulated Scottish legal system.
Note the dates of the top two letters and observe how no meaningful change has occurred within that time.  I suppose it is just a blink of the eye compared to the over 500 years time-span of arrogant, tyrannical intransigence. LINK
Copyright © 2020 SACL. All rights reserved.
Edmund Burke
Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

SACL

SACL

Gordon Jackson QC
Gordon Jackson QC
SACL were at the forefront of Naming and Shaming.
The coeval list of the Rogues Gallery of Crooked Lawyers and law firms. LINK
Donald Findlay QC
Donald Findlay QC
The above statement was made by Donald Findlay QC LINK
Some people regard an attack on an advocate as an act of social work.
Billy Burns SACL
Billy Burns
Read the full chronological synopsis of Billy's fight against the illegal Poll Tax LINK
Billy Burns' fight exposing the immoral and illegal Poll Tax. LINK
Colin Boyd QC
Colin Boyd
Why did Coco Boyd try to protect Lord Cullen LINK
The Lord Advocate assisted Lord Cullen in the imposition of an illegal "Gagging Order".
Trusting Client SACL
Trusting Client
Trust a thief in the night before a lawyer in the day.
View the flow chart of the futile legal complaints procedures. LINK

SACL

google
WWW SACL
google
WWW SACL
Sheriff Andrew Lothian
Sheriff Andrew Lothian
Click the link above to see how the sheriff moved the goalposts.
SACL v The City of Edinburgh Council, reclaiming election deposits.  LINK
Lord Cullen
Lord Cullen
Read the letters to Lord Cullen that incriminate him. LINK
Why did Lord Cullen try to bury Billy Burns' letters to him for 100-years?
See a video of Stuart's historic walks around Edinburgh. LINK
Read a short history of SACL's founding father, Stuart Usher  LINK
Stuart Usher SACL
Stuart Usher
Edmund Burrke
https://dunblane.site/lawyers/sacl_tc.htm