Access to justice 'gigantic leap' for Scots party litigants as Cherbi, Wilson & MacKenzie bring the McKenzie Friend to Scottish courts

Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend request. THE MCKENZIE FRIEND, long kept out of Scotland’s courts by the legal profession & Scotland’s legal establishment, has finally broke through the legal fraternity’s forty year embargo against party litigants requesting & receiving non-lawyer supportive assistance in Scotland’s civil courts, with a decision by Lord Woolman in the case of Martin Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others, heard in mid-November 2009, granting the first ever use of a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish civil court.

Peter Cherbi’s Diary of Injustice Law blog broke story on Scotland’s first ever civil law McKenzie Friend. After reporting on the lack of a McKenzie Friend in Scottish Courts for nearly a year, well known law reform campaigner Peter Cherbi EXCLUSIVELY REPORTED Lord Woolman’s November ruling, which now allows all Scots party litigants the right of a McKenzie Friend, writing : “FORTY YEARS after McKenzie Friends were first introduced to UK courts as a result of the 1970 McKenzie v McKenzie decision which set a legal precedent for court users in England & Wales to request and receive the invaluable assistance of a McKenzie Friend, Scotland’s Court of Session has finally, albeit grudgingly fallen into line with the rest of the country and many international jurisdictions by granting what many say is the first successful request for a McKenzie Friend to appear in Scotland's civil courts.”

Peter went onto report : “The unexpected turn of events in the Court of Session last Tuesday, 17th November 2009 saw the sitting judge, Lord Woolman allow the attendance of Scotland’s first ever McKenzie Friend in a long running civil damages action which named Motherwell College, North Lanarkshire Council & Edinburgh Law firm Simpson & Marwick as defenders. The case, a medical injury claim recently heard 'potentially explosive allegations' against the College from the witness box.”

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts Service confirmed the first use of a McKenzie Friend in Scotland, issuing the following brief statement : "I confirm [the party litigant] was allowed to be assisted in the manner associated with the term “McKenzie Friend”. [The litigant's] supporter was advised by the Court as to the nature of his role and is seated behind [the litigant] in court in the place where an instructing agent (solicitor) would sit.”

Lord Gill recommended McKenzie Friends be introduced in his Civil Courts Review. In the recent Civil Courts Review, conducted by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Brian Gill recommended that McKenzie Friends should be introduced in Scotland, not only being allowed to sit beside a litigant but also to be granted a right of audience in some circumstances, to speak for litigants. However, Lord Gill’s detailed recommendations on the introduction & application of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts conflicts severely with claims made by the Lord President to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, where Lord Hamilton claimed that such assistance as provided by McKenzie Friends had always existed in Scotland, when in fact, no recorded use of McKenzie Friends in Scottish Civil Courts has taken place until now, this now confirmed by the Scottish Courts Service itself.

The idea of bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s civil courts arose from a Petition filed at the Parliament last year, reported HERE. Mr Cherbi, speaking to Scottish Law Reporter said he was delighted to see the Courts effectively get the jump on the Petitions Committee, after the Law Society had rigorously campaigned to have his own Petition PE1033 dumped, due to its calls for an investigation into & resolution of past cases of regulatory abuse committed by the Law Society of Scotland.

Mr Cherbi said : “At least in this case, it proves that sometimes, the legal establishment’s powers of controlling the public’s access to justice, can be circumvented with a lot of publicity, a good campaign, a litigant whose efforts were instrumental in the cause, a good petition with some backing and good support from all around the world.”

A Scottish Courts official described Mr Cherbi’s reporting on the McKenzie Friends issue as “a thorn in the flesh of the legal establishment, who proved to be the tipping point on the McKenzie Friend discussion.”

The official continued : “Unfortunately Peter Cherbi’s constant reporting on the McKenzie Friend debate at Parliament brought considerable pressure on the Courts Service to act, and accordingly McKenzie Friends have now been allowed.”

You can read Peter Cherbi’s report on the first ever use of a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish civil court HERE and his many reports on the McKenzie Friend issue, from early 2009 onwards, HERE

Scotland’s newspapers took awhile to catch onto the story, with the Scotsman reporting (in print, not sadly available online) on how badly Scotland’s legal establishment have handled the McKenzie Friend issue here :

Friends are left in limbo

Scotsman 30 November 2009

There seems to be confusion all round on 'McKenzie Friends' - proposed helpers in the courts for those without any representation - writes John Forsyth.

OF ALL the recommendations in Lord Gill's Civil justice Review, the suggestion that McKenzie Friends should be introduced into Scotland seemed among the easiest to achieve and unexceptional.

What could be more straightforward than allowing a party litigant in a civil case to bring a friend to sit beside him or her and provide assistance in court ? This "McKenzie Friend" should take notes, help with case papers, quietly give advice on points of law or procedure and prompt the litigant with questions to put to witnesses.

Instead the McKenzie Friend discussion has recently taken on a Lewis Carroll air, where nothing is quite as it seems in a world of parallel conversations.

Court officials tell callers the Scots law knows no McKenzie Friends, while a Court of Session judge has just allowed one: The Lord President has written to the Scottish Parliament asserting McKenzie Friends have always been allowed in the Scottish Courts though no-one can find a trace of any: the Secretary for Justice seems minded to embrace McKenzie Friends while his civil servants say they would rather not use the term at all if possible.

In England and Wales, the jurisdiction gave the role its name 40 years ago. The origin is in a 1971 English divorce case, McKenzie v McKenzie. Mr McKenzie discovered on the night before the divorce hearing that he was not going to get legal aid to be represented by a solicitor. Mrs McKenzie was. Mr McKenzie was assisted on the day by a young Australian barrister, Ian Hanger, now one of Australia's most celebrated QCs.

The judge didn't like this and sent Hanger to the public gallery. When the judgment was given Mr McKenzie appealed on the grounds he had been deprived of support in court. The appeal was upheld and McKenzie Friends became an accepted courtroom feature.

In England and Wales now, with added underpinnings from the European Convention of Human Rights, the instruction to judges is that while the final decision rests with them on whether to allow a McKenzie Friend, the presumption will be in favour.

It was the wish to make something possible in Scotland that has become normal in England and Wales, that prompted Stewart Mackenzie (no relation) to lodge a petition with the Scottish parliament urging the introduction of McKenzie Friends into Scotland. The petitions committee advised holding fire until Lord Gill had completed his Civil Justice Review and formulated his recommendations.

Lord Gill did endorse the contribution that could be made by McKenzie Friends and even considered the benefits of "McKenzie Friends Plus" in which in certain circumstances they could be allowed to address the court.

The 2 recommendation was clear that this did not imply that the McKenzie Friend was providing representation but where it might help expedite matters he or she could be invited by the judge to speak on the party litigant’s behalf.

While there has as yet been no formal response from the Lord President to the Gill Review, Lord Hamilton wrote to the petitions committee on 3 November stating "... in its original sense it referred to an individual assisting a party litigant by sitting behind him or her in court and assisting that litigant ...". He attributed that description to Chapter 11, para. 42 of the Civil Justice Review.

The phrase "sitting behind him or her" does not appear in that paragraph or in any of the sources referred to in the appendices or anywhere in the thinking of the Civil Justice Review.

The introduction of the phrase allowed Lord Hamilton to continue that "... it is the existing practice of the court to permit it; there is no need for its introduction ...".

The letter stunned everyone in the debate, including Stewart Mackenzie. "I can't find anyone who has ever heard of a McKenzie Friends being allowed in any court in Scotland."

He rang the Court of Session to check and was advised, "McKenzie Friends are an English idea. We don't have them here."

However we now appear to have had one. Almost. In a long running personal injury case, Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council and others, the party litigant, Martin Wilson, asked the court to permit him a McKenzie Friend at a hearing on 17 November. He had had previous similar requests turned down.

This time Lord Woolman allowed the request although the Scottish Courts Service spokeswoman issued clarification that "...[the party litigant was allowed to be assisted in the manner associated with the term 'McKenzie Friend'. [The litigant's] supporter was advised by the court as to the nature of his role and is seated behind [the litigant] in court in the place where an instructing agent (solicitor) would sit."

"The point is," says Stewart Mackenzie, "if the supporter is behind you he's not going to be much help, he'll just annoy the judge and he's not a McKenzie Friend."

Other supporters of McKenzie Friends were astonished at the Lord President's letter. Julia Clarke of Which? rang round the sheriff courts in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee for clarification. "Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow seemed to think a McKenzie Friend might be possible but the other side might object, but Dundee said it wasn't possible."

Independent MSP Margo MacDonald is a supporter of McKenzie Friends and recently discussed the issue with Kenny MacAskill. "He seems minded to accept the idea as it works in England but his civil servants are clearly uncomfortable when the senior judges are taking such different views."

A senior member of the Faculty of Advocates is blunter: "This is like Soviet revisionism. Now they are turning round to say, 'We've always had them so don't worry. Everything is fine.' But we don't have them or anything like them. It doesn't need Holyrood legislation. McKenzie Friends could be in place in a fortnight with a two section Act of Sederunt [the procedure by which the Court of Session regulates its own proceedings]'"

In the meantime, although his stated position is that we don't need to introduce McKenzie Friends by any name because we already have them, the Lord President has appointed Lord Reed to the task of improving Court of Session efficiency with addressing the issue of McKenzie Friends spelled out in his remit. Curiouser and curiouser.

Special Ops & Surveillance training revealed by Law Society twit

Law Society of Scotland twit reveals special black ops. SPECIAL OPS, SURVEILLANCE, INVESTIGATION & PROTECTION are hardly the kind of activities one normally associates with the Law Society of Scotland, especially the part about ‘investigation’ (haha – Ed) but apparently this is exactly what is going on over at the Law Society of Scotland’s HQ at Drumsheugh Gardens these days, according to one of its own directors writing on an internet message website.

Law Society Director Neil Stevenson’s twitter page. In a message on the popular micro blogging website, Twitter, Neil Stevenson, the Law Society of Scotland’s ‘Head of Diversity’ wrote in a ‘twit’ (a short message) : "Working with www.idinquiries.com on special ops, surveillance, investigation and protection – the increasingly hard face of corporate IP 3:45 AM Jan 24th from web”. The firm, id enquiries, identifies its services to the legal profession as follows : “Conventional Inquiries, observations or surveillance which are used to secure statements or acquire evidence, Computer Forensic Services, Asset Tracing and Protection Services, also offering a Special Operations Department which devises bespoke responses when conventional investigations are inappropriate. The department creates a unique strategy to deliver results using a variety of techniques which can include physical or technical surveillance and undercover placement”

IDServices website also state : “We undertake a large amount of surveillance work for the insurance industry, as well as public sector and corporate HR departments. All public sector surveillance is required to comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act (RIP(S)A). ID can also assist public departments not familiar with (RIPA) or (RIP(S)A) procedure to develop compliant strategies.”

Law Society been using RIP(S)A lately ? - now would that be against clients, or solicitors ?

Also we couldn’t help noticing a slight sour grapes in Mr Stevenson’s growl at the Scotsman newspaper for failing to obey orders wishes and publish the Law Society’s comments on this week’s SLCC complaints levy freeze, which appeared here : Budget proposals see freezing of compulsory solicitors' levy to fund complaint commission

Mr Stevenson’s outburst against the Scotsman read : “Frustrated the Scotsman has publish SLCC budget press release, & not our response! Makes it easy ride for them as solicitors & clients pay 12:18 AM Jan 25th from web”

Oh dear, poor Scotsman …and exactly who pays for sloppy work which leads to complaints, Mr Stevenson ? …

Crown Office refuse to release Grampian Police paedophile investigation papers amid claims media were misled over Hollie Greig case

Abuse allegations made by Hollie Greig were subject of misleading public statements by Crown Office. SCOTLAND’S CROWN OFFICE is facing claims it issued deliberately misleading statements over a decision by Stephen McGowan, the Aberdeen Procurator Fiscal not to prosecute a group of identified individuals including a serving Sheriff and Police Officers after Grampian Police investigated allegations of rape & abuse by Hollie Greig, a down’s syndrome woman who was forced to flee with her mother to England after the horrific events which took place in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini used Glasgow law firm Levy McRae to silence media publication of allegations of involvement. The allegations, relating to abuse carried out by an Aberdeen based ‘paedophile gang’, made as far back as 2000 have recently seen a number of successful attempts by private law firms such as Levy MCrae solicitors of Glasgow, acting on behalf of Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate, to censor website content and reporting of certain parts of Ms Greig’s allegations of abuse.

Aberdeen Procurator Fiscal’s letter to victim’s mother explaining lack of prosecution. In a letter from Aberdeen’s Procurator Fiscal, Stephen McGowan to Anne Greig, Hollie’s mother, Mr McGowan stated : “In September of this year, your daughter Hollie was interviewed by officers of Grampian Police in Shropshire and provided a statement in which she alleged that she had been sexually abused. Prior to September, other allegations had been made both by Hollie and by you on her behalf. Having reviewed all of the circumstances of Hollie's case, including Hollie's statements and all other available evidence, a report was prepared for the consideration of Crown Counsel. The conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence to allow criminal proceedings to be taken against any person in respect of these allegations.”

Allegations against Lord Advocate which Scots Law publication “The Firm” printed, then were forced to apologise over, were also mentioned. Curiously, Mr McGowan went on in his letter to detail allegations “made by others” of alleged involvement by the current Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, in the case, claiming decisions taken in Hollie’s case were taken before or after Ms Angiolini’s time as Regional Procurator Fiscal in Grampian. Mr McGowan continued : “During the course of this investigation, it has been alleged by others that the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, had in some way covered up Hollie's allegations. These allegations are unfounded and this has been supported by a careful scrutiny of the case. All key decisions in relation to prosecution in Hollie's case in 2000 and 2001 were taken before or after the Lord Advocate's time as Regional Procurator Fiscal in Grampian and were taken by other senior prosecutors, not the Lord Advocate. In addition, the Lord Advocate has not had any involvement in the recent decision by Crown Counsel that there should be no criminal proceedings.”

A legal insider said he found the references to the Lord Advocate in such a letter explaining a lack of prosecution in an abuse case, to be “unusual”, and questioned why it was included when “others” had made the allegations in the first place.

Crown Office issued ‘alternative version’ to newspapers over reasons why no prosecution took place. To cloud matters even more, it has now been revealed by several journalists the Crown Office issued statements to the press which appeared to contradict the terms of Mr McGowan’s letter to the family over why no prosecutions took place. Where Mr McGowan simply claimed there was “insufficient evidence to allow criminal proceedings to be taken”, the Crown Office’s media unit issued a statement which many claim appears to be an attempt to undermine the events documented in the victim’s allegations, stating : "Historical allegations of sexual abuse made by a 30 year old woman in Shropshire have been thoroughly investigated by Grampian Police. Crown Counsel have considered all the available information and decided that there is insufficient credible, reliable and admissible evidence to justify criminal proceedings in respect of these allegations."

A spokesman for the family issued a statement contending “there had not been a thorough investigation carried out by Grampian Police” and went onto state several key individuals had apparently not been interviewed by the Police during their ‘investigation’ of Ms Greig’s allegations.

A legal insider said he was concerned the questionable differences between what the Procurator Fiscal had told the family in terms of why there had been no prosecution, compared with what the Crown Office were saying publicly on the case, amounted to an attempt to mislead the victim, the media and the public.

Crown Office refused FOI request for investigation documents. In an attempt to verify the content of the Grampian Police investigation, reporters, and the victim’s family had made Freedom of Information requests to the Aberdeen Procurator Fiscal’s office for copies of documents gathered during the Police investigation, only to be told by the Procurator Fiscal he had decided to use a public interest exemption, thus refusing to release any documentation under FOI legislation. Mr McGowan said : “I have concluded that to disclose the information which you have requested would jeopardise the freedom and candour with which the police communicate with the Procurator Fiscal and the consideration of that information by police and prosecutors. I have therefore decided that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. On that basis I am refusing to release the information you have requested.”

The Crown Office have so far refused to make any further comment on the case, however a spokesman for the family has said there could be legal action over recent statements issued by the Crown which are being seen as an attempt to undermine Ms Greig’s traumatic experiences and the expectation that allegations of criminal acts reported to the Police should be dealt with according to law.

Crown Office forces second apology over Aberdeen abuse claims as Lord Advocate's lawyers Levy & McRae threaten Scots media with defamation

Second apology from “The Firm” after legal threats. New developments in a widely reported abuse case where downs syndrome victim, Hollie Greig and her mother Anne have made consistent claims of abuse at the hands of an alleged paedophile ring in the Aberdeen area, initially reported to Grampian Police over ten years ago, have resulted in Scots legal publication “The Firm” being forced into a second apology clarification to the Lord Advocate over their report of 17 November 2009, which related to the identification of key legal figures connected with the claims made by Ms Greig, and a ‘timeline regarding a decision not to prosecute in the abuse case’, the details of which cannot be reported due to legal threats from the Crown Office itself.

The Firm said : “An article of 17 November reported that Anne Greig, mother of Hollie Greig – reportedly abused by an alleged paedophile ring said to include a serving Sheriff and a now deceased police officer – had called for an investigation into the role played by Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, then a Regional Procurator Fiscal, in the decision not to prosecute.”

“We have been asked by the Lord Advocate to make clear the following: there was no allegation of a paedophile ring contained in the police report to the Procurator Fiscal at that time; that there was no allegation about a Sheriff or a policeman in the report; that the decision not to prosecute was made before the Lord Advocate took up post as Regional Procurator Fiscal and on the basis that there was insufficient evidence in law; and that she was unaware of the claim at the time and has never had any involvement in the case. We are happy to make the position clear and did not intend to suggest that she had acted in any way improperly.”

“At the time of publication, the specific details regarding the timeline of the decision not to prosecute, although requested, were not provided by the Crown Office. This information was supplied after publication. Having been furnished with the relevant information, we would like to apologise to the Lord Advocate for any distress that may have been caused.”

In breaking news on the story today, legal insiders have now confirmed that private law firms, among them Levy & McRae solicitors, acting on behalf of Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate have contacted bloggers and journalists, threatening legal action for defamation if information originally reported by “The Firm” on 17 November 2009, and reprinted around the web on various blogs and internet publications, was not removed immediately.

Scots Law online magazine “The Firm” censored abuse case report resulted in more legal threats to media. A legal insider speaking on the Hollie Greig case, who Levy & Mcrae allege had committed defamation by referring to the original article which “The Firm” published & later retracted over legal threats, said : “I received a very stern E-mail from Levy & McRae Solicitors and Notaries Public threatening legal action against me and the hosts of my blog unless I removed the content in question forthwith. At no time in my post did I suggest that the [censored] had been involved in the decision. I was relying on the information reported in The Firm (which has a relatively good reputation as far as I am aware).”

Another individual who claimed he had also received such a letter said he could not even discuss it as he had been officially gagged over the whole affair.

The Crown Office have so far refused to give any media statement, or even confirm that Levy & McRae were acting for the Lord Advocate, and Grampian Police have refused to reply to media enquiries on the case. Today however, it has been revealed by Aberdeen’s Press & Journal newspaper there is to be no prosecution over the abuse allegations by the local Procurator Fiscal.

While the decision not to prosecute will not surprise many, when it comes to claims involving members of Scotland's legal establishment, a less than clear picture is emerging of how the decision not to prosecute has been arrived at, with claims that key documents including initial reports made to Grampian Police in 2000 have now ‘vanished’ along with letters to & from local MSP Brian Adams to certain legal figures and even medical reports, now apparently missing despite Grampian Police’s recent re-investigation of the case.

Robert Green, the legal representative of the Greig family today said the Grampian Police investigation had been "far from thorough" and the campaign for a prosecution of identified individuals would go on.

It is widely believed there is much more to come on this case, noting while media outlets have been threatened with legal action, the victims have not. You can read our earlier reports on the case, HERE and HERE

The Press & Journal report :

Woman loses campaign to have abusers prosecuted

Crown office says there is not enough evidence to bring criminal proceedings

By Ryan Crighton

Published: 07/01/2010

A disabled woman who claims she was abused as a young child by an Aberdeen paedophile ring has been told there is not enough “credible” evidence to bring criminal proceedings against the people she accused.

Hollie Greig, who has Down’s Syndrome, claims she was abused for 14 years from the age of six, and has given police the names of some of the men she says assaulted her, including a senior police officer and a sheriff.

The 30-year-old and her mother, Anne, have been campaigning since 2000 – when police were first informed of the alleged abuse – for criminal proceedings to be taken against those she claims were involved.

The abuse is alleged to have taken place in Aberdeen, and Hollie and her mother claim to have made a statement at Bucksburn police station in July 2000 naming a senior police officer, who has since died, and a sheriff, who is still serving.

Hollie was re-interviewed by police last year, raising Mrs Greig’s hopes that charges would be brought against her daughter’s alleged attackers.

The Crown Office revealed last night that there was not enough reliable evidence to proceed with the case, however.

A spokesman said: “Historical allegations of sexual abuse made by a 30-year-old woman in Shropshire have been thoroughly investigated by Grampian Police.

“Crown Counsel have considered all the available information and decided that there is insufficient credible, reliable and admissible evidence to justify criminal proceedings in respect of these allegations.”

Despite no charges ever being brought, Hollie received £13,500 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April last year.

It is understood that followed evidence from a Grampian detective inspector, who described Hollie as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”.

Mrs Greig, 58, said her daughter has experienced nightmares and panic attacks since she first told her mother about the alleged abuse.

Last night, her legal adviser, Robert Green, said Mrs Greig was “devastated” to hear no charges were being brought, but said her campaign for justice would continue.

Two officers from Grampian Police visited Hollie in September and spent three-and-a-half hours re-interviewing her at a special facility at Shrewsbury.

Hollie and her mother moved to Shropshire to escape the alleged abuse.

Mrs Greig claims two of the alleged abusers moved to Portugal a number of years ago and she went to her local police station at Shrewsbury to pass on that information when news broke of the kidnapping of Madeleine McCann.

Madeleine, who was three at the time, was kidnapped from her family’s holiday apartment at Praia da Luz in the Algarve in 2006. Police believe she was taken by a paedophile.

Lord Advocate Angiolini made complaint to Press Complaints Commission over abuse claims report by Scots law title “The Firm”

Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini filed complaint with PCC over abuse claims publicity. ELISH ANGIOLINI, Scotland’s Lord Advocate is reported to have made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission over Scots legal publication “The Firm” who recently reported on the case of Hollie Greig, a downs syndrome girl who filed reports with Grampian Police over claims she, together with other victims, was abused by an Aberdeen based paedophile gang which the media have reported contains a serving Sheriff and other key figures in Scotland’s legal establishment, including Police officers.

Scots legal publication “The Firm” were censored by legal threats from Lord Advocate. The complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is being widely seen as a tactical move on the part of the Lord Advocate, to warn other media outlets & newspapers from re-printing the allegations made by Hollie & her mother, Anne. However, while the PCC complaint deals with allegations printed by “The Firm”, it gives no answers to medical evidence now disclosed confirming Ms Greig was abused, and neither does it account for a substantial payout to Hollie from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, despite there being no charges to-date against anyone identified as being part of the paedophile gang.

A source at the Press Complaints Commission said they could not release any documentation regarding the complaint, and confirmed the PCC was exempt from Freedom of Information legislation, making it difficult to establish exactly why the Lord Advocate felt it necessary to file a complaint with the PCC through her private lawyers, identified as Glasgow law firm Levy McRae rather than make the complaint in a personal capacity.

It transpired the complaint made by Ms Angiolini through her lawyers was settled in a matter of hours after “The Firm” printed a retraction & apology, which we covered HERE

Press Complaints Commission : Ms Elish Angiolini (Complainant) v The Firm (Publication)

Complainant Name: Ms Elish Angiolini

Clauses Noted: 1

Publication: The Firm

Complaint:

Ms Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, complained through Levy & McRae Solicitors of Glasgow that an online article relating to comments made by the mother of Hollie Greig was inaccurate and misleading.

Resolution:

The complaint was resolved when the magazine published the following text online:

An article of 17 November reported that Anne Greig, mother of Hollie Greig - reportedly abused by an alleged paedophile ring said to include a serving Sheriff and a now deceased police officer - had called for an investigation into the role played by Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, then a Regional Procurator Fiscal, in the decision not to prosecute.

We have been asked by the Lord Advocate to make clear the following: there was no allegation of a paedophile ring contained in the police report to the Procurator Fiscal at that time; that there was no allegation about a Sheriff or a policeman in the report; that the decision not to prosecute was made before the Lord Advocate took up post as Regional Procurator Fiscal and on the basis that there was insufficient evidence in law; and that she was unaware of the claim at the time and has never had any involvement in the case. We are happy to make the position clear and did not intend to suggest that she had acted in any way improperly.

At the time of publication, the specific details regarding the timeline of the decision not to prosecute, although requested, were not provided by the Crown Office. This information was supplied after publication. Having been furnished with the relevant information, we would like to apologise to the Lord Advocate for any distress that may have been caused.