Soul & Conscience letter was false said Doctor as Lord Docherty orders businessman to pay £6.5m to former employers

A BUSINESSMAN has been ordered to hand over £6.5 million to his former employers after falsely claiming via a Doctor’s Soul & Conscience letter that he was suffering from depression to avoid appearing in court.

Paul McKenzie sent the document, known in Scots Law as a soul and conscious certificate, to a judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh after being being sued for breaking the terms of a severance package.

Mr McKenzie had sold his debt collection agency Mackenzie Hall Holdings Ltd for £33.5 million to a US-based company January 2012 but eventually left to work for a rival in breach of agreement. The company brought the action against Mr McKenzie, a member of the Blue Knights consortium that failed to become the preferred bidder for Rangers after it went into administration in 2012.

Lord Doherty, in a ruling on the case on Wednesday, said the entrepreneur sent the sick note to avoid appearing before him. However, when the court clerk with medical staff at NHS Lanarkshire in East Kilbride - they denied either treating the businessman or signing the communication.

Mr McKenzie, of Strathaven, South Lanarkshire, then obtained a sick note from his GP – suggesting he had depression.

But after being contacted, the GP - Dr Craig Smith told Lord Doherty he withdrew the note. Dr Smith said his patient told him "untruths" about his actual condition.

The doctor said that he would not have agreed to it had he known the situation.

On hearing this, Lord Doherty called the document invalid. He said Mr McKenzie has failed to provide any proof that he was too ill to attend court.

Lord Doherty wrote: "It does not emanate from a clinician at the Psychological Therapies team. No satisfactory explanation has been provided by the defender in relation to that important and remarkable matter.

"In particular, no explanation has been proffered to the effect that he consulted a qualified and clearly identified medical practitioner elsewhere and that indeed a doctor is the signatory of the document."

Mr McKenzie sold Kilmarnock-based Mackenzie Hall Holdings Ltd in 2012 to Virginia-based Portfiolio Recovery Assets for $51 million (£33.5m). He stayed on with the business but the new owners terminated Mr McKenzie's employment after he had said he would sign an agreement that he would not do anything to negatively affect the company if he left. Mr McKenzie then began working for a rival.

In December 2012, Mackenzie Hall obtained an interim interdict from a court which was designed to stop him from working for the new company but Mr McKenzie ignored the order. He tried to get the court action against him postponed for a year, but Lord Doherty refused to grant the request.

Mr McKenzie then faced a court action at the Edinburgh court. He had been due to appear at a hearing last week.

Mr McKenzie claimed he lost most of the millions he made from selling shares in his old business through spread betting on the financial markets and gambling. He also said that despite owning two properties in Cape Verde, they could not be sold.

In his ruling, Lord Doherty added: "While I recognise the sum sued for is a very large one and that the proper measures of damages is in issue, the defender has only himself to blame for not appearing at the proof."

Full opinion :

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=a5cdb7a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

[2014] CSOH 169 CA73/13

OPINION OF LORD DOHERTY In the cause (FIRST) A LIMITED (SECOND) B LIMITED (THIRD) C LIMITED (FOURTH) D LIMITED (FIFTH) E LIMITED Pursuers;

against F Defender:Pursuers:  Sandison QC, Watt;  Shepherd & WedderburnDefender:  Party Litigant

27 November 2014

Introduction
[1]        The defender was employed by the fifth pursuer between 1 September 2003 and 8 October 2012.  He founded the business.  He was its Chief Executive Officer and he was a substantial shareholder.  He was a director of that company until 21 September 2012.  The first and second pursuers are wholly owned subsidiaries of the fifth pursuer.  The defender was a director of the first pursuer between 12 September 2003 and 21 September 2012.  He was a director of the second pursuer between 30 November 2006 and 21 November 2012.  The companies’ business was the provision of debt collection services.  On or around 16 January 2012, in terms of a Share Purchase Agreement dated 16 January 2012, the defender sold his shares in the fifth pursuer to the fourth pursuer for in excess of £10 million.  On the same date the defender entered into a Service Agreement with the fifth pursuer.  On 22 July 2012, in accordance with the Service Agreement, the fifth pursuer gave the defender twelve months notice of the termination of his employment.  It exercised its rights under clause 17.5 of the Service Agreement to place him on garden leave; to direct the defender not to contact specified persons, including customers; and to require him to resign as a director of the fifth pursuer.  He refused to resign as a director.  On 8 October 2012 the fifth pursuer served notice on him terminating his employment with immediate effect.

[2]        The Service Agreement contained covenants in terms of which the defender agreed not to be employed, engaged, concerned or interested in any other business or undertaking (cl.14.1), or to compete with the pursuers (cl.14.2) during his employment with the fifth pursuer;  and he obliged himself not to divulge or use the pursuers’ trade secrets or confidential information for any purposes other than those of the pursuers (cl.15).  In terms of clause 17.5 of that Agreement the fifth pursuer was entitled during any period of notice of termination to exclude the defender from its premises and to direct that he refrain from contacting customers, suppliers, agents, professional advisers or employees of the pursuers .  In terms of the Share Purchase Agreement the defender bound himself for a period of three years from 16 January 2012 to abide by similar further restrictive covenants (cl.7).

[3]        The defender breached the covenants in both Agreements.  The breach included acting to the detriment of the pursuers and for the benefit of a company M Ltd, whose whole share capital was registered in the name of a woman G with whom the defender had a personal relationship and a child.  On 31 July 2012 the fourth and fifth pursuers presented a petition for interdict and obtained interim interdict against him continuing to breach the covenants.  On 26 September 2012 part of the interlocutor of 31 July 2012 was recalled and was replaced by a further interlocutor.  By interlocutor of 6 December 2012  interdict was pronounced in materially the same terms as the interim interdict.  Notwithstanding the interim interdict, and then the interdict, the defender continued the prohibited conduct.  In April 2013 the fourth and fifth pursuers served upon the defender a petition and complaint for breach of interdict.

[4]        In the present action the pursuers seek damages from the defender for breach of the obligations incumbent upon him in terms of the Service Agreement and the Share Purchase Agreement.  The sum first concluded for (by the fourth pursuer) is £6,507,000 with interest from the date of citation.

[5]        By interlocutors of 25 April 2014 a proof before answer was allowed in the damages action and in the petition and complaint proceedings.  The defender was represented by solicitors and counsel until 5 August 2014.  On that date his solicitors withdrew from acting.  Since then the defender has represented himself.

[6]        On 2 September 2014 I refused a motion by the defender to discharge the diet of proof.  The basis of the motion had been that he wanted to have a year to prepare for proof.  At that time the defender also indicated that he wished to admit the breach of interdict, and the breach of covenants complained of in the damages action.  That matter was continued to give the defender an opportunity to consider entering into joint minutes of admissions.  I advised him to consider obtaining advice.

[7]        On 18 September 2014 both cases came before me once more and the defender again appeared on his own behalf.  In terms of a joint minute of admissions (No.  58 of process) the defender admitted the pursuers’ averments in the damages action anent breach of the covenants under the Service Agreement and the Share Purchase Agreement.  In terms of a joint minute of admissions (No. 31 of Process) he admitted the breach of interdict and interim interdict averred in the petition and complaint proceedings.  I pronounced an interlocutor finding the defender to be in breach of the interim interdict and the interdict.  I continued the question of disposal of the petition and complaint until after the conclusion of the damages action.

[8]        A pre-proof by order took place on 23 October 2014 at which arrangements and preparations for the proof were discussed.  On 31 October 2014 I heard two opposed motions which had been enrolled by the defender, the first being for recall of an arrestment on the dependence, and the second being to discharge the proof to allow the defender time to make a legal aid application.  The defender submitted that his financial resources had “run out” three to four weeks earlier.  It was only then that he had realised he might be eligible for legal aid.  He had now applied for income support.  There was a “95% chance” of his insolvency.  £38,000 in his bank account had been arrested.  If the arrestment was recalled he proposed to use the money released to fund the litigation.  He had not yet instructed a solicitor or submitted a legal aid application.

[9]        The defender claimed that most of the purchase price of £10 million for his shares had been lost through spread betting on the financial markets and through gambling.  £440,000 had been used for the purchase of his house.  £500,000 had been paid to his former wife as a divorce settlement.  £3,000 a month had been paid for maintenance of his children.  Brokers’ fees in relation to the share sale had accounted for £400,000 and £100,000 had gone towards payments to company staff.  Repayment of debts and taxes accounted for another £100,000.  He had two properties in Cape Verde which were worth £50,000, but he maintained it was not possible sell them.  He had disponed a house to G.  He maintained that he had concluded missives to do that before the inhibition.  Mr Sandison observed that if that were so it was very curious that his counsel had not raised that matter on 8 January 2013 when a previous motion for recall of the inhibition and the arrestment on the dependence had been heard.

[10]      I refused the motion for recall of the arrestment.  Standing the admission of liability, the defender’s own estimate of the risk of insolvency, and the lack of full and appropriate vouching of his resources, it appeared to me to be reasonable in all the circumstances that the arrestment should continue.

[11]      I also refused the motion for a discharge of the proof.  The motion came at a very late stage.  The material placed before me by the defender was unsatisfactory.  The possibility of discharging the diet had not been raised at the hearings on 18 September or 23 October: nor had there been any mention of making a legal aid application.  As at 31 October no solicitor had even been instructed to consider or prepare a legal aid application.  I indicated that the refusal was in hoc statu; and that if a stage was reached where a solicitor was satisfied that the defender was eligible for legal aid, and that there were grounds for submitting a legal aid application, the matter could be reconsidered.

Events of 17 and 18 November
[12]      The diet of proof had been set down for 18-21 November 2014 and 11 and 12 December 2014.  At lunchtime on Monday 17 November 2014 an envelope was delivered by hand to the reception at Parliament House with a request that it be passed to my clerk.  The contents were a single sheet (6/67 of process).  There was no covering note or letter.  The document is a single sheet which is partly printed and partly written in manuscript.  The printed parts are represented below in regular font and the manuscript parts are in italic font:

“Psychological Therapies Team  NHS Lanarkshire 4th Floor PRIVATE    Atholl House Churchill Avenue East Kilbride G74 1LU

CHI [A 10 digit number] Date:  14/11/14

[The defender’s name]  Our Ref:  

[The defender’s address and postcode] Your ref:   PD/RM D.O.B   [Date]

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

IN SOUL AND CONSCIENCE

I can confirm the above patient is suffering from severe anxiety and depression, and is not fit enough to attend court at this time.  I would suggest a review after a period of 3-6 months.

Signature [indecipherable]

[NHS pro forma printed information]

GP Notified\Referral”

[13]      The document’s appearance is odd.  The “printed” parts of the document look as if they have been photocopied or scanned.  This feature, and the absence of a doctor’s name on the document, were brought to my attention by my clerk.  On my instructions she emailed the defender at 15.16.  She indicated that the hand delivered letter had been received, and she asked him for the name of the practitioner he had attended and where that consultation had taken place.  The defender did not reply until 20.11.  His email stated:

“…  I got a referral to Dr McCabe on the 14th Nov.  …  Should the courts wish a report from the Psychological Therapies Team then please send me the appropriate mandate which I will sign for authorisation …”

[14]      On the morning of 18 November my clerk contacted the Psychological Therapies Team at Atholl House to seek confirmation that the document emanated from them.  She was advised that it did not, and that the defender was not a patient of the Team.  My clerk reverted to the defender advising him of this information and repeating the request for the full name of the doctor who signed the letter and the place where the defender had attended that doctor.  The defender replied that his appointment “was a Private Consultation on 14th Nov 2014” but he provided no further details.

[15]      Given the questions which arose as to the document I did not convene the court until the enquiries already mentioned had been made.  When the Court convened Mr Sandison moved for decree by default in terms of rule of court 20.1 in respect of the defender’s failure to appear at the proof diet.  Given the history the defender’s conduct and his recent attempts to discharge the proof, and the considerable doubt as to the purported soul and conscience certificate’s authenticity, the court ought to be very sceptical of his claim - made on the eve of the proof - that he was unfit to attend.  The pursuers had incurred substantial outlays.  The attendance of lay and expert witnesses (some from the United States) had been arranged at considerable expense.

[16]      I wished further clarification as to the provenance and authenticity of the soul and conscience letter.  I continued the pursuers’ motion until 21 November to enable further inquiries to be made.

Developments after the hearing on 18 November
[17]      Between 18 and 21 November the defender was requested again on a number of occasions to provide the full name of the doctor who signed the letter and the place where he consulted that doctor.  He did not provide that information.

[18]      At 18.23 on Wednesday 19 November the defender emailed my clerk attaching a letter from Dr Craig Smith (6/73 of process):

“…19th November 2014

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: [Defender’s name, address and date of birth]

As General Practitioner to the above I can confirm that he has been suffering from anxiety and depression and has been reviewed by my colleague and has been commenced on antidepressants.  Due to this ongoing low mood and anxiety I do not feel that it would be suitable for him to appear in court at the present moment and I would be grateful if he could be excused this on medical grounds.

If you require further information please feel free to contact myself.

On Soul and Conscience

Yours sincerely

[signature]

Dr Craig J Smith”

[19]      On the morning of 20 November my clerk emailed the defender:

“…  The Court still awaits the full name of the doctor who signed the letter dated 14 November 2014 and the location of where you attended to obtain the letter.

If you now intend to rely upon the letter from [the GPs’ practice], please can you send the original hard copy marked for my attention …

As previously advised the case will call again tomorrow at 10 am …”

The defender indicated by email that he wished to rely upon both 6/67 and 6/73.  A copy of Dr Smith’s letter was forwarded by my clerk to the pursuers’ solicitors.

[20]      On 19 November 2014 the pursuers obtained affidavits from Patrick Dolan (the Team Co-ordinator of the Psychological Therapies Team at Atholl House) and from Kenneth Ewing-Day (the Deputy Team Co-ordinator).  Both affirmed “clearly and categorically” that the letter 6/67 of process was not produced by the Psychological Therapies Team.  Both gave full explanations - which are set out in their affidavits (6/69 and 6/70 of process) - in support of their conclusion.

[21]      On 20 November the pursuers’ solicitors contacted Dr Smith by telephone.  Thereafter they emailed him setting out an account of the background to the litigation and attaching copies of the affidavits from Mr Dolan and Mr Ewing-Day.  At 15.14 that day Dr Smith faxed the following letter to my clerk: …

20th November 2014

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: [Defender’s name, address and date of birth]

As General Practitioner to the above I was asked on 19th November to provide him with a soul and conscience letter for him so that he could be excused from a court appearance due to his recent diagnosis of anxiety and low mood having seen my colleague Dr Godley on 11th November who has commenced him on antidepressants because of this.  He told me at the time that the court was of [sic] a minor civil matter and one which he was not greatly involved in.  He has also told me that he had consulted a private psychologist about his ongoing symptoms who has also provided a soul and conscience letter but this had been rejected and [sic] as it had not been done by a general practitioner.  He showed me a copy of this letter on his phone.

I have subsequently been made aware that the original soul and conscience letter was a forgery and obtained dishonestly and that his appearance at the Court of Session is much more serious than the “minor matter” which he initially described to me.

I now feel that the whole consultation with me has been dishonest and if I had known the true facts I would not have agreed to provide him with a soul and conscience letter.  As the consultation was based on deception and untruths I cannot guarantee how much of his symptomology and complaints concerning his low mood and anxiety are truthful and feel there has been a breakdown in the doctor patient relationship a relationship which we have to build on trust with each other and one which generally practitioners value highly.

To that extent I am withdrawing my original soul and conscience letter because of the way I was asked to provide this and due to the fact that I am now unable to state confidently whether or note [sic] [the defender’s] symptoms are genuine  because of the dishonesty he was involved in during the consultation.  I can no longer provide a soul and conscience letter excusing him from court appearance on medical grounds and I feel he is well enough to attend court.

If you require further information please feel free to contact myself.

Yours sincerely,

[signature]

Dr Craig J Smith

On soul and conscience.”

My clerk immediately contacted the defender and the pursuers’ solicitors and forwarded Dr Smith’s letter to them.

The continued motion on 21 November
[22]      On 21 November Mr Sandison renewed his motion for decree by default in terms of the first and fifth conclusions of the summons.  The defender had failed to attend the proof on 18th November.  The proof was a peremptory diet.  It was clear, he submitted, that the soul and conscience letter of 14 November was a forgery.  That was amply vouched by the affidavits of Mr Dolan and Mr Ewing-Day.  Even if that had not been clear, there would have been every reason to conclude (given the history of the defender’s wilful breach of the contractual covenants and of the interim and permanent interdicts, and his repeated unsuccessful attempts to discharge the proof) that the obtaining of the certificate had just been a further example of the defender’s manipulative and dishonest conduct.  In the result, the facts spoke for themselves.

Decision and reasons
[23]      The defender did not appear for the proof diet.  No indication of any health problems had been given at any previous calling of the case.  It seems that he first attended at the GP practice complaining of symptoms of anxiety and depression on Tuesday 11 November - a week before the proof.  He was unknown to the practice before that date.  He was prescribed anti-depressant medication.  No soul and conscience certificate appears to have been either sought or obtained at that stage.  Nothing was done to alert the court or the pursuers to any suggestion that the defender would be unfit to attend the proof until the letter of 14 November was hand delivered to Parliament House on the afternoon of 17 November.  Standing (i) the history of the defender’s conduct in relation to wilful breach of his contractual obligations and wilful breach of the interim and permanent interdicts (ii) his previous unsuccessful attempts to discharge the proof diet (iii) the events leading up to and following 18 November, I think it likely that the defender deliberately left raising the issue of his fitness to attend court until the very last minute because he knew that by doing so it would leave the pursuers and the court with little or no time to investigate the issue properly before the proof was due to commence.

[24]      The soul and conscience certificate 6/67 of process cried out for further scrutiny.  It appears to be written in manuscript on scanned or photocopied paper headed Psychological Therapies Team, NHS Lanarkshire, the address given for the Team being Atholl House in East Kilbride.  The signature of the author of the document is illegible.

[25]      The defender was asked repeatedly to clarify the full name of the signatory and where the consultation with him took place.  He was evasive and did not answer those questions.

[26]      When the defender was asked to comment on the fact that the Psychological Therapies Team at Atholl House indicated that he was not a patient and that the letter did not emanate from any clinician there, he provided no explanation.  Instead his response was to make an appointment with Dr Smith.

[27]      It is clear from Dr Smith’s letter of 20 November that the account which the defender gave of his circumstances when he attended at the surgery on 19 November was inaccurate and misleading; and that it included reliance by him on the letter of 14 November.

[28]      Whatever else it is, it is clear that 6/67 of process is not what it bears to be.  It does not emanate from a clinician at the Psychological Therapies Team.  No satisfactory explanation has been provided by the defender in relation to that important and remarkable matter.  In particular, no explanation has been proffered to the effect that he consulted a qualified, and clearly identified, medical practitioner elsewhere and that that doctor is the signatory of the document.

[29]      Dr Smith’s letter of 19 November was obtained at a consultation on what ought to have been the second day of the proof.  He has withdrawn it in the circumstances explained in his letter of 20 November.

[30]      The upshot is that there was, and is, no valid soul and conscience certificate certifying that the defender was unfit to attend court on 18 November.  I am not satisfied that he was unfit to attend.

[31]      The defender failed to attend a peremptory diet.  The proof was restricted to the issue of damages.  While I recognise that the sum sued for is a very large one, and that the proper measure of damages is in issue, the defender has only himself to blame for not appearing at the proof.  I agree with Mr Sandison that in the circumstances of this case the consequences of that failure should be that decree by default is pronounced.

[32]      Even if 6/67 had been signed by a duly qualified medical practitioner I would not have accepted it as a basis for excusing the defender’s non-appearance without making further inquiry, particularly in view of the factors I have outlined at paragraph 23 supra.  As the Second Division observed in The Scottish Ministers v Smith 2010 SLT 1100, at paragraph 7:

“[7]      A medical certificate to the effect that a person is unfit to attend court is not conclusive evidence of that fact.  In every case it is for the court to decide, from the certificate and any other relevant circumstances, whether it is persuaded that the person concerned is unfit to attend and, if so, what the consequences of that should be.”

Disposal
[33]      I shall grant decree by default by pronouncing decree for payment by the defender to the fourth pursuer of the sum of £6,507,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 8 per cent per year from the date of citation until payment, all in terms of the first conclusion; and for payment by the defender to the pursuers of the expenses of the action. 

Edinburgh solicitor Clive Franks commits suicide as Law Society of Scotland investigates dodgy accounting & missing client funds

Clive Franks, Franks Macadam Brown solicitors, Edinburgh. A SOLICITOR who sat on a Law Society of Scotland Complaints Committee and acted as a ‘Reporter’ for the society in complaints investigations against corrupt lawyers, killed himself the same week the Law Society launched an investigation into missing client funds and faulty accounting.

CLIVE FRANKS (60), a partner in Edinburgh law firm, Franks Macdam Brown.was found dead in the garage of his home in Dalgety Bay, Fife, at around 4.30pm on Monday, November 10.

Franks had been under Investigation by the Law Society, after concerns were raised over his firm's accounts. It is reported he was facing suspension of his practicing certificate.

After reports of irregularities, reports from inside the Law Society suggest client money was either missing, or the accounting records were so poor or had been faked up to cover possible fraud, it was hard to tell whether cash had disappeared.

Mr Franks last year defended a high profile case involving building tycoon Alfred Stewart, who cut his four children out of his £6.7mllllon will and left the bulk of the money to charity when he died In 2008. The will was changed 28 days before Stewart died, and named Franks as his personal solicitor and executor.

During the case, evidence was heard revealing millionaire Alfred Stewart – who was given an MBE by the Queen, was alleged to have been involved in abuse of his family members.

The Court of Session opinion issued by Lord Brailsford and available on the Scottish Courts website HERE reveals: “Mr Stewart described his father as being strict and controlling and possessing a short temper. He appears to have been particularly unpleasant towards his wife, Mr Stewart's mother. According to Mr Stewart, he displayed no patience towards the lady. On a number of occasions this "stepped over into physical abuse".

“According to Mr Stewart, when his mother returned home later that evening, his father "went ballistic". Mr Stewart and his siblings were terrified and ran to their bedrooms. He could hear what he believed was his father assaulting his mother. He said that his grandfather tried to intervene and prevent the physical abuse being perpetrated by the testator.”

Franks was also a trustee of the Alfred Stewart Trust, the charity established in the will and won against the challenge brought by Stewart’s family.

A spokesman for the society said: "We were very saddened to hear about the death of Mr Franks and offer our sympathies to his friends and family during what must be a distressing time."

"We can confirm that Mr Franks was subject to an Investigation by the Law Society. A Judicial factor was appointed by the courts on Friday, November 14. The application to appoint a judicial factor was made to the court to protect clients' interests after the Law Society raised concerns about the firm's accounting records."

The Law Society have not issued a press release on the case. Franks Macadam Brown could not be contacted for comment.

In a submission Clive Franks made to the Scottish Parliament some years ago to lobby against legal reforms of the complaints system, he revealed he acted as a “reporter” for the Law Society of Scotland. A “reporter” is a solicitor who investigates complaints made against other solicitors.

Mr Franks wrote: I qualified as a solicitor in the service of the Bank of Scotland in 1980, and remained an employed solicitor within the Bank of Scotland, prior to setting up my own practice in 1985. I was appointed a Reporter to the Client Relations Office of the Law Society of Scotland in 1998, becoming a Committee Member in 1999. As a Reporter I have completed over 100 Reports for the Law Society. In 2004 I was appointed Convenor of Client Relations Committee A, the first non-council member of the Law Society of Scotland to be appointed to a convenorship.

Until quite recently, neither Reporters nor Committee Members were paid for their work. Nowadays Reporters receive an honorarium of £100 per Report satisfactorily completed, and Committee Members receive a payment of £50 per meeting attended. I have yet to do a Report that took less than 2 hours, and some take a considerable amount of time, usually outwith office hours, i.e. in my spare time.Committee Meetings usually take 2 hours or more, with as much time again, if not more, being spent in preparation work - reading the Committee papers and familiarising oneself with their contents, so that one is thoroughly briefed by the time of attendance at Committee.I think it will be seen that, although a small payment is now received, Reporters and Committee Members are hardly well paid, and it might be said that their much dedicated work is a contribution of good will to the Law Society.

Coincidentally, Clive Franks suicide came the same week the Law Society of Scotland and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) launched a 'How to' complaint against a lawyer video in an attempt to curb rising numbers of complaints against corrupt solicitors and poor legal services in Scotland.

The latest suicide of a lawyer comes a few years after a case where solicitor James Muir, based in Bothwell, Lanarkshire committed suicide in 2005 after it was revealed he was being investigated by the Scottish Legal Aid Board for stealing £1.8 million in Legal Aid.

FOI FREEDOM TO LIE: Scots Info Commissioner admits Data Protection breaches as journalist's call to reform Freedom of Information Act ditched by Holyrood

Axe Honesty First: SIC Rosemary Agnew broke Data Protection Act THE high-powered watchdog responsible for promoting and enforcing Scotland’s freedom of information laws has issued an unreserved apology to a retired Borders journalist after admitting three breaches of the Data Protection Act (DPA).

But the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) will not be hit with any form of punishment after an investigation by the England-based Information Commissioner (IC) concluded there was no need for further action.

A second complaint against the SIC by former Scotsman reporter Bill Chisholm, from Jedburgh, that the Commissioner - Rosemary Agnew released around 200 pages of personal correspondence to a Freedom of Information (FOI) requester without asking his permission and without even consulting him was not upheld.

Earlier this year Mr Chisholm submitted Petition PE1512 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2002 to the Scottish Parliament seeking an addition to the Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) which would force councils and other public authorities to provide “honest and accurate” responses to requests for information.

Holyrood evidence session with Bill Chisholm on reform to Freedom of Information

But the petition met stiff opposition from Ms Agnew’s office and from the Scottish Government. They both claimed there was no need for amended legislation, and in any case Mr Chisholm’s proposals would be “unworkable”.

Last week MSPs on the Public Petitions Committee agreed unanimously to close down Mr Chisholm’s petition which means it will receive no further consideration.

While his petition was still “live” Mr Chisholm decided not to disclose details of the SIC’s triple breach of the Data Protection Act which occurred earlier this year.

Ms Agnew, who gave evidence to the Petitions Committee in May, received a FOI request asking for copies of all documents and email exchanges relating to Mr Chisholm’s petition. The extensive collection of correspondence was released by the SIC, and the contents were subsequently published on an internet website.

But in providing the information to the requester Ms Agnew’s office failed to redact Mr Chisholm’s email address from three separate documents, thereby committing clear breaches of the Data Protection regulations.

Before lodging a complaint with the SIC Mr Chisholm rang the Information Commissioner’s Helpline to ask for their opinion and advice. He said: “At this stage I did not identify the SIC as the offender. I was told several times by the person who took my call that the public authority concerned had no right to release any information without contacting me first. I was advised to seek an explanation before asking for an investigation.”

The SIC subsequently carried out its own internal enquiry which confirmed the three breaches of the Data Protection Act but dismissed the rest of the complaint.

Margaret Keyse, Head of Enforcement at the SIC told Mr Chisholm in a written decision: “I examined the information we disclosed and what we told the requester. It was clear from the response that we intended to withhold your email address, because it was your personal data and because we considered that disclosure would breach the DPA. We redacted it in most places where it appeared but, through a clerical error, we failed to redact it in three places.

“I am very sorry that this has happened and apologise unreservedly for any distress this has caused you. Although the accidental disclosure was the result of a clerical error rather than procedural failure, the Scottish Information Commissioner will also reflect on this and incorporate any lessons learned in the review of our internal procedures for responding to information requests.”

Mr Chisholm was not satisfied with the outcome of the SIC investigation, and referred the case to the ICO for their consideration.

In their decision notice, sent to Mr Chisholm at the weekend, the ICO’s Lead Case Officer Rachel Webster said: “Given that your email address should have been withheld it appears unlikely that the SIC has complied with the Data Protection Act 1998. In particular it appears that the SIC has contravened the First Principle by disclosing your email address.

“The SIC has explained in their response the changes they have made to their procedures to try and prevent any future reoccurrence of this problem. I am satisfied at the changes they have made and do not anticipate taking any further action at this time.”

But Ms Webster went on to say that the SIC had not broken FOI rules by passing the 200 pages of correspondence to the requester.

She wrote: “It appears from the information provided that the personal data released by the SIC was limited. As such it is likely in this case given that some of your personal data was already in the public domain as a result of your petition and that the SIC believed it was in the legitimate interests of the requester to be provided with the information that contained your personal data, in our view, it was reasonable for this to be released.

Commenting on the outcome Mr Chisholm said: “The advice I was given by the ICO in June appears to have been flawed or plain wrong. I maintain that the SIC had no right to issue correspondence I had with them without even having the courtesy to inform me beforehand.

“The decision by the ICO to take no further action simply emphasises the point I was trying to make via my petition. Public authorities can flout FOISA or breach the DPA without fear of punishment. The entire system lacks credibility, but there are too many vested interests to allow any strengthening of the law.”

Lady Smith appointed as head of Scottish Tribunals as Scottish Government clear up of devolved tribunals gets underway

Judge Lady Smith now head of Scottish Tribunals. COURT OF SESSION judge Lady Smith has been appointed as the first President of the Scottish Tribunals by Scotland’s current top judge – the Lord President & Lord Justice General Lord Brian Gill. The appointment was made under the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014, where the Lord President, Lord Gill, has overall leadership of the Scottish Tribunals. Lord Gill has now formally assigned Lady Smith to the Office of President, to whom he may delegate various functions.

The main policy objective of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 is to create a new, two-tier structure for devolved tribunals in Scotland – to be known as the Scottish Tribunals – which will comprise a First-tier Tribunal for first instance decisions and an Upper Tribunal (primarily for dealing with appeals) with a common system of leadership, appointments, practice and procedures for reviews and appeals, under the overall leadership of the Lord President of the Court of Session.

Lady Smith - Anne Mather Smith was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Courts in 2001 and was appointed to the Inner House in November 2012.

She is a graduate of the University of Edinburgh (LL.B. Hons). She was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1980 and was Standing Junior Counsel to the Countryside Commission. Lady Smith was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1993. She served as a Temporary Sheriff from 1995 to 1999. Lady Smith was appointed Chairman of the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse from 1998 to 2000 and served as Advocate Depute from 2000 until she was appointed a Judge.  

She has served as a member of the Court of Session Rules Council and is a past Chairman of the Advocates Family Law Group and Chairman of the Advocates Professional Negligence Law Group.

Lady Smith has extensive experience of sitting in tribunals and working with tribunal judges and members.  She was a judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal for eight years and she chairs the Scottish Tribunals Forum and the Reserved Tribunals Group. She also represents the interests of the Lord President in relation to tribunals where the relevant law has not been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, on the Tribunals Judicial Executive Board, chaired by the Senior President of Tribunals (currently Lord Justice Sullivan).

Lady Smith’s partner, retired solicitor David Smith formerly with Shepherd & Wedderburn, and more recently a controversial pro-lawyer board member of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission hit the headlines when the now retired Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion – who now sits on the SLCC as a board member,  ruled the Commission had unjustifiably covered up documents relating to David Smith’s conduct during his time on the board.

Dunion forced the SLCC to disclose details, revealing Lady Smith’s husband had embarked on a tirade of insults against victims of dishonest lawyers during internal communications between SLCC board members, and branded members of the public “Frequent Flyers” during discussions on how to deal with complaints against the legal profession.

Lady Smith is also known for throwing out the Scottish National Party’s bid to use the Court of Session to block the broadcast of the Prime Ministerial debate on the lead up to the 2010 General Election, reported HERE.

The first Commencement Order for the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014, published on Monday 14 July 2014, brings into force section 4(1),(2),(3), and (5) of the Act enabling the Lord President to make this appointment. With the coming into force of the Order and by virtue of the power conferred on the Lord President by section 4(2) of the Act, Lord Gill has formally assigned Lady Smith to the Office of President of the Scottish Tribunals, to whom he may delegate various functions.

SCOTTISH TRIBUNALS:

In Scotland there are currently three different types of tribunals:

• Tribunals that deal with devolved issues and have specific Scottish jurisdiction and structures (such as the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland);
• Tribunals that deal with reserved issues, but have specific Scottish jurisdiction and structures (such as the tribunal that deals with War Pensions); and
• Tribunals that deal with reserved issues and have GB‐wide jurisdiction and structures (such as the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First‐tier tribunal which deals with appeals relating to Social Security and Child Support).

The Scottish Tribunals Service

The STS provides administrative support to six tribunals:

• The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (ASNTS)
• The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (MHTS)
• The Pensions Appeal Tribunals Scotland (PATS)
• The Scottish Charity Appeals Panel (SCAP)
• The Lands Tribunal for Scotland (LTS)
• The Private Rented Housing Panel (PRHP)

Reserved Tribunals

The following reserved tribunals are administered by HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS):

• Immigration and Asylum Tribunal
• Social Entitlement (Social Security and Child Support Appeals)
• The Employment Tribunal in Scotland

EXPOSED: The Court of Session Clerk who downloaded child porn & whispered in the ears of Scotland’s top judges

Court of Session was workplace of clerk who admitted downloading child porn. A HIGH COURT clerk & close confidante of Scotland’s top judges in the Court of Session has admitted downloading child porn images while he was employed by the Scottish Court Service. Donald Bruton, who resigned from the Scottish Court Service after child pornography was discovered on his computer pleaded guilty to downloading the indecent images between July 24, 2011, and October 3 last year.

This latest case involving a figure close to Scotland’s judges on charges of child porn is one of many instances were staff working at the Scottish Court Service (SCS) and even prosecutors at the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have been linked to the downloading of, and in some cases distributing child porn images. However, not all cases have resulted in prosecutions …

The Daily Mail reports:

HIGH COURT OFFICIAL WAS CAUGHT WITH CHILD PORN ON HIS LAPTOP

By Victoria Allen Daily Mail

A HIGH Court clerk yesterday admitted downloading indecent images of children.

Donald Bruton was forced to resign from his post at the Court of Session and the High Court after child pornography was discovered on his laptop.

He was found with indecent pictures of young girls aged ten to 15, three images being of the most serious 'level five' type.

Bruton, 60, was arrested after the laptop was discovered at his home in Joppa, Edinburgh, and appeared last October at the city's sheriff court, where he had to face his colleagues. He resigned from his job soon afterwards.

Yesterday, at the same court, he pleaded guilty to downloading the indecent images between July 24, 2011, and October 3 last year.

Fiscal Depute Aidan Higgins told the court police had received intelligence about Bruton's actions.

They went to the home he shared with his wife and two adult sons on October 3 last year. On being told the reason for their visit, the clerk directed them towards the laptop.

Mr Higgins said: 'He told the police he had been downloading these images of children for some time out of curiosity and had taken to searching for indecent images.'

Bruton worked with some of Scotland's most senior judges, particularly on commercial cases.

He was responsible for the daily running of proceedings at the Court of Session, which holds complex and high-value cases including divorce and libel actions.

The clerk formerly worked on criminal cases at the High Court in Edinburgh and Edinburgh Sheriff Court. He was also a member of the Edinburgh Budgerigar Association, where he served as treasurer, secretary and publicity officer.

Bruton had 16 pictures - four at level one in the scale of child pornography, one at level two, four at level three and four at level four. There were three at level five - the worst rating, which includes sadism and bestiality.

Defence solicitor Mark Harrower told Sheriff Alistair Noble his client has no previous convictions.

Sheriff Noble deferred sentence until August 5 for a social work report and continued Bruton's bail. He has also been placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

The Scottish Courts Service refused to comment after he was arrested as the case was active.

Scottish Conservative chief whip John Lamont said: 'It is wrong and inexcusable for anyone to access images such as this. But when it is someone working in such a senior position within the law, it seems to become more shocking.'

Alison Todd, chief executive of Scots charity Children 1st, which has campaigned for tougher sentences for paedophiles, said: 'Child pornography is not a victimless crime. Every image is evidence of achild suffering abuse from which they may never fully recover.'

Scottish Government spend £800K of public cash on the appointment of 6 new Sheriffs as Courts look for business

Six new sheriffs added to Scotland’s burgeoning judicial elite. the AS local courts across Scotland close, allegedly to ‘save money’ and tens of millions of pounds are spent on maintaining the Parliament Square powerbase of Scotland’s ageing judges, the Scottish Government have this week swollen the ranks of Scotland’s judiciary even further with the appointment of six solicitors as Sheriffs on an annual salary of £130,875 plus the usual range of perks and multi million pound judicial pensions.

Those appointed in the latest round of additions to the judiciary are Mrs Aisha Yaqoob Anwar, Solicitor as a sheriff of Glasgow and Strathkelvin; Ms Lorna Allison Drummond, QC, as a sheriff of Tayside, Central and Fife; Ms Alison Nancy Stirling, Advocate and Mr Gordon Fleetwood, Solicitor as sheriffs of Grampian, Highland and Islands; Ian Macdonald Fleming, Solicitor Advocate as a sheriff of North Strathclyde; and Mr Brian Anthony Mohan, Solicitor as sheriff of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway. First Minister Alex Salmond nominated those recommended for appointment on the basis of a report by the independent Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.

Aisha Anwar graduated with an LLB Hons from the University Edinburgh in 1996 and a Bachelor of Civil Law (Oxford 1998). She joined Maclay Murray and Spens in 1998 as a trainee, was admitted as a solicitor in 2000 and became an associate in 2003. From 2009 to 2012 she became a partner and then head of litigation at DLA Piper. She was appointed as a part-time sheriff in 2011. She has authored numerous publications, lectured and tutored. She recently co-authored the Civil Bench Book for Sheriffs on behalf of the Judicial Institute.

Brian Mohan graduated with an LLB Hons from the University of Glasgow in 1981. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1988. In 1992 he became a partner in Cartys Solicitors, concentrating on employment tribunal and sheriff court work in Hamilton and Airdrie. In 2009 he completed an LLM in Human Rights. Mr Mohan served as a Children’s Panel safeguarder in North Lanarkshire. He was a tutor in Glasgow University’s courses in Public Law (1989-2003) and Diploma in Legal Practice (2010-2014).

Alison Stirling graduated with an LLB from the University of Edinburgh in 1992. She was admitted as a Solicitor in 1994. In 1995 she became Legal Assistant to the Lord President and was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1997. She has been Deputy Editor of Session Cases since 2001. She was appointed a part-time sheriff in 2011 and in 2014 was appointed a Legal Assessor to the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Ian Fleming graduated with a LLB Hons from the University of Strathclyde in 1983. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1985. He was a trainee solicitor, assistant and partner with Paton and Co before becoming a partner with Fleming and Reid in 1990. He became a solicitor advocate in 2001. He was appointed as a part-time sheriff in 2005, a Convenor of Mental Health Tribunals in 2010 and a member of the Judicial Panel of the Scottish Football Association in 2011.

Lorna Drummond graduated with an LLB Hons from the University of Glasgow in 1985 followed by a Masters in Philosophy from the University of Cambridge. She was admitted as a solicitor in 1993 and employed as Assistant Scottish Parliamentary Counsel and Assistant Legal Secretary to the Scottish Law Officers before being called to the Bar in 1998. She was appointed Standing Junior to the Advocate General and to the Scottish Ministers. She was appointed a part time sheriff in 2009 and took silk in 2011.

Gordon Fleetwood graduated with an LLB Hons from the University of Edinburgh in 1973. He was admitted as a Solicitor in 1975 and became a Solicitor Advocate in 1994. Solicitor, More and Co, 1977-1982; then in Inverness with Sutherland and Co, 1982-1986 and Fleetwood and Robb, 1986-2004. He was principal in own practice, 2004-2008. He has been a part-time sheriff since 2003 and a legal member of the Parole Board since 2010.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland was established by Ministers in 2002 and it became an independent advisory non-departmental public body on 1st June 2009. The board has statutory responsibilities under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. The board’s role is to recommend for appointment to the office of judge, sheriff principal, sheriff and part-time sheriff. The First Minister retains the statutory responsibility for making nominations to Her Majesty the Queen. The First Minister is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making his nomination to Her Majesty.

The Lord President’s £60Million stained glass window - Parliament House & Court of Session display their “Hidden Gem” in Edinburgh fringe exhibition

Axe Nurses First: No austerity for £60m spend on Scotland’s main court & judiciary IN the midst of huge cuts to public services including hospitals, the Judiciary of Scotland & Scottish Court Service have announced a celebratory exhibition on their spending of £60 million pounds of taxpayers money on their Parliament House building based in Edinburgh, which houses Scotland’s highest & most inaccessible court – the Court of Session.

The exhibition runs from 28 July to 29 August as venue 402 for the Edinburgh Fringe. Be there, or be aware!

Among the reasons for the multi million pound taxpayer spend on a court no one in Scotland can actually get to without paying tens of thousands of pounds to Edinburgh based QCs, Eric McQueen - the Chief Executive of the Scottish Court Service told staggered msps on the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee that “there was no fire certificate in place for the building”.

McQueen also revealed the judges had actually wanted to spend well over £120 Million on the project but this budget was “was brought to a stop to allow us to reassess things and to consider the best strategy”.

McQueen notably did not elaborate to msps on why the £120million plus budget was brought to a halt, probably because no explanation had been dreamed up beforehand which was plausible enough to cover it.

Court Boss & top judge tell MSPs they wanted to spend £120million on top court

Anyone going along to the exhibition please feel free to ask some searching questions on why Scotland’s judiciary are so secretive about their interests and why Scotland’s top court is so inaccessible to the public (– Ed)

Celebrating Parliament House redevelopment

An exhibition was opened today commemorating the completion of the five year, £58 million redevelopment of Parliament House, home of the Supreme Courts of Scotland.

The Lord President, the Rt. Hon. Lord Gill, Chairman of the Scottish Court Service, unveiled a plaque marking the project which was completed last year on time and on budget.

Lord Gill said: “Behind the façade of Parliament House is a collection of buildings ranging over seven floors and containing more than 700 rooms. The oldest building, Parliament Hall, is nearly 400 years old, and it is vitally important that this building is properly maintained for future generations.

“I wish to thank the many individuals and teams who were involved in the project. This work was carried out while the business of the courts continued, and its success has been achieved by effective planning and co-operation.”

Speeches were also delivered by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, MSP, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, QC, and the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, James Wolffe, QC.

SCS Chief Executive Eric McQueen said: “The SCS is responsible for preserving this 17th century building which is in a world heritage site and the work involved was a significant challenge. The success of the project has resulted in the improvement of facilities and access for all court users, including victims and witnesses.

“The traditional courtrooms have been fully preserved while at the same time adapted to enable the presentation of evidence, productions and documents, electronically and remotely, from any part of the world. This is part of our ambition to put digital innovation at the heart of our Service.”

The project involved the renewal of all mechanical, electrical and information technology installations, fire safety measures, the introduction of energy efficiency schemes and the improvement of environmental controls in Parliament House, home to the Court of Session and the High Court of Judiciary.

The exhibition - 'Parliament House, The Hidden Gem' - will feature from 28 July to 29 August as venue 402 for the Edinburgh Fringe. It provides a glimpse into the history, traditions and purpose of the Supreme Courts building and will be open Monday to Friday, 10:30-1600. The exhibition was sponsored by Currie and Brown, Asset Management and Construction Consultancy (project managers) and Interserve Construction (principal contractors).

All rise for 18th Century as Scottish Court Service announce cull of local courts in new delivery of justice services for Scotland

Delivery of justice in Scotland set back 300 years say critics. THE Scottish Court Service (SCS) has announced it is creating a new court structure “for the future” in the restructuring of court services in Scotland which will result in the closure of most local courts across the country under the guise of reform. The sweeping proposals to cull many of Scotland’s local courts were  set out in Shaping Scotland's Court Services, published following a ‘public consultation’ organised by the court service & Scottish Government.

However, critics of the plans which include both legal professionals and court users say the move is little more than a move by the Scottish Government to centralise justice in a handful of justice hubs where cases and their outcomes can be more easily controlled or influenced by vested interests.

Commenting on the planned changes a solicitor said: “We are turning the clock back three hundred years on the delivery of justice in Scotland.”

Court users & consumer groups have also pointed out it will be even more difficult than present for members of the public to obtain access to justice once local courts have closed.

Delivering court services for the 21st century

The Scottish Court Service (SCS) is creating a new court structure for the future and Phase II gets underway on May 31, 2014.

From that date, court business previously held in Stonehaven, Cupar and Arbroath Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Courts will transfer to Aberdeen, Dundee and Forfar Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Courts respectively.

The court restructure is part of some of the most visionary changes to Scotland's justice system in well over a century and supports legislative reform, improves services and facilities for court users, including victims and witnesses, and is affordable in the long term.

The volume of business transacted in the courts which will close over a two year period, is around 5% of the overall court business across Scotland. Court capacity in all receiving courts will be supported by the transfer of staff and members of the judiciary from closing courts to deal with the business.

SCS Chief Executive Eric McQueen said: "Our vision is to have court structures in place that are cost effective, proportionate, accessible and efficient. Cases and appeals will be heard by the right court in both civil and criminal cases, with the highest courts reserved for the most serious and complex cases. Court procedures will be as easy as possible to understand and access and cases dealt with as efficiently as possible once they come to court.

"To achieve this we are targeting our investment to create a modern court structure throughout Scotland. Our Corporate Plan for 2014-17 sets out our programme for the next three years to transform our services and put digital innovation at their heart.

"Investing in fewer courts enables us to make these improvements to facilities and technology, which will provide better services for all court users, and in particular victims and witnesses. Where sheriff courts are closing we have installed facilities to allow victims and witnesses to use video technology to give evidence or make contact with the court, where this is allowed by the current legislation. Future legislative changes will extend the circumstances where video links are possible in criminal and civil procedures."

Arbroath Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Court business will transfer to Forfar Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Court where the SCS has been able to target savings to invest in improved court facilities. Improvements are being made for vulnerable witnesses; new accommodation is provided for the Witness Service and better custody facilities as required by HMIP (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland).

Similarly in Dundee Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Court, which will take the business from Cupar Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Court, the SCS has improved accommodation for witnesses and jurors, providing new non-custodial interview rooms and created catering facilities to serve all court users. With the High Court no longer sitting in Dundee the court will have ample capacity to deal with future business levels and will be fully fit for purpose.

In Aberdeen, where court business will be taken from Stonehaven, construction is already underway of a modern and fully equipped civil centre and commercial court with state of the art technology. The separation of criminal and civil proceedings at this location will provide a greatly improved court environment allowing, for example, children's hearings to take place in a more appropriate courtroom setting.

There will be no compulsory redundancies in delivering this programme.

Restructuring relating to the closure of courts required approval by the Scottish Parliament.

In November 2013 the following courts closed in Phase I of the programme:
Annan JP Court, Cumbernauld JP Court, Irvine JP Court, Motherwell JP Court, Dornoch Sheriff & JP Court, Kirkcudbright Sheriff & JP Court, Rothesay Sheriff Court.

May 2014 phase II:

Arbroath Sheriff & JP Court, Cupar Sheriff & JP Court, Stonehaven Sheriff & JP Court.

January 2015 phase III:

Dingwall Sheriff & JP Court, Duns Sheriff & JP Court, Haddington Sheriff & JP Court, Peebles Sheriff & JP Court.

Other changes will see High Court trials concentrated mainly in the Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen centres and over a ten year period, sheriff and jury trials will become focussed in 16 mainland courts. The four island courts will continue to hear all business within the jurisdiction of the sheriff. These courts will also deal with specialist civil business, with the remaining courts dealing principally with the jurisdiction of the new summary sheriffs proposed by the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill.

More information on Shaping Scotland's Court Services:

Scottish Court Service – Corporate Plan 2014-17

Scottish Government - Making Justice Work