CL@N joins SALC

Edinburgh based child law specialists, CL@N Child Law, have been admitted as full members of the Scottish Association of Law Centres.

That is all.

Posted in Child Law, Edinburgh, Law Centres, News | 1 Comment

I write like Harry Harrison

So, I thought I’d run my own blog through this new “I write like” site that everyone’s talking about.

As it seems to a be a popular one, I tried it out with my Paul McBride – absurd election broadcast posting, and according to the site:

I write like
Harry Harrison

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

If you’re not sure who he is (I wasn’t) – Harry Harrison is a science fiction writer of some renown, and his book “Make Room! Make Room!” was the inspiration for the film Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston.

Posted in Blawgs, Just for Fun | Tagged | 2 Comments

Other people’s money

Web Review in July's JournalRelax.  I’m now back from my holidays (very nice, thanks for asking) – and while I’ve been away, the latest edition of The Journal was published.

My web review this month was all about trust management companies, which I tried to pep up, with a lame James Bond reference.  I am pleased to note, on my return, that the article actually figures a silhouette of 007 himself.  My writings have never been so glamorous!

An excerpt:

“The explanation of the different types of trusts they deal with and why you might want one is very clear, and is set out in a way which doesn’t make your eyes hurt.”

With thanks to Nicola Smith, of Cairn Trust Management, for suggesting the topic.

Posted in Journal Website Reviews | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

ChaCha fail

I’m all for user-generated content, Web 2.0 and all that, but there are signs that interactive question and answer site ChaCha is not always being used in the manner intended.

In response to the (perfectly reasonable) question “What is the weirdest law in Scotland?“, an anonymous contributor has suggested that, in Aberdeen, “Any man owning more than 12 sheep must prove that he is not a pimp!” – which is not at all helpful.

Come to think about it – what is the weirdest law in Scotland?  Any thoughts?

Posted in Just for Fun | 6 Comments

Sheriff Derek O’Carroll

Derek O’Carroll, the first principal solicitor of Govan Law Centre, has been appointed as an all-Scotland floating sheriff – based in Edinburgh.  He will have a commission enabling him to serve where required throughout Scotland’s sheriff courts, and he is expected to take up the appointment in July 2010.

Derek has been a part-time Sheriff for some time now, and the case of Mair v. Arshad from Cupar Sheriff Court in October 2007 seems to be the only decision of his reported on the Scottish Court Service website to date.  The decision concerns the interpretation of The Scheme for Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 1998 [SI 1998/687] and is a fine showcase for his undoubted forensic skills.

And so, in the immortal words of W.S. Gilbert:

All hail great Judge!
To your bright rays,
We never grudge
Ecstatic praise.

May each decree
As statute rank,
And never be
Reversed in Banc.

Quite so.  Congratulations, and good luck!

Posted in Edinburgh, Faculty of Advocates, Law Centres, News, Scottish Court Service, Scottish Government | Tagged | Leave a comment

… in a galaxy far, far away

In an edition of The Journal the cover of which, appropriately enough, features a robot army and the slogan “Clone Wars” – you will find my review of space law websites.

It includes the following sites:

The European Centre for Space Law: “poses interesting questions … then pointedly fails to answer those questions.”

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs: “Personal injury lawyers should take note that claims for being struck by falling satellite debris must be conducted by states on behalf of their citizens “through diplomatic channels”.”

Posted in Journal Website Reviews | Tagged | Leave a comment

Some thoughts on the House of Lords


“I often think it’s comical How Nature always does contrive – That ev’ry boy and ev’ry gal That’s born into the world alive, Is either a little Liberal, Or else a little Conservative!”

Or so says Private Willis in Gilbert & Sullivan’s Iolanthe.  And now of course, our current Government comes in those two very (in)distinctive flavours.

The point of which, is that the Liberal Conservative Coalition are proposing that the House of Lords be reformed so that all of its members (provisions on “grandfathering” apart!) are directly elected by proportional representation.  Meanwhile, electoral reform for the Commons, if it happens at all, will be on the Additional Vote system – which isn’t proportional at all (although it should lead to a handful of extra Lib Dem MPs – largely at the expense of the Tories [every cloud …]).

Current legislative arrangements mean that the House of Lords is restricted to an amending and delaying role, with the Commons able to force through legislation against the will of the Lords, using the Parliament Acts.  For example, the War Crimes Act 1991, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 and the Hunting Act 2004 would not have been law had the House of Lords had their way.

This is accepted as right and proper because the Commons is the elected body and the Lords is a collection of appointed worthies, together with some remaining hereditary peers and the Lords Spiritual (who sound like – but are not – a Gospel choir).

Now, what happens in the future, if legislation brought forward by the Government in the (first-past-the-post) Commons is opposed by a “wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.”?

In that circumstance, could the House of Lords not claim the moral high ground?  Being more truly representative of the will of the electorate?  Having a stronger democratic mandate?  Use of the Parliament Acts in such circumstances would trigger a constitutional crisis would it not?

The coalition document is silent on such matters, stating only that a committee will bring forward proposals.  To my mind, such proposals must include amendment of the Parliament Acts, to avoid such difficulties arising (or arise they surely will).

Posted in Constitutional Law, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Alcohol restrictions at Highland League clubs

Turriff United FCThe Sports Grounds and Sporting Events (Designation) (Scotland) Order 2010 is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament – subject to the negative resolution procedure and has the effect of designating the home grounds of Turriff United FC (The Haughs); Formartine United FC (North Lodge Park) and Strathspey Thistle FC (Seafield Park) for the purposes of Part II of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. Part II imposes certain restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol at designated grounds for designated sporting events.

This long overdue measure follows the clubs’ promotion to the Scottish Highland Football League for “reasons of public order and safety”. A sledgehammer for your nut, sir?

Posted in Criminal Law, News, Scottish Parliament, Sports Law | Leave a comment

Welcome to WordPress

It has taken a while, and I still haven’t fully updated all the link sections etc. – but here we are in our nice new home. Goodbye blogger and hello WordPress.

I’m quite pleased with the new set-up, which is easy to use and which I am already using for my yell.com blog, at work and at church. Thanks, though to Jonathan Mitchell QC for recommending it for this site – it has worked well.

I’d be pleased to have your comments on the new site – complaints and compliments welcome in equal measure.

Posted in Blawgs, Site Updates | Leave a comment

Paul McBride QC – Absurd Election Broadcast

Saw a party election broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party this evening which featured superstar criminal advocate Paul McBride QC. He was on there following his well publicised defection to the Tories, complaining that criminals often only serve half the sentence they receive, and advocating (!) that those convicted should serve the full sentence they are given.

Which is absurd.

As I may have mentioned before, I’ve never done a day’s criminal law in my life, but I’m pretty sure that the Judges of our country do understand how this works. It’s not as if this is some big secret which is subverting the wisdom of the judiciary. If a Judge wants someone to stay behind bars for 2 years, then they will sentence the criminal for 4. The maths is not that hard.

Fair enough, your policy may be that you want criminals to spend more time in jail. But even then, setting a rule that you serve your full sentence has only one real effect, which is to rob the prison service of the ability to keep badly behaved prisoners in jail longer than those who have knuckled down, learned their lesson and generally paid their debts to society.

Which is absurd.

But just to keep Mr. McBride happy, the next case he’s defending, the Judge should send the accused down for twice as long as normal. He’d consider anything else to be a disgrace.

Posted in Criminal Law, Faculty of Advocates, Politics | 2 Comments