Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

A survey by RNID Scotland found that only a fifth of venues in the Edinburgh Fringe provided induction loops for audiences.

RNID Scotland found only a fifth of venues surveyed provided induction loops for audiences. The equipment, which amplifies speech over background noise, is essential to help hearing-aid users access information about the shows and fully enjoy the performances. The charity is now calling on the Edinburgh Fringe organisers to improve provision for deaf and hard-of-hearing people before next year’s events.

Director of RNID Scotland, Delia Henry, said: “The Edinburgh Festival is a wonderful event that should be enjoyed by as many people as possible. We think that the organisers and festival customers will be disappointed to learn that there are barriers to accessing shows because induction loops are not available at the box offices and at 76% of the venues we surveyed.

“We’re hoping to work with organisers and individual venues to make sure that hearing aid users have a better experience next year.”

Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 requires service providers to make “reasonable adjustments” to allow disabled people to access a service. It means that shows who do not provide facilities for those who are deaf could leave themselves open to legal action.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

South of Scotland MSP Alasdair Morgan has written to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill calling for alterations to new drinks laws which are set to come into force on Tuesday.

As the Galloway News reports, soaring costs and bureaucracy have been blamed for almost 30 per cent of Stewartry outlets not bothering to apply for a new license. The average drop out figure in the region stands at 22 per cent.

Mr Morgan, is quoted as saying: “One of the basic principles of the 2005 Act was to tackle the irresponsible sale of cheap alcohol.

“[However] Anti-social behaviour in the Stewartry … is not fuelled by small amounts of alcohol sold in B&Bs and gift shops.

“The number of people who are not applying for a new license is having a direct impact both on their own businesses and on the high quality local products they previously were suppliers for. This was never the intention of the legislation.

Huge cost increases and red tape that, for example, requires everyone selling alcohol to have undergone a training programme, have been highlighted.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Scottish Ministers have delayed plans to reform the children’s hearing system in following concerns over the proposals, which led to some current children’s panel members threatening to resign over the proposals.

The Scottish Government’s plans include the creation of a new national body – the Scottish Children’s Hearings Tribunal. The new Tribunal structure would cover the 32 local panels and be responsible for training and recruitment nationally.

Cabinet Secretary for Education, Fiona Hyslop MSP, is quoted by the BBC News website as saying “We are seeking to strengthen that system and protect it from the increasing threat of legal challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights.”

A revised Children’s Hearings Bill is now expected to be laid before the Scottish Parliament early in 2010.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Eighteen year old Keeley Houghton has become the UK’s first cyber-bully to be jailed for bullying via a social networking site. She posted death threats on her Facebook page that she would kill Emily Moore, also 18, who she had bullied since they were at school together.

She was sentenced to three months in a Young Offender’s Institution, having pled guilty to harassment. She was also issued with a restraining order banning her from any contact (of any sort) with her victim.

On 12 July 2009, Houghton wrote on her Facebook site: “Keeley is going to murder the bitch. She is an actress. What a fucking liberty. Emily Fuckhead Moore.”

The sentence may seem a little on the short side, especially when you consider that Keely had two previous convictions: in 2005, for assaulting Emily as she walked home from school; and in 2003, for causing criminal damage to her home by kicking her front door.

When it comes to issuing death threats it seems that it is better to do so by Facebook (3 months) than by good ol’ fashioned letter (9 months). Other innovative ways of delivering death threats have included:

• postcard in a Bible;
• in open court, before a judge and jury; and
• by text message, to yourself.

Posted to Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Back from my holidays and Perth Sheriff Court and just reading this article in The Herald about Consumer Focus Scotland‘s findings on how user-unfriendly the courts are.

The findings were that the “dearth of information” people received before and during their case “appears to heighten their levels of fear and anxiety”. And that therefore, party litigants should be allowed to bring “Mackenzie friends” with them to court.

I find it slightly strange that Parliament (which as the source of legislation must bear some of the responsibility for any complexities which arise in interpreting it, surely?) is being asked to solve the problem of non-lawyers finding court too complex by … um … sending more non-lawyers into court! Is it just me, or am I missing something?

If Court is too complex or imposing or whatever for non-lawyers to access effectively, then surely, obviously, the answer is either:

1. reform the system completely, so that it is accessible to everyone (having all cases decided by user-friendly “Justice Tribunals” or somesuch); or
2. make sure that everyone can have access to a lawyer (more Legal Aid, or more Law Centres, perhaps?).

Perhaps I am indeed missing something. Maybe my Mackenzie friend can explain it to me.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

This snippet from the Belfast Telegraph caught my eye:
“In Scotland, there are courts where Gàidhlig can be heard every day.”

Really? Certainly the Scottish Courts Service has a small collection of information leaflets available in Gàidhlig, but is it heard? And every day?

Which of our Sheriffs is dispensing justice in the language of the Gaels? I’d like to know.

This article in The Scotsman suggests that it was only in 2005 that a lawyer first used Gaelic in court, and that with special permission from the Sheriff to mark the Mod. It goes on to note that it is it was now “possible” to use Gaelic in the sheriff courts of Stornoway, Portree and Lochmaddy – following the ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Brodies LLP reveal on their website the latest in their attempts (on behalf of the insurance industry) to have the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 struck down by the courts as outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

As their article correctly points out “An Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP) is not law to the extent that it is outside that competence. … If an ASP is claimed to be outside the legislative competence of the Parliament this amounts to a devolution issue.”

What the article does not explain is why it should be outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament to decide that exposing someone to asbestos so that abnormal growths appear on the lining of their lungs should be financially compensated. The industry reply that “pleural plaques are a good thing”. Even if that’s true, so what? Paying statutory damages where there’s no harm or damage is hardly without precedent (I can think of some examples in employment law).

So, pay up and shut up!

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

An article in the Times Educational Supplement reports that a court in Germany has ruled that schoolchildren may rate their teachers online.

The Court rejected the case of a woman who argued that her pupils had infringed her rights by giving her poor grades on the popular site spickmich.de. The German Federal Court of Justice found that pupils had the right to offer their opinions so long as their teachers were not hindered professionally.

Similar controversy (though, to my knowledge, no litigation) has followed sites such as RateMyTeachers in the UK with teachers complaining about unfavourable comments from pupils.

To my mind (outside the ordinary laws of defamation) there is absolutely no reason why teachers should not be subject to pupil evaluation on the web. After all, pupils’ views are now sought as an integral part of HMIe school inspection reports – which are reported online too.

Maybe it’s time for a RateMyLawyer website? Or is that why we have Chambers and Legal 500?