Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

From the good offices of NO2ID, the following.

“The ID scheme has not been shelved, cancelled, or even significantly changed.

“Once more government spin has triumphed and much of the media has got it
wrong. The new Home Secretary Alan Johnson has not made any significant
changes to the scheme. Compulsion by stealth is still the order of the
day, just as it always was. Someone joining the ID scheme “voluntarily”
will still be placing control of their identity in the hands of the IPS
for life.

“The Home Office line remains the same. No compulsion (as the Home Office
defines it) was going to be applied until almost everyone had
“volunteered” and then it was only a matter of rounding up a minority of
resisters and marginalised people.

“The Home Office’s idea of “voluntary” is not the same as yours and mine. Since 2004 the scheme was (and it still is) to proceed by “designating” one-by-one under the Identity Cards Act 2006 other documents issued by official bodies — in the first place passports.

”
Once a document has been designated, you won’t be able to apply for one
without also applying to be entered, for life, on the national identity
register. If you don’t agree to be registered it won’t be that you are
refused (say) a passport; you’d have voluntarily decided not to apply.
There’s no compulsion to have a passport. It is useful for travelling.
But you aren’t compelled to travel.

“Or (say) to drive. Or to work as a security guard. Or with children. Or
in healthcare. To get parole from prison. To practice as a lawyer. …
Any official licence, registration certificate or permit can be
designated, and — in the home office’s skewed logic — handing control
of your identity to the Home Office’s Identity and Passport Service will
still be entirely voluntary.

“That they were due for a confrontation with the airside worker’s unions
over designating new passes at Manchester and City Airports is an
illustration of just how voluntary “voluntary” really is. But the fact
they have now ducked that fight for political convenience suggests
saying no does work – if you say it loudly enough.”

“It is still not too late for MPs to derail the scheme by repudiating the
regulations due to be debated next week and detailed in the last
newsletter. Only one of those statutory instruments has been dropped. If
you have not done so already, please contact your MP:
www.writetothem.com.

“(NO2ID’s lobbying guide, written for us by the former assistant of a
very distinguished retired minister, is brusque but absolutely to the
point: http://www.no2id.net/downloads/print/NO2ID-HowtoLobby.pdf).

“Peers will also have a vote on this; so if you happen to know one (or be
one), then it would be a good idea to alert friends in the Lords now
that the matter is soon to come up.”

Since when can you make one right (to privacy from the State) dependent on surrendering another (the write to travel freely) and still call it a voluntary scheme.

No to ID.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

More Primary School Maths, I’m afraid. I was also on Breakfast TV this morning with this (tho’ I missed it and can’t find on iPlayer or anything).

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

News reaches us that an Edinburgh solicitor has been accused of dealing drugs from the law firm where he worked as a partner.

According to the BBC News website, he is alleged to have supplied cocaine to four men from the offices of Allan McDougall Solicitors in Dalkeith in January 2009. One of the men later died of a suspected overdose. He denies charges of possessing and supplying class A drugs, has been bailed and is due to stand trial in December.

So, does the legal profession have a drugs problem? I conducted my own deeply unscientific survey of the BBC News site and came up with the following:

• A solicitor in Nottingham convicted of smuggling £15 of cannabis in her bra to a client in custody (2007) She got 15 months in jail.
• A London solicitor convicted of fraud and attempting to pervert the course of justice by inter alia providing false alibis to drug gang members (2007) He got 14.5 years in jail.
• A Glasgow solicitor convicted of supplying heroin and diazepam to a client in Barlinnie Prison (2006) She got 2 years 8 months in jail.
• A senior defence solicitor convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice by concocting lies for a man (actually a BBC researcher in a sting op) caught in possession of cocaine (2006) He was sentenced to 3 years in jail.

I follow this with an article from The Times which suggests that drug use in legal circles is “absolutely endemic” and the link to LawCare – an advisory and support service to help lawyers, their staff and their immediate families to deal with health problems such as depression and addiction, and related emotional difficulties.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

It has been reported in The Herald that an award of expenses has been made directly against the Scottish Legal Aid Board in a matrimonial case.

The paper reports “Solicitors acting for William Bohannon repeatedly raised problems in the action against him with the board and asked, without success, that legal aid granted to Carol Young be suspended. Mr Bohannon, 62, successfully defended two actions but was left with lawyers’ bills of more than £33,500 and possible bankruptcy.”

Lord Brodie, in the Court of Session, decided to grant expenses against the Board after concluding that that Mr Bohannon would suffer financial hardship if an order was not made. He is also reported as noting “The board has not chosen to defend its conduct in the matter.”

Ah, SLAB … “provid[ing] access to justice for those eligible and in need of it, in a cost-effective manner.”

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots law online.

Spot the Govan Law Centre in this news clip on class sizes.

I am up far too late as my good friend T. plied me with too much caffiene-filled cola drink after 8pm – which means I can’t sleep (a bit like the Mogwai in Gremlins – sort of).

So, I will bring you news of a legal defeat for the Scotch Whisky Association in the Canadian courts. The Canuck judiciary have ruled that Canada’s only single malt “Glen Breton Rare” is not confusing for consumers. The SWA contended that the use of the word “Glen” might fool people into thinking that it was a Scotch whisky and not a Canadian one.

However, the Canadian Federal Court held that, being from Glenville, they could legitimately use the title – which was not likely to confuse punters (until they had drunk at least four or five measures at any rate). Leave to appeal has been refused and the SWA, in an official press release, report themselves to be “disappointed”.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online while listening to La Mer by Charles Trénet.

Patrick Harvie MSP‘s Bill was unanimously passed by the Scottish Parliament today. So perfectly drafted was the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill that it was not amended at all during its passage through Parliament.

Surely, this type of legislation requires at least one MSP to yell “Thought Crime!” – maybe they did and were outvoted? At any rate, it will be law soon and any offences motivated (in part or in whole) by the victim’s sexual orientation or disability will be punished with extra severity. And who could argue with that?

I suppose one of the problems with this kind of provision is that people start to feel left out. There are now aggravations in relation to race, sexual orientation, disability and religion. Now, what about gender? Or age? Or social class? Shouldn’t we be stamping out these hate crimes too? And if the list is too long then all offences end up being aggravated and, therefore, none of them are. To quote W.S. Gilbert from The Gondoliers “When everybody’s somebody – then no-one’s anybody.”

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

The Herald reports on plans afoot to introduce a “no fault” compensation scheme in the NHS for those injured at the hands of its doctors. This would avoid the need for complex negligence claims.

It would, it is said, be similar to the current system for criminal injuries compensation.

What is not immediately apparent to be is why those injured by the health service would be fast tracked for compensation, but there are no similar plans for injury or damaged caused by other public services like social work, education, nationalised banks or watching too many episodes of tronji on the BBC.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

From the website of the Scottish Government, I learn that a pilot project to provide parents with improved access to information about known sex offenders who may be in contact with their children will be trialled in Tayside from September 2009 until the end of May 2010.

Under the scheme, members of the public within the pilot area will be able to register a child-protection interest in a named individual who has unsupervised access to their child or children.

Police will be alerted to concerns, with a presumption that they will inform the parent, carer or guardian if the named person has convictions for sex offences. If the child is found to be at serious risk of harm then child protection measures will also be instigated.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is quoted as saying: “I’m pleased to confirm that Tayside will be the area for the sex offender disclosure pilot and that we are now liaising with all the criminal justice partners in the region as they prepare for implementation.”

“While we must all rightly be alert to stranger danger, most sexual offences against children are committed by individuals known to the child’s family – adults who abuse a position of trust with that child. This project provides another link which will assist in identifying vulnerable children and families who are unknown to police and care agencies to ensure that correct help and advice are provided.”

It will be interesting to see by what criteria the pilot will be judged, what counts as a “child-protection interest” (can you check up on your next door neighbours? the local shopkeeper? members of your own family?), and what will happen post-disclosure? Should we be stocking up on torches and pitchforks?