Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

The UK government has launched a consultation on the Electronic Communications Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations. Responses should be sent by 31st October by e-mail to commsdata@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or by post to Andrew Knight, Home Office, 5th Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF.

See A consultation paper: Transposition of Directive 2006/24/EC or “Final phase of the transposition of Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.” for more detail.

The Scottish Government has stepped in to safeguard advocacy services for parents of children with additional support needs (ASN).

The two main voluntary services that support and represent parents in Scotland challenging their child’s ASN educational provision are to receive £110,000 to assist them with this work over this financial year.

Children’s Minister Adam Ingram said:

“The Scottish Government wants all our children to receive an education that maximises learning and encourages development. This is particularly relevant when a child has additional support needs to be considered.

“Most local authorities are doing an excellent job in meeting these needs, however there are occasions when a parent disagrees with the approach or education provision that their child is receiving.

“The ASN Tribunal plays a vital role – listening to the two parties and finding a solution that is in the best interests of the child – and it is crucial that parents continue to get the necessary support.”

ISEA (Independent Special Education Advice) Scotland will receive £60,000 to continue providing advocacy support and representation for parents at Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (ASNTS).

Govan Law Centre will be given £50,000 to fund a six month project to build up the voluntary sectors’ capacity to support parents at ASNTS. They will also make recommendations on how the Scottish Government can enhance this provision from the voluntary sector in the longer term.

Mr Ingram added:

“For a parent, representing their child at a tribunal hearing can be very difficult, therefore the representation services provided by the ISEA and Govan Law Centre are invaluable.

“The funding announced today will allow these services to develop their support and provision, while longer term we are giving careful consideration to how we can further improve advocacy support to parents at ASNTS.”

Under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, local authorities have a duty to give extra help to all children and young people who require additional support with their learning. ASN Tribunals hear and decide on appeals by parents over the co-ordinated support plans education authorities have in place for these children, who often need support from a range of services due to complex or multiple factors.

ISEA Scotland’s main grant funder, the Big Lottery Fund, did not renew its grant this year and Ministers have intervened to allow the organisation to continue. The funding will run until the end of March 2009.

Govan Law Centre will provide training and mentoring in ASN legislation and procedure to existing advocacy groups and make recommendations as to how to best address the need for representative advocacy at ASNTS across Scotland.

As reported in the Herald today (Court ruling punches a hole in Scottish class size policy) and following on from our earlier Primary School Maths post, another Sheriff Court case casts doubt over the whole class sizes malarky.

In the case of KJD & SED v. East Lothian Council Sheriff Alan Miller (who, in his spare time is also the Scottish Human Rights Commissioner and a convener for the Additional Support Needs Tribunals) found that the “excepted pupils” provisions in the guidance meant that essentially every placing request appeal on class size limits must be granted, up to a maximum of 30 – in fact, probably all the way up to 33.

Some much needed light may soon be cast upon the whole murky affair, as East Lothian Council have lodged a petition for judicial review and seek to challenge the Sheriff’s decision. The case is due to be heard in early September.

Unless the Court of Session is prepared to adopt a very generous interpretation of the Regulations and guidance, it is becoming increasingly clear that fresh legislation will be required on the matter.

A decision of the Inner House in the case of WA’s Legal Representative v. The Highland Council 2008 CSIH 51, considers the role of the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland.

WA had been refused a Co-ordinated Support Plan (or CSP) and appealed to the Tribunal against this refusal. WA’s parents had also requested that assessments be carried out and it appears that the Highland Council had not properly responded to said requests, in terms of Section 8 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.

The Tribunal found in favour of the Council and the parent appealed to the Court of Session, arguing that “the Tribunal had misdirected themselves in law in failing to ensure that they or the respondents had the information necessary to ascertain WA’s additional support needs”. Lords Carloway, Eassie and Reed disagreed, holding that in view of the Tribunals expert status, it had been entitled to make the findings it had in refusing WA’s appeal.

KansasCity.com reports that a woman in Kansa, USA was ordered to serve three days in jail after a judge found her in contempt of court for inappropriate dress.

Kirstie Arnold, 28, wore short shorts in court before Garrard County District Judge Janet Booth. Booth had warned Arnold about her clothes in two previous court appearances, and in the last appearance had fined Arnold 50 dollars.

Booth ordered her to serve the three days “for disregard and disrespect for court proceedings.”

The Sunday Mail reports that prosecutors will be retrained to improve Scotland’s appallingly low conviction rate for sex crimes – one of the worst rates in the western world.

The Sunday Mail blames the figures on inexperienced prosecutors and victims’ lack of confidence in the system.

However, by next summer, fiscals will only be allowed to handle rape cases once they have approved training. The two-day course is said to offer refresher training on rape law and will teach lawyers how to support victims. It will include discussions with forensic examiners, senior police officers, victim support workers and High Court prosecutors.

The Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini is reported as saying: “This training is a vital part of ensuring there is a professional, determined approach to gathering evidence and bringing prosecutions before the court.”

The latest figures for Scotland show convictions for rape have dropped to an all-time low of 2.9 per cent. In both Tayside and Dumfries and Galloway the rate was zero.

Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland, is quoted as saying: “The development of this course is an important step in improving responses to rape.”

A concerning post on William Beck’s “SCCRC Deny Justice” website. (Worth visiting if only for the Billy Joel soundtrack!)

By all accounts, Mr. Beck has been informed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that in revealing Jurors’ Names and Addresses to him (I assume these are same jurors who once tried and convicted Mr. Beck?) they have acted properly as the information is “in the public domain” being held by National Archives of Scotland.

I imagine that this will be both a surprise and a matter of concern for anyone called as a juror. In the meantime, Mr. Beck has taken SCCRC at their word and posted the juror’s names and addresses on his Flickr page.

Tech blawg, Naked Law features some interesting questions on recent cases which have given guidance on who has the rights to a profile on social networking sites.

In some cases, it seems, your profile if used in the course of your employment might not belong to you but to your employer. You (and Facebook) have been warned!

Jonathan Mitchel QC brings us news that Instruct Us Now Ltd are not flavour of the month with the Faculty of Advocates.

His blog entry “Instruct Us Now Ltd” Faculty ban on instructions includes the comment “It is not wholly clear, at least to me, what the point of instructing counsel via an unqualified intermediary might be … Unless anyone can explain otherwise, it seems obvious that somebody has to pay for the additional middleman, and ultimately that will be the client.”

That’s them told, then!