Ian Hamilton QC

By Ian Hamilton QC

(This piece first appeared in The Firm, the on line legal magazine.)

Whoever wrote the Lord President’s speech is to be congratulated. He, she, it  (It? Maybe it was a computer) done good. Hardly anybody was left out. When you start off:-

                 “:My lords and my ladies, Lord Advocate, Dean of Faculty, Advocate General, Solicitor General,    distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,”

you have a pretty comprehensive audience in mind. Except for the general public whom you are there to serve.

To lighten the whole solemn occasion the speech-writer ends with a jokey passage on drunkenness at which everyone present chuckled. We advocates are trained to laugh at judge’s jokes. It’s the way they tell them.

Any speech on our law raises some questions which are never answered. Here are some of them.

Why can’t we afford it? Why can the RBS get away with my money without the law calling them to account? All I want is an accounting. I tried and the law failed me. I can’t afford it. They can.

Why have we refurbished court-rooms in the centre of a medieval town awash with tourists? Even if we could afford to go to the Court of Session how could we afford the travel and the hotel bills while we’re litigating?

Why do we have local sheriff courts with the same civil  function  as the Court of Session in Edinburgh? This was necessary when communication was difficult but things have changed. Even judges can learn email. They can take a bus. If judges can come on circuit to hear criminal cases why not to hear civil cases? No business could be run on the basis if you want us you must come to us. Justice is a business. It should be brought to us. A court in a fixed place was necessary in 1531 but communications have moved on since then. Has the Lord President’s speech writer not noticed the busses in Edinburgh’s High Street? Can’t he use an email?

What are sheriff principals for? Once they administered their sheriffdoms but no longer. They are single judges of appeal who can themselves be appealed to the Court of Session. Mind you! We lawyers prefer a three course meal when two would do.

Why do we pay sheriffs £120,000 a year to hear petty crime which could be done for nothing by magistrates elected by ourselves? That was the way it was once done. Since we don’t need two concurrent civil jurisdictions could we not send our sheriffs back to their sandpits to play in?

For that matter isn’t it time that we separated civil judges from criminal ones both in the High Court and at lower levels? Each requires different skills.

Do we need all the judges we have managed to cram into our system? We have:- magistrates, sheriffs, sheriffs principal, Outer House Judges……(note how the capital letters creep in), Inner House Judges, Lords Commissioner of Justiciary and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. (The latter’s kids go all swanky and call themselves ‘HONS.) Have I missed some? Judges multiply themselves like royalty and if you don’t watch you’ll tread on one.

Why hasn’t the speech-writer been given a knighthood? His chuckle about ‘churn’ was quite masterly. The laughter rolled round the ancient walls of the Parliament House like thunder.

Churn?

In Benderloch we talk about little else.
  

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I was hoping this ironic piece might provoke some comment on our legal system and the folly of puting a lawyer in charge of it. It is outdated. unsuitable for its purpose and a vast waste of money. This government adds to its folly under the impression that it can change public behaviour by act of parliament.

We need a new view. Lord Hamilton’s silly speech illustrates the trouble. It was addressed to the nice little nest of lawyers centred in the Parliament House for which the law at present exists.

MY LORDS AND My LADIES ETC it does not exist for you. It exists for us all. Alas we don’t have access to it except as accused taken there by the scruff of our necks. 

Lord Hamilton! Have you no word for the like of me?

Question:-

Why is Kweku Adoboli being questioned on suspicion of fraud and abuse of position over £1.3 billion when Sir Fred Goodwin and his fellow directors weren’t questioned over the £22 billion they got away with?

Answers-

                1) Because we have a Crown Office that would rather prosecute an outspoken politician who dared to challenge a Rupert Murdoch newspaper than protect us all against international financiers.
       
        2) Because we have a police that would rather frighten a three year old wean and pursue her mother with endless questions although it wasn’t in the public interest to convict her.

                3) Because we have a state broadcasting company which supposedly acts in the public interest but breaks into its schedules to try to humiliate the wean’s mother by showing how the brave police questioned her.

Question:-

Why can’t any of us aggrieved citizens sue Sir Fred Goodwin and the Royal Bank of Scotland for the money they have lost us through fraud or abuse of position?

Answer-

Because Kenneth MacAskill, our Minister of Justice presides over a court system that only Sir Fred Goodwin and the Royal Bank of Scotland can afford.

Dougie, of whom I think highly, has put this on anent Kenneth Roy. The piece came as a comment and is duly promoted. For the record I don’t agree with Kenneth Roy all the time. I don’t expect people to agree with ME all the time. If they do I know I’m wrong.

Scottish Review and Caledonian Mercury were promising initatives that quickly became anodyne, or worse.  Roy is a good enough journalist so long as he stays away from politics - when he gets to politics, the facts can get some rough handling. He is however correct to point out that the Scottish Government has not yet released the SCCRC report, and there are indications that if it is released it will be so heavily redacted as to be largely useless.

If you want radical writing about Scottish politics the best I’ve found (not counting Hamilton QC!) is <a href=”http://www.scottishleftreview.org/” rel=”nofollow”>Scottish Left Review</a>.  Don’t be put off by that word ‘left’ - it’s unusually non-partisan.

I’m afraid I can’t stand the Deein’ Ians, Bell and McWhirter.  McWhirter is hopelessly blinkered and Bell simply can’t write, but there is another Scottish Ian Bell (ref=”http://www.scottishleftreview.org/article/an-unequal-share-of-life/)check the contrast in content and style.

And yes, Jim Swire has displayed the most astonishing tenacity, courage and integrity.  I hope he lives to see the vindication of his efforts.  Over to you, Alex Salmond.

Ian adds. I hope this is correctly copied.

The Scottish Review seldom fails. Today it writes about Jim Swire. I have met him once. Everyone who meets him goes away believing in inherent decency. Except maybe a politician.

In Case you haven’t yet read The Scottish Revue here is a quote.

‘The justice secretary’s decision to release Megrahi was well-founded, but the subsequent failure of the Scottish Government to release all the facts known to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is a continuing scandal and a blot on the conscience of Scotland.’

Jim Swire goes on maintaing the innocence of the man convicted of killing 270 people including his beloved daughter Flora.

He makes me ashamed of being a Scots lawyer.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

TO JIM MACKAY

So that’s where you’ve got to, Jim. (For some reason I can’t put comments on my own blog.)

I hope you are well and enjoying life as the rabbits and the trouts now certainly are.

We miss you, Jim. So it’s nice to know we’re not forgotten.

Ian

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

To CLYDEBUILT

Even if Kenneth Roy is a Labour hack, which I don’t accept, it’s good to have someone speaking well of the dead.

Ian

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX