THE former Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson, admitted in response to parliamentary questions from Phil Gallie MSP that the former Scottish Government and Judiciary had, through the Scottish Court Service, covertly tried to close down this website. She claimed the website was 'potentially defamatory' and that the cost to the taxpayer of this covert action was a mere 50 pounds.
'Potentially Defamatory'
The purpose of this legally-inspired statement was to frighten the commercial enterprises involved. The Scottish Government, Judiciary and senior members of the legal profession know exactly who we are, but to date, not one of them has ever challenged us on the accuracy of our information. Everyone has a guaranteed right of reply, even lawyers and judges!
50 Quid!
It makes no difference whether it was 50 quid or 50 grand, it was still illegal and contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 - see below.
The proper, legal option is...
to go to court. They tell Scotland's citizens that if they have a legal problem, employ a solicitor (and advocate) and go to court where Justice will be dispensed. Strangely, none of the lawyers and judges named and shamed in the rogues gallery seem willing to practice what they preach. We wonder why that could be?
Human Rights Act 1998 - Section 6
'Acts of public authorities'
6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. - i.e. Freedom of Expression
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if-
(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or
(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.
(3) In this section "public authority" includes-
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,
but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.
(4) In subsection (3) "Parliament" does not include the House of Lords in its judicial capacity.
(5) In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the nature of the act is private.
(6) "An act" includes a failure to act but does not include a failure to-
(a) introduce in, or lay before, Parliament a proposal for legislation; or
(b) make any primary legislation or remedial order
------------------------------------------
S2W-17390 - Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con) (Date Lodged 17 June 2005) : To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Court Service has been involved in any attempt to have the website of the organisation, Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, closed down and, if so, what costs it has incurred.
Answered by Cathy Jamieson (24 June 2005): The existence of this organisation’s website became known to the Scottish Court Service through a leaflet being distributed to members of the public. As the contents of the website appeared to include material that was potentially defamatory, officials felt it appropriate to draw this possibility to the attention of the site’s internet service provider.
No demands were made of the internet service provider. The decision to terminate the service was made by the service provider.
The cost incurred was approximately 50 pounds of staff time.
S2W-17632 - Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con) (Date Lodged 28 June 2005) : To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-17390 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2005, whether any person can take individual legal action for defamation if they consider that their reputation may be damaged by a website such as that of Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.
Answered by Cathy Jamieson (26 July 2005): Any individual can bring a defamation action to protect his or her reputation.
Under the Defamation Act 1996 a person has a defence in defamation proceedings if: they can show they are not the author, editor or commercial publisher of the statement complained of; they took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and did not know and had no reason to believe that what they did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement. This is intended to cover printers, distributors, on-line service providers and live broadcasters.
Individuals who consider that a statement made about them is defamatory and may damage their reputation should seek their own legal advice.
S2W-17631 - Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con) (Date Lodged 28 June 2005) : To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-17390 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2005, whether Scottish Court Service officials routinely take action in cases of alleged defamation of individuals in respect of matters that do not directly affect their departmental interest.
Answered by Cathy Jamieson (26 July 2005): The SCS officials do not routinely take action in cases of alleged defamation of individuals in respect of matters that do not directly affect their departmental interest.
S2W-17630 - Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con) (Date Lodged 28 June 2005) : To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-17390 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2005, whether it is aware that the website referred to remains up and running.
Answered by Cathy Jamieson (26 July 2005): The Scottish Executive is aware that the website referred to remains up and running.
S2W-17629 - Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con) (Date Lodged 28 June 2005) : To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-17390 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2005, whether it is satisfied that the actions of Scottish Court Service officials did not contravene section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Answered by Cathy Jamieson (26 July 2005): As was explained in S2W-17390, as the content of the website appeared to include material that was potentially defamatory, SCS officials felt it appropriate to draw this possibility to the attention of the service provider. That was the extent of the SCS actings in the matter and, as such, was not in contravention of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Page References:
Parliamentary Questions - click here
Human Rights Act 1998 - click here
