Judges slam legal plans as ‘interference with the law’

PLANNED changes to Scotland’s legal system amount to ‘an interference with the rule of law’, senior judges have said.

A consultation document published by the Scottish Government laid out proposed changes to how the legal profession is regulated.

Each of the three proposals calls for the creation of a regulator that would take over the system and be accountable to the Scottish parliament – raising fears over the independence of the judiciary and legal profession.

The idea of a single regulator for the sector was a recommendation of a controversial review.

The response is among the most scathing critiques of proposed legislation ever produced by the country’s most senior judges.

The Lord President, the head of the judiciary in Scotland, is the ultimate regulator of the legal profession.

A summary of the full consultation response on behalf of senior judges said: ‘To be clear, such an interference with role of the Lord President and the Court of Session in the manner proposed in this consultation is, in our opinion, an interference with the rule of law.

‘The judiciary will resist with all its strength this and any other attempt by government or parliament to remove the court’s regulatory powers.’

In their full consultation response, the judges said: ‘It would serve only to harm the independence of the legal profession, and in turn impinge upon the independence of the judiciary. A system in which a profession is answerable to parliament is inherently against independence.

‘Political regulation is simply not appropriate under any circumstances.

‘It is no exaggeration to say that the recommendations… present a clear threat to the separation of powers and consequently, the rule of law.’ The response pointed to a spat between the UK Government and the legal profession as an example of why politicians should keep far away from regulation of the sector.

It said: ‘Recently, we have seen attacks on lawyers by politicians who have, on multiple occasions, publicly criticised “Lefty activist lawyers” for “hamstringing” the justice system by challenging the government in court. This... perfectly illustrates why neither political nor government regulation is an appropriate model.’

Roddy Dunlop, QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said: ‘The regulation of entry to the profession and maintenance of standards at the Bar is something that Faculty has undertaken for centuries, at no cost to the public, and with no evidence of any difficulties.

‘To cast that aside in favour of a new system would be of no benefit whatsoever. It would be less efficient, less knowledgeable, more unwieldy and more costly than at present.’

A Government spokesman said ‘improvements’ in the system ‘are needed to further support access to justice’, adding: ‘Ministers will carefully consider all the consultation responses and a report will be published in due course.’

‘More unwieldy and costly’