SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION'S DISREGARD FOR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

Mr E Cairns
72 Hillhouse Street
GLASGOW G21 4HP
4 July 2009

Ms Eileen M Masterman
Chief Executive Officer
SLCC
The Stamp Office
10 – 14 Waterloo Place
EDINBURGH EH1 3EG

Complaint reference 200803843

Dear Ms Masterman,
Complaint against the SLCC
I refer to your letter dated 30 June 2009.
The SLCC sent me copies of its answers opposing the application for leave to appeal. Thereafter no indication was provided to me by the SLCC that the SLCC would in fact not stand by those answers during the hearing on the motion to grant leave to appeal. That is without doubt duplicitous and it supports my assertion that the SLCC had conspired with the LSS against me.
Lord Reed specifically stated during the hearing that there was no need to address any of the points other than point 4 of section 21 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 which was the matter of the grounds for appeal being that the Commission’s decision was based on an error of law. Consequently, your statement that the evidence of a conspiracy was addressed by the court is false.
Separately, the SLCC has never written to me admitting to having erred in law in its decision on my case. Further, no apology has ever been made to me for making such an error. In particular, it was disgraceful and fundamentally dishonest for the SLCC to send me documents indicating that it opposed the application for leave to appeal and effectively misled me as to its true intentions.
This of course also supports my complaint about the SLCC opposing my motion for expenses of £20 towards my transport costs. I had arrived at the hearing to support the SLCC’s position as communicated to me in the documents that the SLCC had sent to me, none of which hinted at any admission to having erred in law. Why was I misled in this way and defrauded by the SLCC?
Your refusal to comment on the very important point of an appearance of impropriety arising from Lord Reed’s strong connection to Glasgow Caledonian University, who instructed the solicitor in question, provides evidence of the SLCC’s utter failure to have proper regard for one of the most basic principles of justice. This will plainly be a matter of grave concern to the general public. It is especially disappointing for a new organisation apparently designed to improve matters in the administration of justice to be shown to be so unconcerned about this.
Details of Lord Reed’s strong connection to Glasgow Caledonian University are in the public domain, appearing in his page on the Court of Session’s website. His failure to recuse himself having, as he admitted during the hearing, read the correspondence and answers in this case, was indisputably contrary to the requirements of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The documents that Lord Reed stated he had read plainly reveal that Glasgow Caledonian University is at the heart of the complaint in question. As you will know, there does not have to be any proof of actual bias. An appearance of bias is sufficient to breach article 6 ECHR.
Of course the SLCC, being a public authority, is obliged to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998.
I was entitled to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal. Your disregard for that basic principle would rather obviously tend to undermine public confidence in the Scottish judicial process and could bring the SLCC into disrepute.
Yours sincerely,