Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 2nd December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Inside the courts: Angiolini joins the club – and may be hoping for place on the bench



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 October 2008
ELISH Angiolini has a tendency to ruffle feathers, and to break new ground, within Scotland's legal establishment.
Much of this has little to do with her track-record as chief prosecutor – but more simply because of who she is and her background.

When she replaced Colin Boyd two years ago, Mrs Angiolini became the first female Lord Advocate in the post's illus
trious 400-year history.

Only hours after her appointment, a spat had broken out between establishment figures.

One former judge branded her a "career civil servant" who lacked the independence of her predecessors, because she was the first non-advocate to land the job. This was countered by Crown counsel complaints about the "old boys' club".

Now she has broken yet more new ground, after being accepted into the Faculty of Advocates.

The faculty is a 470-year-old institution whose members have rights of audience in the High Court and Court of Session. That means they are allowed to don a wig and stand before a judge in the highest courts in the land.

To gain entry into this elite legal club, lawyers have to prove they have the required knowledge and experience. Exams have to be passed and nine months of "devilling" – being supervised by a senior advocate – completed.

But, in the case of Ms Angiolini's admission, these requirements have been waived – an unprecedented move that could see the rules of entry to the faculty loosened considerably, and about which, The Scotsman understands, a number of senior lawyers are unhappy.

Yesterday, the Crown Office issued a press release announcing that the Lord Advocate had been invited into the Faculty of Advocates by the dean, Richard Keen.

The short statement offered no explanation for the move, simply saying she was "honoured to have been invited to apply to join the Faculty of Advocates, which is highly respected for its central role in delivering independent legal services in Scotland".

The question remains: why?

The Scotsman understands that faculty membership is something Mrs Angiolini has been keen on for some time. That desire was signalled to the faculty during ground-laying talks with Crown officials and the faculty, paving the way for yesterday's "invitation" announcement.

As one senior lawyer put it to me: "The Lord Advocate has for some time expressed an interest in being a member, but wanted to be invited rather than apply and be turned down."

It is plausible she is preparing for life after being Lord Advocate. For now she will have rights of audience in the High Court – and, perhaps more importantly, become eligible to apply to become a judge.



The full article contains 451 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 October 2008 10:01 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Legal Issues
 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 15/10/2008 09:13:16
More dumbing down of standards?
2

scratchywigandtighttights,

edinburgh 15/10/2008 09:55:02
The lord advocate and solicitor general stated in a message to their staff that they had been invited to apply to join the Faculty of Advocates. They stressed that THIS WAS A PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL MATTER WHICH WAS UNRELATED TO THEIR ROLES AS LAW OFFICERS. Many solicitors across the profession and even in the Crown Office are do not agree that it is ‘unrelated to their roles as law officers’.
3

yolanda,

15/10/2008 10:59:35

Why should she be allowed to get in by the back door if other members had to go through a process of passing exams before being accepted? If she's that good, she should be able to go through the same procedures as everyone else. It would also allow her to feel satisfied that she had EARNED her place there. If she can't earn it, she shouldn't have it.
4

Dav,

Edinburgh 15/10/2008 11:11:06
Before making comments, posters should read a little about the Faculty of Advocates and it's history then they might not show their ignorance.

If you think that the 470 year old Faculty would allow anyone in the back door rather than on merit then it shows exactly what you do know.




5

scratchywigandtighttights,

edinburgh 15/10/2008 13:50:45
DAV sorry to have to point this out but there is a subtext which discreetly drives the invitation and regrettably the acceptance
6

yolanda,

15/10/2008 15:16:11

#4 Dav - You obviously didn't read the article, which is actually the whole point of the comment boards. Read the article then comment....

"To gain entry into this elite legal club, lawyers have to prove they have the required knowledge and experience. Exams have to be passed and nine months of "devilling" – being supervised by a senior advocate – completed. But, in the case of Ms Angiolini's admission, these requirements have been waived – an unprecedented move that could see the rules of entry to the faculty loosened considerably, and about which, The Scotsman understands, a number of senior lawyers are unhappy".

That's what the article says (rightly or wrongly), so that's what people were commenting on!
7

scratchywigandtighttights,

edinburgh 15/10/2008 16:06:34
Yolanda

Dav is probably a member of the faculty of advocates.

anyway is the 470 year old rule a valid argument, just because the faculty it has been around for centuries? Advocates are are undoubtedly better than others. ... So how can we the general public be anything but ignorant ….

here, advocates aren't supposed to shake hands with other advocates or lawyers - because of the ludicrous idea that clients might think their lawyers were in cahoots.
I was once humiliated by a pompous advocate who kept his hand rigidly by his side as mine dangled limply in mid-air.
I'd prefer to have my arm ripped from its socket than go through that again.
8

Anthony,

Glasgow 15/10/2008 17:04:57
Sadly the ole quality control seems to thrown away to accommodate a ridiculously over-promoted LA. I call it the Palin Syndrome. It seems if you can't help but appoint a woman, appoint one of the lower calibre candidates, instead of the many highly capable ones. That way you at least get to say: 'told you so!'

The observation made by the senior judge referred to in the article is quite right. Angliolini was indeed a career civil servant. She did not have the credentials to be given the solicitor general's post, and was pretty poor in that role - clearly out of her depth. Her elevation to LA was baffling. The changing of the rules to accomodate her yet again, will no doubt keep the conspiracy theorists busy.
9

2Right,

On Location 18/10/2008 02:48:16
She cannot sort out her admitted duty to disclose evidence to people convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in this country, what chance will some have if she becomes a Judge ?

Crown Office have a duty to disclose all Police Statements, All witness's previous convictions and whether or not any witness has outstanding charges.
Angiolini Acceptts this duty conferred upon her by Section 6 of ECHR Mcleod and Holland & Sinclair yet a recent attempt in our courts led to an application to the Privy Council where three Judges that decided Holland & Sinclair have acted in an oppressive manner contradictory to their own decisions and have refused to grant "Full Disclosure" to three people convicted of murder.

Blair Dixon and McDonald are all asking for complete disclosure, assured to afford Equality of arms and have all been refused by three Judges that Granted Appeals to Holland & Sinclair on the exact same grounds.

Does Elish call this Justice ?

Why not full disclosure for all Elish ?

Anyone convicted of Murder in my view, is entitled to see all the evidence held against them.

How About it Elish ?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.