It is spring again and the time has come for applications to be submitted for the appointment of Queen’s Counsel. It is perhaps remarkable that in a system set up to dispense justice in an open and fair manner nonetheless the operation of the process for appointment to Queen’s Counsel in Scotland remains covert, unfair and discriminatory.
Barristers in England & Wales, and advocates in Scotland, are divided into two ranks, senior counsel and junior counsel. Senior counsel are accorded the title "Queen’s Counsel" (QC) after their name and are otherwise designated as "silks". Solicitors with extended rights of audience before the higher courts (solicitor advocates) are not divided along those lines, although they may make application for appointment as Queen’s Counsel. It is said that appointment accords the “rank and dignity” of senior counsel. Sometimes it is said that it is “status”, but whatever it is, it remains a public office, appointment to which carries significant consequences or benefits for both the applicant and the public.
Despite relatively recent changes to the system it remains clear that it is unsatisfactory, secretive and unfair. If according the title of Queen’s Counsel to a person is intended to convey some indication of ability, and as possession of the title gives a clear advantage to someone wishing appointment to judicial office and other posts or placements, it is important to ensure that the system is open and fair. The public interest is not best served by the current system that could very well skew the appointments, and thereby the pool from which candidates for further and higher appointment are taken. Although it might be asserted that the title of QC is not required for appointment to high judicial office, that really is disingenuous.
In Scotland, although all counsel of whatever rank may be instructed in any case, those who are in the rank of senior counsel are more likely to command a higher rate of fee for exactly the same work than can their junior counsel colleagues. This is particularly enshrined in the legal aid scheme regulated by the Scottish Government. Payment under the scheme for a murder case, for example, is 20% higher for a senior than for a junior doing the same work, based simply upon the difference in status.
Before counsel can apply to be considered for promotion, he or she must fulfil certain requirements in terms of length of relevant experience at the bar, lack of disciplinary or criminal record and not having been made bankrupt.
The Scottish Government has confirmed that appointment to the rank of Queen’s Counsel is a matter for the Judicial Appointments and Finance Division of its Courts Directorate and that the names of those recommended by the Lord Justice General are forwarded by the First Minister to Her Majesty for approval. However, the Scottish Government has also confirmed that "selecting the candidates for appointment is a matter for the Lord Justice General alone".
Under the previous arrangements, the Lord Advocate had the significant role of "filtering" applicants and forwarding the names. Although that is no longer a recognised function of the Lord Advocate, little has changed. What is effectively the final decision on candidates rests with one person. There is no known case where the Judicial Appointments and Finance Division of its Courts Directorate has rejected a name presented by the Lord Justice General. It is possible that there are examples, as experience of human nature would suggest that people who have been rejected at any stage of a process tend not to broadcast the fact.
This procedure whereby the Judicial Appointments and Finance Division of its Courts Directorate do not get to see or assess anyone whose name is not put forward by the Lord Justice General undermines the concept of fairness. It certainly lacks any semblance of transparency, but that is another matter. Leaving to one person the power to select from present or former colleagues those who are to join him in the ranks of senior counsel is manifestly wrong.
The justice system for resolution of disputes, whether in the civil or criminal courts, is adversarial. Irritation or hostility of judges to certain issues being addressed before them is frequently the basis of appeals when such behaviour or attitudes affect or even are reflected in judicial decisions. It is difficult to imagine anyone relishing personal criticism issued privately, but in the context of legal proceedings criticism is issued publicly and can be severe and deeply embarrassing. As Lord McCluskey observed in his book Criminal Appeal, "judges are only human". He also cautions lawyers against irritating the bench in the manner in which cases are presented.
Of course, it was being human and irritated by incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Scots law that caused Lord McCluskey to have published an article in which he lambasted the very principles of the Convention with which he had been dealing in an appeal. The consequences of that were equally public, dramatic and embarrassing in that the whole bench was obliged to withdraw and the case (Hoekstra et al v HMA) was put back almost to first post. Just as a passionate antipathy for fundamental principles of law can give rise to problems, so could friction and resentment between the professionals within the system. It would be facile to suggest that anyone within the profession is immune from human frailty.
An application for appointment as "silk" is an application for appointment to public office and engages the fair hearing provisions of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A person who fulfils the requirements to have an application considered is entitled to the reasonable expectation that he/she will be treated fairly, within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights. The current system of assessing and deciding on the names to go forward does not address concerns that were raised about the old. Engagement of a lay observer of the process to provide a separate report to the First Minister can hardly be regarded as a serious answer to the practice of covert deliberation on who will or will not be appointed to the public office of Queen’s Counsel.
While a person may put forward the reasons, supported by references, as to why an application should succeed, there is no disclosure of information to the applicant of any information put forward as to why it should not. The applicant is not told by whom such reasons have been advanced, nor whether these are the basis upon which refusal of the application is to be made. Therefore, there is no means by which the applicant can know the real basis of a refusal, potential or otherwise. Intimation of the refusal of an application is normally by letter from the Private Secretary to the Lord Justice General stating merely that “the Lord Justice General was not disposed to recommend” the applicant for silk.
It is possible, after the decision has been made, to get some indication as to why it is said that an application failed, but that does not afford any basis for further procedure. There is no open hearing or mechanism by which the applicant can have the matter properly addressed, even in writing. Under the current procedure there is no appeal from the Lord Justice General’s decision, and there is no practical and effective remedy available through the courts as the Lord Justice General is both Lord Justice General and Lord President to whom other judges are subordinate. It is important to maintain the focus on the role of the Lord Justice General in this process. Although it is said that the actual appointment is made by a body other than the Lord Justice General, the reality is that only those whose names are put forward can be considered and appointed, as the Directorate does not get to see any other applicants’ details.
If it were possible to have the mechanics of the process examined in anticipation of judicial review, it would still serve no purpose. As the only person with the right to select names to go forward to the Directorate is the Lord Justice General, all that could happen is that the application is returned to him to reconsider. The European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Kingsley v UK, application no 35605/97, decision 7 November 2000, and McGonnell v UK, application no 28488/95, decision 8 February 2000, points to judicial review as being inadequate.
The United Kingdom has more than one jurisdiction, but appointment to the rank of Queen’s Counsel from the rank of junior counsel is common to all. However, in England & Wales the system employed is radically different from that in Scotland and is not open to the same criticisms as those that apply in Scotland. It is difficult to avoid recognising that in England the system of patronage was removed from the process and replaced with a system that recognises merit, the right to a fair process and openness. Accordingly, it is perhaps arguable that applicants under the Scottish system are discriminated against by the United Kingdom. Differing treatment of people in any process might be excusable, but it would be impossible to imagine let alone find a single reason to legitimise such discrimination in arrangements and practices for appointment to an office that is common to all jurisdictions. Insofar as this is discrimination in respect of a right to a fair hearing under article 6 of the Convention, it is also a violation of a right not to be discriminated against, which is guaranteed under article 14 of the Convention.
Not every lawyer has the desire for such official approval or status that seems to be associated with the title of Queen’s Counsel, but for those who do a fair and open process of selection is essential. Decisions that are made in secret and that affect the citizens of this country are bound to be viewed occasionally with concern, if not outright suspicion. There is no good reason for this secrecy and denial of fair process. Applicants and the public deserve better.
John Carroll, solicitor advocate, Glasgow. The author has not applied and does not intend to apply for the rank of Queen’s Counsel.
Current Submissions14.08.08 Where have we come from, where to next?The keynote address to the conference "Delivering Excellence in Scotland's Civil Justice System"; an abridged version appears in the Journal of August 2008 04.07.08 Getting a Get in Scotland - 2This follow-up to the article published in March 2006 explains how current Scots divorce law affects Jewish clients and how solicitors can give appropriate advice 12.06.08 No place for secrecyFuller version of the Opinion article, Journal, June 2008: critique of the system for appointment as Queen’s Counsel in Scotland 11.03.08 One Scotland, many cultures?Despite the protections of the Human Rights Act, the position of travelling people in Scotland appears to have worsened in recent years - why? 26.02.08 Bank charges and the Unfair Terms RegulationsThe significance of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations in the context of the current litigation over bank charges 21.02.08 CGT: Don't lose out on 6 April 2008Couples should consider asset transfers before then to preserve indexation relief 14.12.07 Common sense prevailsThe options open, and the issues that arise, now that the proposed planning gain supplement is not to be introduced 07.12.07 Discounting justiceAuthor contends that sentencing discounts and other developments have created an imbalance in the justice system 10.10.07 Advocacy in mediationAn overview of the mediation process and the opportunities for solicitors and clients 06.09.07 TUPE: stay your handA Court of Session ruling on a law firm redundancy marks a fundamental change in TUPE 24.07.07 EAT breaks ground with TUPE insolvency rulingRuling on when insolvency proceedings begin leaves successor employer liable 06.07.07 Confidentiality clauses - beware!The Information Commissioner's decision in the VisitScotland case requires very careful drafting of confidentiality provisions in public sector contracts if they are to work 06.07.07 The power of marks: Frankie goes after Hollys nameHow failure to address issues of ownership of the band's name stored up trouble for Frankie Goes to Hollywood 14.05.07 Court plans with little appealThe fuller version of the Opinion article in the Journal for May 2007 14.05.07 Winning waysThe fuller version of the article in the Journal for May 2007 08.02.07 Routes to qualification: the Italian pictureAn Italian lawyer with an interest in training in different jurisdictions reports on current developments in the Italian legal system 09.01.07 Contractual handcuffs: enhanced redundancy rightsThe Court of Appeal decision in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd requires employers to exercise caution when referring to redundancy rights in staff handbooks 27.12.06 The Isle of ManAn summary of the current legal and tax regime for individuals and companies based on the island (a longer version of the briefing in the November 2006 issue) 15.11.06 Costume Wars: copyright storm over the troopersA row over "Star Wars" costumes illustrates the need to protect all intellectual property rights in written agreements 13.10.06 Survival of the fittest? A replyReply to article on selection for Diploma and traineeship places by Michael Torrance in the September 2006 Journal 13.10.06 TUPE passes the buckFar from providing clarity, the new regulations will need litigation to decide the effect of the insolvency provisions (longer version of October 2006 briefing article) 17.08.06 For supplement read tax - an updateAuthors update their previous Journal article on the proposed planning gain supplement 17.08.06 Technology and the Scottish courtsAn update on the use of technology in the Scottish courts, based on the author's experience of a recent patent case 26.07.06 A lack of trustForthcoming in August issue, put online because of its urgency, the article outlines the final form of the trust tax changes in this year's Finance Act 17.07.06 Ireland 4, Italy 0The ECJ decision in the Irish-Italian dispute in the Parmalat companies liquidation proceedings provides important guidance on jurisdiction 05.04.06 Legal science or law-lite? A responseThis reply to Professor Gretton argues that changes in Scots law teaching are a necessary response to changes in universities, the wider community and the law itself 03.04.06 Opening a binding global route for personal dataIn a significant move the Information Commissioner has allowed a company to transfer employees' personal data outwith the EU under binding internal rules 02.04.06 Mentally disordered offendersOverview of the options available to the courts when dealing with offenders who have or may have a mental disorder, following recent legislative reforms 30.03.06 Bias and mental health tribunals: a replyReply to criticisms of the new tribunals, arguing that the composition of the tribunals is not inherently unfair and only research can assess their performance 17.01.06 Legal aid in children's hearing referralsThis paper delivered at the legal aid conference, argues that the interests of justice require better remuneration for solicitors appearing in children's hearing cases 09.12.05 Holes in Scotland's corporate killing proposalsGaps in the expert working group's proposals could make them unworkable and bad for business 10.08.05 Prosecuting bigotry offencesTwo appeal decisions have exposed limitations in the statutory offences directed at racial abuse 08.07.05 Commissioner: Public Authorities must do moreInformation Commissioner's first appeal decision highlights areas for improvement 14.04.05 New identity for criminal justice bodyScottish Association for the Study of Offending launches by removing "Delinquency" from title 14.04.05 Information and Consultation RegulationsBriefing on the regulations in force from 6 April 2005, covering businesses with more than the prescribed number of employees 13.04.05 Retailers seek effective court action on crimeScottish Retail Consortium proposes more effective intervention following 3rd Retail Crime Survey 11.04.05 Appropriate dispute resolutionThis paper, given to the Four Jurisdictions Conference in Nice this year, discusses how family law can make a difference for the better by careful choice of the most suitable method of resolution 09.03.05 ASBOs and young peopleWhat to look for when acting for a young person facing an antisocial behaviour order application 21.02.05 Sell or transfer?Longer version of briefing published in February 2005 issue, page 44 08.02.05 Promoting competitiveness or competition?Discussion of EU rules on state aids with particular reference to Highlands and Islands ferries 10.11.04 Guarding the inner sanctumHow to minimise the risk of breaches of internet security 10.11.04 The Clinical Trials Directive - a summaryWhat the EU Clinical Trials Directive means for trials of medicinal products 13.10.04 Sheriff Court Rules Council consultation paperConsultation on proposals for further extension of the use of information technology in civil cases in the sheriff court (response date: 15 November 2004) 13.10.04 Ignorantia juris: it's all Greek to meSecond annual APEX lecture given by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, on the rule of law and its essential components 13.10.04 Virtual firms: transactional learning on the webHow today's Diploma students are introduced to legal transactions in a virtual environment 13.10.04 Drafting consumer contractsGuidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |