SCTS asked to retract ‘untrue’ letter over removal of solicitor from Edinburgh Sheriff Court

Claims made by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) about the solicitor’s actions have been challenged by the Edinburgh Bar Association (EBA).

In an open letter, David Fraser, executive director of court operations, wrote that “the solicitor was within the cell area advising prisoners, who were not his clients, by discouraging them from using the duty solicitor”.

In an open response, EBA president Neil Martin, said that the solicitor “was there in his capacity as an EBA representative” and that he was “advising accused persons of their rights, including their right to represent themselves, and providing leaflets explaining why their nominated solicitor was not present”. He was doing what has been done “on any occasion when we have taken action in respect of custody courts”.

Mr Martin wrote: “No issue was taken with this then. Indeed, our representative was there providing advice on behalf of those nominated solicitors who were not attending. This clearly fits within the parameters of your noted access permission.”

He questioned how the SCTS could claim the solicitor was attempting to dissuade accused persons from using the duty solicitor, since consultations are “entirely confidential, and take place in secure booths in the cell complex”.

He added: “Indeed, it has come to my attention that there was actually gratitude expressed to our representative by one of the duty solicitors present for explaining matters to accused persons so that they did not have to.

“Are we approaching a situation whereby if SCTS do not like the advice offered to an accused person, then that accused person’s representative can be summarily ejected from the building?”

The EBA president concluded: “With the greatest of respect, given the clearly inaccurate picture painted of the incident in your letter, the assurance offers little comfort and leaves us having to consider our options with regards to how we can proceed from here. What you note in your letter is simply untrue. Unless this is retracted, then I do not know how we can progress from here.”