Sheriff makes 25 recommendations after inquiry into two suicides in young offenders institution

By Mitchell Skilling

Katie Allan and William Brown, aged 21 and 16 respectively, both took their own lives by hanging whilst they were detained at the Polmont Young Offenders Institution in 2018. Whilst their deaths were not directly connected, the decision was taken to hold a single inquiry, it appearing to the Lord Advocate that their deaths occurred in similar circumstances.

The inquiry was conducted by Sheriff Simon Collins at Falkirk Sheriff Court, with the Crown represented by Ms Cross, Senior Advocate Depute, and Mr Halliday, advocate. Other parties represented included the SPS, the Scottish Prison Officers Association, and members of both families.

Factors not noted

Katie Allan pled guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving after she struck a pedestrian while driving home under the influence of alcohol in August 2017. Although she had no previous convictions and was noted to be highly remorseful, she was sentenced to 16 months’ detention, which distressed and shocked her.

Although SPS staff were aware of Katie’s history of self-harm, this information was not recorded and they did not seek any information in relation to her medical or mental health history from her family or NHS staff. However, as her sentence progressed her mental health began to deteriorate, as well as her alopecia returning. After a series of distressing events from 1 to 3 June 2018, she was found hanging from a metal toilet cubicle door stop in her cell on the morning of 4 June.

William Brown walked into a Glasgow police station carrying a knife on 3 October 2018, while on deferred sentence for other offences. A social care officer expressed concerns that he was a suicide risk, but as no beds were available in secure units he was taken to Polmont. On admission he was put on the Talk To Me programme with a requirement that he be subject to 30-minute observations, but he was accommodated in a standard cell containing a double bunk bed.

On 5 October, the decision was taken to remove William from TTM, notwithstanding the documentation that he was a suicide risk. He was not reassessed or put back on TTM even when further information underlining his risk of suicide was presented to SPS staff. He was found hanged in his cell on the morning of 7 October, having used a torn bedsheet to hang himself from the bunk bed.

The Crown submitted that although Katie clearly had difficulty adjusting to her time in custody, multiple factors recognised as suicide factors were not noted or picked up on by staff. Six reasonable precautions were suggested that, taken in cumulo, might have prevented her death, and separately it was submitted that the metal door stop could have been replaced with one that could not be used as an anchor point. In relation to William, defects in the TTM strategy, including its reliance on self-reporting, were identified, as well as systemic failures in the prison system in common with Katie’s case.

Known risk

In his decision, Sheriff Collins noted the unusual nature of the inquiry, saying: “Since 2010 more than ten children and young persons have died by suicide in Polmont, and more than a hundred prisoners have died by suicide across the whole Scottish prison estate. Each of these deaths will have generated a FAI. Yet seldom have such inquiries made significant findings in relation to precautions or defective systems of work, nor have they made substantial recommendations for a change of approach to suicide prevention”.

He continued: “Meantime deaths by suicide continue to occur in Scottish prisons, and at a rate which appears, as detailed below, to be markedly in excess both of the suicide rate in the Scottish population generally, and the suicide rate to be found in almost all other prison populations in Europe.”

In respect of Katie’s death, the sheriff said: “The simple fact is that none of the many people who gave evidence in relation to their contact with Katie while she was in Polmont thought that she was at risk of suicide. Indeed, a theme which emerged from the witnesses’ evidence was to the effect that Katie was the last person whom they would have expected to take her own life.”

However, he continued: “In Katie’s case the death was suicide by self-ligature from the rectangular door stop in cell 1/33 on 3 June 2018. It would have been a reasonable precaution to have removed and replaced that door stop with an anti-ligature stop prior to this date, standing the known risk that it presented and the ease with which it could have been removed. Had this been done, the death which Katie suffered could not and would not have occurred.”

Individual and collective failures

Turning to William Brown, Sheriff Collins said: “William’s death resulted from a catalogue of individual and collective failures by prison and healthcare staff in Polmont. Almost all of those who interacted with him were at fault to some extent. Looked at broadly, and as SPS pithily submitted, the decision to put William on TTM following the RRA on 4 October 2018 was plainly correct, and the decision to remove him from TTM following the case conference on 5 October 2018 was plainly wrong.”

He added: “It would have been a reasonable precaution to have removed double bunk beds from use in relation to all single occupancy cells for young prisoners in Polmont prior to 2018. This could have been done relatively cheaply and easily, and did not require substantial capital expenditure. Had this precaution been taken, William could not have been accommodated in a cell with a double bunk bed at the time when he was, and so would have been unable to self-ligature as he did on the night of 6 - 7 October 2018.”

Sheriff Collins concluded: “In common with all the participants in the inquiry, I offer my condolences to the families of Katie and William. I would wish to particularly acknowledge the contributions of Linda and Stuart Allan, at least one of whom attended every day of the inquiry, and whose dignity and courage were evident throughout.”

The sheriff therefore concluded that both deaths could have been prevented by the taking of reasonable precautions, and made 25 recommendations, including in relation to the TTM programme, the training of SPS staff, and on ligature prevention in cells as an aspect of suicide prevention policy.

People’s panel recommends action on Scotland’s drugs emergency

The panellists’ report recognises that progress has been made, but says that further action is needed. It calls for public campaigns to raise awareness of drug harm and drug use, recommends funding should be ring fenced and prioritised on prevention and seeks improvements in information shared between government agencies.

However, the introduction of the Naloxone programme to prevent fatal drug overdoses, and the opening of the safer drug consumption room, The Thistle, are welcomed in the report.

The panel’s report also calls for greater involvement of the third sector and people with lived experience. It concludes that a lack of urgency in responding to drug harm and use reinforces the stigma already associated with these issues.

The creation of the people’s panel, formed of 23 people, was requested by the cross-committee on tackling drug deaths and drug harms. Members of the Criminal Justice Committee, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee commissioned the panel to gather public views on the question, ‘What does Scotland need to do differently to reduce drug related harms?’. The panel met at the Parliament in October and November 2024.

Over the course of two weekends, members of the panel heard evidence from people with lived experience of drug harms, from academics and researchers, and from stakeholders who work in this area, before developing their report.

The panel’s report will help inform the cross-committee’s scrutiny of matters related to reducing drug deaths and tackling problem drug use. Its 19 recommendations cover rights and people’s lived experience, justice, access to treatment, care and support, prevention and harm reduction.

Mairi McIntosh, who was a member of the panel said: “I found participating in the People’s Panel humbling. The team at the Scottish Parliament organised a diverse range of experts and worked hard to lay out the worrying and rapid escalation in drug related deaths and harms in Scotland. 

“All the evidence we heard highlighted the urgency for action from the Scottish government to implement brave and lasting change. 

“I am hopeful that our report shows that as voices from across Scotland, representing different backgrounds and lives, some directly affected by the issues of drug harm and death and others not, that we want the Scottish government to acknowledge the causes and barriers like stigma and discrimination and realise that we cannot afford to not take bold action now.”

Audrey Nicoll MSP, convener of the Criminal Justice Committee said: “We would like to thank the panel for their focused and determined work in delivering this serious and well considered report.

“Our Committees look forward to thoroughly considering the panel’s findings and putting its report’s recommendations to the Scottish government.”

Views sought on dual mandates consultation

Following the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill being passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament in December, a consultation seeking views on the principles and practical issues of ending dual mandates has launched.

The consultation, which runs until 23 March, looks at issues such as grace periods once elected and salary or parliamentary limitations during this period.

The bill places a duty on Scottish ministers to bring forward regulations which prohibit MSPs from also serving in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and may additionally prohibit MSPs from also serving as councillors.

The regulations will be laid in autumn 2025 so they are in place for the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, and will be subject to scrutiny and a vote by MSPs.

Minister for parliamentary business Jamie Hepburn said: “Following the unanimous passage of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill in December, MSPs will be barred from also being an MP or Peer through regulations to be brought forward in autumn 2025.

“This consultation on the issue will allow political parties, local government and most importantly the public to comment on the details of how that will work in practice, ahead of the practice being ended before the 2026 Scottish Parliament election.”

Dr Morag Kerr: The Lockerbie conviction – a reply to Mr Clancy

I declare that the bomb that caused the Lockerbie disaster was in the suitcase seen by John Bedford in the baggage container in the interline shed at Heathrow at 4.30 pm, an hour before the PA103 feeder flight from Frankfurt landed. I challenge Mr Clancy, or anyone else, to prove me wrong using facts and reason, not the unevidenced opinions of others, and not legal technicalities.

Mr Clancy makes a number of assertions in his two-part article of 6th and 7th January, and delivers a number of ad hominem attacks on critics of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s conviction, but actual evidence is in short supply. Reasoned refutation is conspicuous by its absence. Much of his argument consists of “the SCCRC have looked at this and say it’s fine, nothing to see here folks,” and “these people are dreadful conspiracy theorists.”

The lazy “conspiracy theorist” slur is a repeat of Magnus Linklater’s perennial articles for The Times, built on a false premise, or rather the logical fallacy of the unexcluded middle. There is a third possibility between that of Megrahi being guilty as charged and the police, the justice system and the SCCRC all being complicit in a conscious conspiracy to perpetuate a miscarriage of justice, and that is the aspect of human nature known as confirmation bias. Reading Mr Clancy’s articles it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that he too is a victim of this particular form of fact-blindness.

When one is personally invested in a particular conclusion, whether as an individual or as part of a self-reinforcing group, the act of considering the possibility that one might be mistaken can be repugnant, almost painful. This is particularly true when the consequences of having to acknowledge that a mistake has been made are wide-ranging. The brain will seize on any scrap of evidence, however peripheral to the core argument, any line of reasoning no matter how convoluted and sophistic, to shore up the original conclusion and avoid the cognitive dissonance of seriously contemplating a contradictory one.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to cherry-pick public statements by those advancing the proposition that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted to imply that some grand, conscious and co-ordinated conspiracy is being alleged (how could that possibly be, surely these people are malicious!), rather than the obvious interpretation that what is being proposed is that those determinedly shoring up the conviction are mistaken, in thrall to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. (Indeed, the very title of my own book about the case, referencing the aphorism known as “Hanlon’s Razor”, should have provided something of a clue.)

It is particularly disingenuous do this, and to base an entire argument on the premise that the SCCRC is to be trusted implicitly, in the very week of the debacle in England surrounding the wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson and the very credible allegations that the CCRC “has been infected with a culture of denial”. A culture, that is, steeped in confirmation bias. The Malkinson case is not the only one. Can we really, hands on hearts, trust that the SCCRC is a completely different animal?

In the second part of his article Mr Clancy appears to call on specific pieces of evidence to support his position. Nevertheless, once again the argument is little more than “trust the SCCRC, they’ve looked at this very thoroughly,” rather than reasoned, factual refutation.

The timer fragment

Given the mysterious nature of this object it’s hardly surprising to find it surrounded by a fog of speculation and indeed conspiracy theorising. That also is human nature. However, the speculation comes after the observation that this item was not what the prosecution claimed it was, and does not negate that observation.

Dr Swire and Mr Biddulph, and indeed Mr James, are entirely justified in their doubts about the provenance of the fragment, and their criticism of the way this was handled by the SCCRC. To inject some facts into the discussion (a bit of a shock to the system, I know), the central issue is this. It was recognised at an early stage in the investigation that the circuitry of the fragment was coated with pure tin, a technique used by amateur hobbyists making single or small-batch PCBs, and which is not suitable for large-scale commercial use. This was considered a very significant finding when the fragment was first analysed in Scotland in early 1990. While the pattern of the circuitry on the fragment seems to confirm to a high degree of certainty that it was made from a Letraset template produced by the Swiss electronics firm MEBO, all the PCBs for the MST-13 timers that were manufactured from that template for MEBO by Thüring AG had their circuitry coated with a 70/30 tin/lead alloy. Thüring did not have the facilities to apply a pure tin coating. It is one of the many highly regrettable features of the Zeist trial that this discrepancy was fudged and obscured in court, mainly thanks to a highly misleading statement by Allen Feraday, an English forensics expert, and the bench was never made aware of it.

Speculation and conspiracy theorising aside, nobody knows what that fragment is, who made it or when or for what purpose. All that can be said is that it was not from one of the batches of PCBs manufactured by Thüring and which were supplied to Libya by MEBO, as alleged by the Crown. Mr Clancy refers to “… the large body of evidence, including scientific evidence, that questions the accuracy of [these] claims.” What evidence would that be, then? According to their public news release the SCCRC rejected this ground of appeal on the narrow technical point that “… the applicants have not provided a reasonable explanation as to why the fresh evidence concerning the metallurgy issue was not led at the trial,” and because they believed that the failure of the original defence team to uncover the discrepancy did not amount to “defective representation”, not because they had obtained scientific findings which contradicted this evidence.

The suitcase

This is my own personal area of expertise in the case, and Mr Clancy refers to my 2013 book Adequately Explained by Stupidity?, which is largely devoted to examining this issue. I wonder if he has read it?

According to Mr Clancy, “… the SCCRC carried out a thorough examination of the allegation taking account of all the relevant evidence including information which was not available to Justice for Megrahi. The SCCRC concluded that ‘… it was not arguable that the Justice for Megrahi theory could show conclusively that the bomb had entered the airline luggage in Heathrow’.” (Note, not that this information disproved the proposition, merely that it apparently rendered it inconclusive.)

The evidence presented in my book formed part of Justice for Megrahi’s submission to the COPFS which resulted in the police Operation Sandwood. In the course of that investigation I was interviewed by officers on several occasions, going through the evidence and my reasoning in minute detail. Repeatedly, I assured them that I had no dog in this fight beyond a desire to solve the puzzle (which the original forensic investigators had so signally failed to do). I was (and still am) convinced that the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the bomb suitcase was already in London an hour before the flight supposedly carrying it landed. As a scientist, though, I always strive to maintain an open mind. I begged the police officers on several occasions to tell me if they discovered either additional evidence I didn’t have, or an alternative interpretation I hadn’t thought of, that would cast doubt on my conclusion. I stated categorically that if such evidence were to be found, I would withdraw my thesis and issue a public retraction. Nothing of that nature happened. Contact with Operation Sandwood tailed off and then ceased entirely, with no explanation. All I ever got was a personal jibe from Kenny Macaskill to the effect that (and I paraphrase) “I know something you don’t know, so you’re wrong.”

This is more or less exactly Mr Clancy’s position, echoing the position of the SCCRC. They know “something” that allows an entire book full of minute detail and closely-reasoned argument to be dismissed, but no hint at all is given of what this something might be. I find the secrecy over this point very disturbing.

The best guess I can make is that Operation Sandwood, Mr Macaskill, the SCCRC and Mr Clancy are placing the supposed confession of Abu Agila Masoud to having been involved in the smuggling of the bomb on board Flight KM180 in Malta above my analysis. However, this “confession” is a highly contradictory and confusing document, in places flatly contradicting evidence relied on to convict Megrahi. False confessions are one of the most frequent causes of miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions, and indeed in this case the lord advocate was unable to assure Justice for Megrahi that he was confident that the confession had not been obtained by torture. My position on this matter is that if someone confesses to doing something that provably didn’t happen, it still didn’t happen.

My analysis of the evidence, which is entirely theoretical, has recently been independently confirmed experimentally.[1] A Dutch forensic scientist, Dr Erwin Vermeij, carried out multiple test explosions using used aluminium LD3 containers with mocked-up suitcases and IEDs made to simulate the Lockerbie bomb, with the bomb suitcase in various positions in the container. These experiments were far more rigorously designed and executed than the botched tests carried out in the USA in 1989. His conclusion states:

It was demonstrated in court that it was impossible to get more than 450g of Semtex inside the radio-cassette player used to construct the IED. The position that “comes closest” to the damage observed on the Lockerbie luggage container is the one described in my book.

The luggage tags

The single piece of actual evidence discussed by Mr Clancy is the peripheral matter of an entry in the diary of Lamin Fhimah, Megrahi’s co-accused, relating to his obtaining “taggs” (sic) for Megrahi. As a statement by someone other than Megrahi himself, this was held by the trial court not to be evidence against him. However, it was admitted by the court in the 2021 appeal in order to “considerably bolster” the evidence that the bomb was infiltrated in Malta. There’s no evidence that these tags were even obtained, let alone given to Megrahi, or what he did with them if they were. The accuseds’ explanation was that they were needed as samples to get a printing quote. The re-introduction of this extremely trivial and non-probative evidence suggests to me that someone was getting a bit desperate.

The identification evidence

This is barely touched on by Mr Clancy, despite its actually being the central issue as regards Megrahi’s conviction. He describes it as “qualified (resemblance) identification”, which is being remarkably kind. Frankly, no normal human being, as opposed to angels dancing on the heads of pins, could possibly imagine that the bribed and cajoled Tony Gauci’s fifty-year-old, over six feet tall, dark-skinned, heavily-built customer was in fact the 36-year-old, five feet eight, light-skinned, slightly built Megrahi. Even Tony prefaced his line-up “identification” with “Not the man I saw in my shop, but…” The identification is in fact the shaky hook on which the entire daisy-chain of circular reasoning dreamed up by the police investigation and embellished by the trial court was hung. It has been challenged by four eminent experts in the psychology of memory – Prof Timothy Valentine (70 pages, 2008), Professor Steven Clark (49 pages, 2008), Professor David Canter (105 pages, 2010) and Professor Elizabeth Loftus (seven page journal publication, 2013[2]). The full list of problems with it is much too long to go into here, and it seems yet another problem has now arisen.

One of the things Masoud allegedly confessed to doing, in these interviews in the prison dungeon in Tripoli, was buying the clothes from Tony Gauci. Tony described one customer, not two, and as he has since died, the police have no further opportunity to go back and persuade him to change his statement on that point also. If Masoud bought the clothes, Megrahi didn’t, and if he didn’t, the entire case is a pile of daisy-heads on the floor. However, if Masoud’s confession is required in order to refute the suitcase evidence, this must create a bit of a dilemma for his prosecutors.

Conclusion

Over many years Justice for Megrahi has raised serious, evidence-based concerns about the conviction. These concerns have never been addressed in detail, or at all, by the Crown Office or by any of those who support the conviction – they have simply been cavalierly dismissed and those raising them stigmatised as conspiracy theorists. That must now change. When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle dared to challenge the conviction of Oscar Slater, the response of the prosecution authorities was as dismissive as that of the Crown Office in relation to the Megrahi conviction. But history proved Conan Doyle to be right. 

Reference 1: Vermeij, E. (2024) Survivability of IED components, suitcases, their contents and luggage containers in suitcase bombs. Elsevier: Forensic Science International: Reports, vol 9, July 2024.

Reference 2: Loftus, E. F. (2013) Eyewitness testimony in the Lockerbie bombing case. Memory, vol 21 issue 5, pp 584-590.

GMB judges call for English judicial appointments chair to be removed from post

Judges made the call in an open letter to Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood yesterday.

Ms Pitcher recently resigned as the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) – the body that investigates miscarriages of justice – after failings that saw an innocent man jailed for 17 years for a rape he did not commit.

Meanwhile the JAC itself has come under fire for taking secret references when judges apply for promotion which outweigh assessments of their ability and their open references.

A senior judge in the Court of Appeal, Sir Geoffrey Vos, criticised this as unfair in June 2024, in a case brought by District Judge Kate Thomas.

Stuart Fegan, GMB senior organiser, said: “GMB judges do not believe anyone who is unfit to lead the Criminal Cases Review should be overseeing appointment of our judges.

“A discredited JAC chairman reflects badly on judges because the JAC appoints them – it undermines public confidence in the justice system.

“Meanwhile the JAC under Ms Pitcher is a failing organisation; senior appointments have been irregular, there is a lack of procedural fairness and a shadowy secret reference system that lacks transparency and contributes to an atmosphere of intimidation in the judiciary.

“We call on the Justice Secretary to remove Helen Pitcher from her role as chair.”

Fern Mapp joins Irwin Mitchell Scotland

Ms Mapp brings with her 14 years of experience in personal injury litigation specialising in cross-border and travel law, including international serious injury, aviation and package holiday cases.

She has acted in a number of complex and high profile matters such as the Clutha helicopter disaster and the catastrophic incident involving the US Navy research vessel RV Petrel. 

She is also a notary public and is a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) and Pan European Organisation of Personal Injury Lawyers (PEOPIL). 

Her appointment to Irwin Mitchell Scotland comes less than a year after Kim Leslie joined as head of personal injury in Scotland, and just a few months after senior associate solicitor Izabela Wosiak, solicitor Rachel Brown and paralegal Emma McCutcheon joined the team.

It also follows Irwin Mitchell’s recent investment in Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie.

Ms Leslie said: “Fern joins us at a very exciting time for Irwin Mitchell Scotland.  Over the past year, we’ve strengthened the personal injury team and we’re thrilled to be adding Fern with her expertise and network in international personal injury and aviation. 

“Fern is a strategic technical expert with exceptional communication skills. We are confident that her appointment will greatly enhance our ability to provide exceptional service to our clients injured abroad.”

Ryan Macready joins Dallas McMillan Solicitors

He said: “After an incredibly rewarding journey at Macdonald Henderson, I am excited to share that I have embarked on a new chapter in my career. 

“I am delighted to join such a historic firm with a dynamic team and will do all I can to contribute to its continued success and growth.

“My time at Macdonald Henderson was full of invaluable experiences and learning, and I’m grateful to have worked with such talented colleagues and clients throughout my time.  As I transition to this new role, I look forward to building new relationships, further developing the firm’s impressive offering, and continuing to grow alongside my new colleagues.”

New deputy student directors for ALP

Anna Robertson, chair of the ALP board, said: “Emma and Jonathan have always shown exceptional potential in the project, and we are excited to see them take the project into a new chapter.” 

Ms Naylor said: “I am grateful to take on this role and contribute to reducing the access to justice gap through community legal education. By collaborating with our dedicated volunteers and partners, I look forward to developing strategies which expand the impact of our work and empower individuals with the tools they need to navigate the legal system.”

Mr Blackwood added: “I feel extremely privileged to have been appointed to this position within such a prestigious organisation that helps so many in our community. I am eager to get started with the role and support the project in continuing the incredible but necessary work our student volunteers do every day.”

Court process begins for Park Inn Hotel fatal accident inquiry

Badreddin Abdalla Adam Bosh was shot and killed by officers of the Police Scotland in the Park Inn Hotel, West George Street, Glasgow on 26 June 2020 after he attacked six people, stabbing and seriously injuring five of them and attempts to use non-lethal weapons were unsuccessful.

Those injured by the 28-year-old Sudanese man included three asylum seekers, two hotel workers and a police officer who had responded to the initial emergency call.

A preliminary hearing will be held on 11 March 2025 at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

Macdonald Henderson advises Verum Wealth on sale to Foster Denovo

The addition of Verum Wealth marks FD’s seventh acquisition in just over a year and adds £87 million of assets under advice to its recently established Glasgow hub.

The transaction represents Macdonald Henderson’s second client disposal to FD, having acted in the sale of Rosemount Asset Management to FD in August 2024.

Verum was founded by Tony McPhee in 2015. He said: “When the due diligence process was cleared and the finishing line agreed, David, Cameron and the MH team pulled out all the stops to get the deal over the line in a very short time scale – great work and a big thank you.”

Quote of the day

When I hear any man talk of an unalterable law, the only effect it produces upon me is to convince me that he is an unalterable fool.

Sydney Smith, ‘Peter Plymley’s Letters’ (1808)

And finally… honey nut crunch

Over 31,000 tonnes were confiscated last year, mainly in cities and seaports, with shipments from countries including Malaysia, Thailand, and Turkey.

The honey, containing sildenafil or tadalafil – the active ingredients in Viagra and Cialis – remains popular despite warnings since 2021 about health risks, including heart disease. Authorities say young men, influenced by viral trends and pornographic content, are driving demand.

Illegal products under brands like Black Horse and Royal Honey are sold online and in convenience stores. A student fined €15,000 had earned €50,000 selling such products online, claiming ignorance of their true ingredients.

Emergency rooms report rising cases of severe side effects, including a 36-year-old man who required surgery for penile necrosis. “There is no reliable dosage in these products,” warned Juliette Bloch of the National Health Safety Agency. A doctor bluntly noted: “Something that makes you hard instantly does not just contain plants.”

Advancements and Features Shaping the Future of Denovo’s Legal Case Management Software

Over the past few years, we’ve poured our energy into refining CaseLoad, transforming it into a powerful, all-in-one platform that combines cutting-edge legal case management and accounts software. The result? A feature-rich solution that empowers law firms to streamline workflows, boost efficiency, and deliver exceptional client service.

Now, as we step into 2025, we’re thrilled to unveil the latest advancements we’ve been working on - designed to make your practice even more efficient and future-ready. This blog outlines some of the exciting new features coming to caseload in 2025.

Read more here

Overcoming the Challenges of Moving to Modern Case Management

Read the full article here

Are you a law firm partner wishing things could be different in 2025?

• Fed up with office politics?
• Annoyed with the decisions made?
• Frustrated by some of your fellow partners?
• Disgruntled by the way the cake is divided up?
• Confused why you ended up in charge of HR or IT?
• Wishing you could concentrate on just doing the law?

Becoming a partner in a law firm is an incredible achievement. You have worked really hard to get there, following the traditional path.
However, maybe it is not giving you the satisfaction or fulfilment you thought it would?

Would you like to change all of that?

Now, imagine your future. One that gives you more of the fees you generate; complete freedom of how, where and when you work; and allows you to focus on doing the legal work that you love to do.

If you are a law firm partner, and wish things could be different in 2025, then find out now if Plug & Play Law is the answer for you.

What is Plug & Play Law?

Plug & Play is a term coined by Mitch Kowalski in his book ‘The Great Legal Reformation: Notes from the Field’. A book that features Inksters.
Mitch Kowalski refers to Plug & Play Platforms when describing law firms such as Inksters who have developed a model where senior lawyers can work as a collective, with enhanced technology and back-office support.

Inksters and Plug & Play Law

Inksters is the foremost Plug & Play Law firm in Scotland. Specifically with, by far, the largest number of consultant solicitors and the greatest geographical reach. Inksters have operated and perfected this model for 12 years and been in business as a law firm for over 25 years.

Discover whether Plug & Play Law is the right fit for you

If you are a law firm partner, and wish things could be different in 2025, then complete the Plug & Play Law scorecard online. There are just 11 simple questions and it takes less than 60 seconds to complete. You will then receive an immediate personalised report on whether Plug & Play Law is a good fit for you. Completing it could be better than making a new year’s resolution!