���˿���

Professor Paterson, do you believe that there is any risk that the previous warnings from the Law Society of Scotland over many years—the Law Society being a very effective lobbying organisation—will count against it today? It is a case of crying wolf, perhaps—or that could be the public perception.

That is helpful. I understand the difference between fraud and questionable claims, but some of the language used in respect of those specific cases made it clear that they were fraudulent.

Why did those cases all appear to happen in the past 10 years or so? Was there a problem that we have now fixed or was it simply that the media did its job and identified it? What confidence can the public have that those abuses are not still happening, especially against the backdrop of what the profession is describing as a crisis in legal aid?

Thank you. I suppose that my question is addressed initially to Ian Moir, who has already used the phrase “cry wolf”. The Martyn Evans report of 2018 paints a somewhat different picture. It refers to the facts that Scotland has the third highest legal aid spend per capita in Europe and that it funds more cases per 100,000 people than anywhere else in Europe. It refers to the Law Society of Scotland’s Otterburn report. Mr Evans might have been too polite to use the word “spin”, but he points out some of the ways in which that information was presented by the Law Society of Scotland as being somewhat questionable and selective. Is there not a risk that your doomsday warnings of today are very similar to those that we have heard in the past? Indeed, is it not just a question of the market being what it is and, to go back to your point, crying wolf?

To go back to my point, nobody is suggesting that there are not problems with accessing justice, but the blunt tool of more money seems slightly jarring. Do you agree with that?

I want to ask Mr Lancaster about fraud and abuse of legal aid. By my reckoning, just under £1.9 billion of legal aid has been paid out since the banking crash, and some have found such rich pickings rather tempting. In my previous job as a journalist, I reported extensively on a number of solicitors who committed suspected fraud with regard to legal aid. I will not name names—it is all in the public domain—but it is worth while touching on some of the details.

One particular solicitor claimed £600,000 in two years. The claims were unnecessary and excessive and were made to exploit the legal aid fund, but it still took four years to ban him for making any more claims. Another submitted 81 accounts that were described as fictional and fraudulent, but he was not prosecuted. A third solicitor who claimed £560,000 in one year had a history of such abuse, but, again, it took several more years to strike him off.

Around the same time, we became aware of 14 solicitors, who might or might not have included the three whom I have mentioned, being reported to the Crown Office for similar fraud, but none was the subject of criminal proceedings. As the gatekeeper and guardian of these huge sums of public money, do you know whether similar types of abuse are still happening today?

I have the Evans report here—I can quote some of it, if you like. Referring to the Law Society of Scotland’s Otterburn report, the Evans report states:

“Assumptions appear to have been made in the report and notional calculations used to reach the hourly rate”—

for the purpose of a press release—

“rather than figures provided by respondents.”

Mr Evans describes the Otterburn report as

“an admirable attempt by the Law Society of Scotland to quantify the commercial viability of conducting legal aid work”,

but he concludes that there is no evidential basis for raising fees. Do you discount the Evans report in its entirety? Do you recognise that picture?

Could I ask two more brief questions, or are we moving on?

I could redirect the question to Teresa Medhurst.

Yes—thank you.

I want to ask Kate Wallace from Victim Support Scotland about the victim notification scheme. Your submission is similarly critical of it, Kate. You have described it as “not fit for purpose.” You have also pointed out that the Scottish Government has not given any specific commitment to do anything about it in the current programme for government. Why do you think that the Scottish Government does not share your sense of urgency? What should be done to fix the scheme?

Yes, please. I would like to ask everyone a question, but we just do not have the time, so this question is for Moira Price and Dr Marsha Scott.

The court churn issue has been with us for decades, if not for ever, and, in my past life as a journalist, I often reported on cases that had been subject to extreme delays. Without identifying any individuals, I can say that one case involving a victim of serial and serious domestic violence took three and a half years to be concluded while another case involving an alleged stalking victim was concluded just this year after four years. Both female victims spoke not of being revictimised, as though their experience was a one-off occasion, but of living in a perpetual state of revictimisation that had consumed their entire lives, and both said that they would not engage with the system again. I know that improvements have been made and that there has been Covid to deal with, but my question for Moira Price and Marsha Scott is this: what can and should be done about male offenders who appear to use the criminal justice process to sustain their victimisation?