Supreme Court rejects Scottish consumer protection appeal over prosthetic hip

By Mitchell Skilling

John Hastings had sought damages from the manufacturers of the hip, Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd and Stryker, under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. It was originally ruled by the Outer House of the Court of Session that the appellant had failed to establish that the product was defective, with the Inner House refusing a reclaiming motion against the decision in 2021.

The appeal was heard by the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, sitting with Lord Kitchin, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose, and Lord Lloyd-Jones. Robert Weir QC, Robert Milligan QC and Clare Connelly appeared for the appellant. The respondents were represented by Kenny McBrearty QC, Alexander Antelme QC, David Myhill, and Ewen Campbell.

Unchallenged expert evidence

In 2009, the appellant was fitted with a MITCH-Accolade prosthetic hip, which was made using parts supplied by both respondents. While it was common ground at proof that the statistical evidence presented to the court was not sufficient of itself to establish that the hip was defective, the appellant argued that it was defective by way of certain design flaws as well the fact that the product was withdrawn from the market after concerns were expressed by the orthopaedic community.

At proof, the respondents relied upon evidence of biostatistics from an expert, Professor Platt, which was unchallenged by the appellant. The parties were agreed that Professor Platt’s evidence demonstrated that there was no reliable statistical evidence that the revision rate (i.e., the chance that the hip would require replacement in a given timeframe) of the MITCH–Accolade product was out of line with the relevant benchmarks.

At first instance, the Lord Ordinary concluded that in light of the expert evidence, the matters raised by the appellant were insufficient to constitute a defect within the meaning of the 1987 Act. The Inner House subsequently refused the appellant’s reclaiming motion, holding that the Lord Ordinary had not erred in his decision making.

Before the Supreme Court the appellant submitted that, notwithstanding the evidence of Professor Platt, it was open to him to prove his case by reference to the evidence that established a prima facie case that the MITCH–Accolade product was defective. He did not seek to pursue his case regarding the alleged design flaws. The sole question before the Supreme Court, therefore, was whether the Outer and Inner Houses were correct to find that, notwithstanding the prima facie evidence, the appellant had failed to prove that the product was defective.

No absolute level

Giving the leading judgment with which the other four judges agreed, Lord Lloyd-Jones observed: “In this case the nature of the product is such that there can be no entitlement to an absolute level of safety. It is natural for a prosthesis of this sort to wear and to shed metal debris that can cause soft tissue damage, so this of itself cannot be a defect.”

He continued: “Given the wide range of revision rates in the case of metal-on-metal prostheses generally and the fact that the revision rates for MoM prostheses were typically higher than those for non-MoM prostheses, the generalised expressions of professional concern do not assist the appellant in establishing that the MITCH-Accolade product was defective.”

On whether the withdrawal of the product from the market assisted the appellant, Lord Lloyd-Jones said: “The Lord Ordinary found, and was clearly entitled to find, that the withdrawal of the MITCH-Accolade product was brought about by commercial considerations. As a result, the circumstances and reasons for the withdrawal of the product from the market do not provide any support for the appellant’s case that the product was defective.”

Turning to the notices issued in respect of the project, he went on to say: “In assessing whether there has been compliance with an entitled expectation the court is entitled and required to have regard to material available at the time of proof which was not available in 2012 when the notices were issued. By the time of proof in 2019 there was in evidence before the Outer House a statistical analysis by Professor Platt which was not contested by the appellant. The prima facie evidence provided by the notices must now be examined in the light of such of the conclusions of Professor Platt as were accepted by the Lord Ordinary.”

Lord Lloyd-Jones concluded: “Ultimately, this appeal is no more than an attempt to appeal against the Lord Ordinary’s findings of fact. As the Lord President observed in his opinion, in order to reverse a determination of fact, the appellate court must be satisfied that the Lord Ordinary erred in law, made a finding without any basis in the evidence or demonstrably misunderstood, or failed to consider, relevant evidence. Otherwise, it can only interfere with the findings of fact if it concluded that the Lord Ordinary was plainly wrong. None of these requirements is satisfied in the present case and, accordingly, it is not open to this court to interfere with the Lord Ordinary’s findings.”

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Changes to use of prison under the spotlight

The new Bail and Release from Custody Bill, which the government hopes will reduce use of custody for remand, give greater priority to rehabilitation for those leaving prison, and reduce overall reoffending rates, makes a number of changes including:

• changing the test that the court must apply when making decisions about bail, and requiring the court to record reasons if bail is refused,
• Ending ‘Friday release’ from prisons, so prisoners being released have a chance to access public services,
• Introducing minimum standards for throughcare support provided to prisoners throughout their time in prison and during their transition back into the community,
• Allowing victim support organisations to receive information about prisoners, including their release.

The committee is today launching a call for views which will run over the summer, ahead of hearings expected to take place later in the year. A report on the Committee’s findings will follow.

Speaking as the call for views was launched, committee convener, Audrey Nicoll MSP, said: “These plans propose important changes to the criminal justice system in Scotland.

“We want to hear the range of views on them which exist across Scotland, not least from victims of crime, those with experience of prison and the families and communities around these people.”

Natalie McGarry jailed for two years over embezzlement

You have been convicted by a jury of two separate charges of embezzlement. These took place over a period in excess of two years from 26 April 2013 to 30 November 2015.

Since I adjourned the Diet for sentence I have had the opportunity of reading the criminal justice social work report and other background reports. I have heard an able plea in mitigation made by your counsel Mr McCloud.

This is a very troubling case. You have no previous convictions and up until now I am told that you have had an exemplary character. The background reports confirm that you come from a good family in which you helped them play a significant role in the community. You had a good education and worked extremely hard to develop your career in politics, leading to you eventually becoming an elected Member of Parliament.

What came across from the evidence is that there is no doubt that you were a hard working politician who devoted your time in attempting to further the aims of your political party and those of the Women for Independence Organisation.

The court should take all of this into account but more importantly, the court must fully concentrate on the serious nature of your offending whilst working with these organisations.

To place this case in some context, it took years for the circumstances of these offences to be investigated by the authorities following the initial complaint made about your conduct. A long and detailed investigation was carried out by Police Scotland and it is also fair to say that your own defence team spent some considerable time and effort looking into the background of this case.

All the relevant evidence was placed before the jury during a trial which took place over a period in excess of 6 weeks and all the relevant evidence was skilfully placed before the jury by the procurator fiscal depute and by your own counsel. Hundreds of productions were considered by the court and the jury had the benefit of hearing from many witnesses, including forensic accountants and professional accountants with a view to establishing the facts of this case. You yourself give evidence for a period in excess of 4 days.

The jury took some time to consider all of the relevant evidence and returned a discerning verdict convicting you of both charges under deletions of some of the aspects of charge number 1. In essence you were convicted of embezzling just under £25,000. The jury obviously rejected the evidence you gave during the trial.

In terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, a court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on a person who has not previously served a sentence of imprisonment or detention unless the court considers that no other method of dealing with them is appropriate. This court must therefore look at your convictions in context. These are very serious charges which took place over a prolonged period of time. A substantial number of transactions were carried out by you in order to allow you to participate in these crimes. This was not a one off incident.

The jury have convicted you of crimes of dishonesty. Over the relevant period the jury have accepted that you lied to others, deceived colleagues you were working with and embezzled funds from organisations who entrusted you with their finances. In particular you had obtained money from colleagues and people who looked up to you when you falsely claimed to them that you are about to be evicted from property you had been renting.

At a time when it was known that there were serious financial difficulties with the Women for Independence Organisation, you were offered help from various sources to assist you in preparing appropriate accounts. You resisted all attempts by others to assist you knowing well fine that you had been responsible for embezzling funds from that organisation. You knew that if they had become more involved with the accounting process your misappropriation of funds would have been discovered. You encouraged colleagues to sign blank cheques allowing you to lodge funds from both organisations referred to in each of the charges into your own personal bank account. You deceived all of the members of the public who had contributed by crowdfunding to the Women for Independence Organisation leading them to believe that the accounts were all in order when you well knew that they were not. You also used funds for your own purposes, which had been due to be paid to your political party to pay for some of your parliamentary expenses.

These are not victimless crimes. The jury heard from various members from the women for Independence organisation that they themselves were concerned about their own professional reputations by being linked with your criminal conduct. One of the organisers, Miss Freeman made reference to the sacrifices being made by many of the members to contribute to the crowdfunding when they were not in a comfortable financial position to do so and they were contributing because they were so passionately involved in the merits of that organisation. They were all betrayed by you. You betrayed your colleagues and others who had placed their trust in you. The jury considered your own version of what happened in respect of these matters but have obviously rejected what you said in your evidence.

Society has the right to expect the highest standards of those who seek and eventually achieve high public office. You were a role model for many aspiring politicians and you eventually became a Member of Parliament. By your involvement in these offences as I have outlined, you have not only betrayed the trust placed in you by others but your standards have fallen well short of those the public should have a right to expect from their politicians and MPs.

Because of the serious nature of these offences a custodial sentence is inevitable. No other sentence is appropriate. This has to reflect the serious nature of the offences for which you have been convicted, the prolonged period over which these took place and your blatant breach of trust placed in you by others. In all of the circumstances you shall serve a custodial sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

New report on sentencing of domestic abuse offences

• Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018
• Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016
• Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010

It also looks at the role of specialist courts, and the experiences of victims of these offences.

The research considers the penalties and data relating to proceedings and convictions, as well as recent changes to the legal landscape surrounding domestic abuse in Scotland. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented disruption of court proceedings and living situations. Associated periods of lockdown have dramatically affected domestic abuse by making it more likely that couples stayed at home together, by increasing isolation from support structures, and by posing challenges for reporting.

The council said it was grateful to the authors of this “comprehensive research”, which will be of “great assistance” as it begins work on sentencing guidelines for offences involving domestic abuse.

Innes Clark: Timely reminder of risk of bypassing collective bargaining procedures

Late last year the Supreme Court judgment in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others made clear that direct offers to employees may only be made when collective bargaining procedures are exhausted. Any financial incentive offered to workers who are members of a trade union prior to the procedures being exhausted - an “unlawful inducement” - is a breach of section 145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A). To fall foul of s145B the offer must result in all or any of the workers terms of employment not, or no longer, being determined by a collective agreement (“the prohibited result”), and that prohibited result must be the sole or main purpose of the employer’s offer.

Kostal UK Ltd’s breach cost them nearly £420,000 in compensation. That is based on the current statutory compensation of £4,554 per affected worker. In the current economic climate, with demands for inflation busting pay rises being backed in some industries by the threat of strike action, the risk of breaching s145B becomes greater as businesses struggle to agree pay awards.

In INEOS Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones & Ors the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered two appeals from Employment Tribunal judgments that had found in favour of employees who claimed that their employer had breached section 145B. The tribunal judgments had pre-dated the Supreme Court judgment in Kostal, and, in the course of the EAT proceedings, all parties agreed that the principle in Kostal applied, but each argued it supported their respective position.

The claimants were members of Unite Union. Pay negotiations were started based on a collective bargaining agreement that did not specify either a minimum or maximum number of meetings being required to take place. After five meetings between November 2016 and March 2017 a “best and final offer” was made but rejected. The Unite members authorised their negotiating team to return to talks and seek an improved offer.

Despite it seeming the parties were close to agreement the employer decided it had done all that it could reasonably do and, in order to ensure their employees got a pay rise and bonus in their April pay as they had been promised, unilaterally imposed the pay award. However, in advance of a meeting of the employer a rather damning email had been sent between members of the employer’s executive team stating, “the only logical conclusion is that we have to engineer a way to get rid of Unite & replace them with a different representative body….”. When advising the employees of the award the employer also confirmed that they were terminating the collective bargaining agreement with Unite (which they could do with three months’ notice) due to the unsatisfactory way in which Unite conducted negotiations, albeit the employer would be happy to negotiate with a works council or other trade union.

The Employment Tribunal upheld the unlawful inducement claims subsequently brought by the claimants. The evidence showed that the prohibited result – the employer bypassing the collective bargaining – was the sole or main purpose of the offer. The tribunal also found that an objective observer would regard it as more rather than less likely that an agreement would have been achieved by further collective bargaining had it continued.

The EAT upheld the findings of the tribunal. Although the decision had pre-dated the Supreme Court judgment in Kostal, it was in line with it. Employers also need to be wary of attempting to bring negotiations to a close by making “best and final” offer. The EAT held that collective bargaining cannot be brought to an end simply by the rejection of an offer that is termed as being final - instead an objective assessment of whether negotiations have reached their conclusion is required.

Innes Clark is a partner at Morton Fraser

David J Black: The Curse of the Golden Turd. Will Edinburgh ever recover?

It is true that every judgement as to what constitutes good or bad architecture is subjective, yet searching around Edinburgh to find someone who likes the Golden Turd Hotel is a fruitless task. The Scottish Parliament building, believe it or not, even has a few admirers, yet this scrivener has only ever come across one dedicated Golden Turd enthusiast: Richard Williams, professor of contemporary visual cultures at Edinburgh University, who suggested on Radio 4 that Reekie’s citizenry was downright “neurotic” about the Capital’s built environment.

Richard enjoys stirring up controversy. His book on sex and buildings famously asserted that Morningside’s tenements were so crushingly oppressive that no one could possibly indulge in sex there (we’ll invite affidavits to the contrary later). This writer was so taken with his assertion that Edinburgh’s sensitive indwellers have developed some sort of clinical mass neurosis arising from the perceived abuse of their historic built environment that he’s thinking of suggesting to the editors of the DSM-5 standard psychiatric classification manual that they list a new malaise specific to the Scottish capital – PTSD, or Post Turd Stress Disorder. Yes, it really is as bad as that.

The appearance of our very own étron doré on Edina’s skyline was, it seems, a defining moment. There was a pre-Turd Edinburgh where, sure, a lot of architecturally bad things were happening – that hideous glass banana they tacked on the to Usher Hall, the unlawful demolition of listed buildings on the south side of St Andrew Square, a toytown tram, several proposals of unutterable mediocrity, such as the scheme to develop the old Royal Bank site at the foot of Dundas Street, or the attempted Mickey Mouse ears extensions to our sedate Royal High School. Yet even these, singly or severally, were never quite enough to raise the civic masses from that prelapsarian bourgeois torpor induced by a hedonistic love of cornices, chandeliers, and fine dining.

We now live in a post-Turd Edinburgh, and the denizens are not only uncharacteristically seething and fed up, but seem to have honed their critical faculties. It isn’t simply the abominable hotel. The entire misconceived St James quarter development has been a planning catastrophe. Predictably, its vast North American style shopping mall has devastated Princes Street, now a place of tumbleweed and shuttered department stores with all retail sucked out. Ah weep, weep, ye children of Edina!

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the St James Quarter development, apart from the fact that Scottish taxpayers were frisked for its £61.4 million subsidy, is that the so-called ‘affordable housing’ element was banished to some post industrial site off Broughton Road, thus allowing all 152 ‘beautifully crafted’ concierge-gated St James Quarter apartments to remain as the exclusive preserve of the super-rich at a cost of up to £1,060,000 – at least that seemed to be the pre-Covid plan. Why else were they promoting ‘New Eidyn’ in Singapore and Hong Kong?

So how did this travesty come about? First, consider the in abstracto possibility that Edinburgh council, the Scottish government, TIAA, its subsidiaries such as Chicago-based Nuveen, and its agents and professional advisers, had been complicit in a prima facie breach of Europe’s State Aid rules insofar as the development was a favoured recipient of that public subsidy of £61.4 million under a ruse which, in the USA, is known as a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) arrangement.

TIF was pioneered in 1980s Chicago when that city was in ‘white-flight’ decline. It has been portrayed by cynics as a ploy for predatory developers pursuing profit through gentrification, rather than a means of delivering improvement to economically and socially deprived communities – in other words, about greed, rather than need. By 2019 Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot called time on the arrangement: “The days of the TIF slush fund are over”.

A prettification programme for those who like Zagat-rated restaurants and preppy bars, it was more brand enhancement than poverty relief, which would certainly seem to describe TIAA’s subsidised activities around the old St James’s Square. So why were Scottish politicians looking to Chicago as a beacon of enlightened fiscal stewardship and sound financial engineering, given that Illinois’ old governor had been banged up for 14 years jail on corruption charges in 2011, while its credit rating was slashed to junk status by Moody’s in May 2015?

This bizarre episode begins with a TIF variant - an “innovative funding agreement” - the ‘Regeneration Accelerator Model’ (or ‘Growth Accelerator Model’) between Edinburgh Council, the Scottish government, and THI. It first seems to have caught the attention of council leader Andrew Burns at a MIPIM trade show, this being the acronym for Marche International des Professionels d’Immobilier, a deal-making bazaar which acts as an interface between the property and construction industry and public sector boffins and politicians. It holds an annual jamboree in sun-kissed Cannes and has been slated as a ‘property Booze ‘n Hookerfest’ in Private Eye but a description by The Guardian’s Aditya Chakrabortty will do for now.

It’s a jaunt so lavish as to be almost comic – where big money developers invite town hall executives for secret discussions aboard private yachts, and whose regulars boast that they get through more champagne than all the liggers at the film festival. Suitably oiled-up, local officials open talks with multinational developers to sell council housing estates and other sites.

MIPIM 2014 was held in London’s Olympia (the lavish Cannes junkets were becoming irksome to voters.) There, Boris Johnson lauded developers for providing more housing for London, citing in particular the £9 billion Battersea Power Station oligarch’s ghetto where a flat in Boiler House Square could set you back £40 million. Another MIPIM grandee was Edinburgh Council CEO, Sue Bruce, who was declared MIPIM ‘Council Leader of the Year’ at the same event before gracefully accepting her damehood for services to trams.

At that time, of course, Britain’s town hall shenanigans were subject to European regulations, not that they bothered about such things in Edinburgh, where the destruction in St Andrew Square, the palaver over a proposed Virgin Hotel on land reserved for the expansion of the city’s Carnegie Library, and the spatchcocking together of a selection process for the putative developer of the Royal High School were all prima facie infringements of the regulations one way or another.

As far as the £61.4 million State Aid bung to TIAA was concerned, some may have persuaded themselves that Europe had left a lovely loophole - ‘The Market Economy Investor Principle’ [MEIP]. A paper from the EU Commission Directorate General (Competition) states: “The essence of the MEIP is that when a public authority invests in an enterprise on terms and in conditions which would be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions, the investment is not a State Aid.” Hmmm. Not so sure, though.

Among exemptions under Article 107(3) of the EU Treaty the only one remotely affecting the St James Development was the one permitting “aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, and of the regions referred to in Article 349, in view of their structural, economic and social situation”.

But Edinburgh wasn’t exactly destitute, even if life in its poorer peripheral housing schemes can be grim. The St James Quarter is in a “Golden Square Mile” of international banks, fund managers, and wealthy companies. Whatever the Scottish government is supporting with its £61.4 million gift of taxpayers money to TIAA, it certainly isn’t Muirhouse, or an impoverished area on the official Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation like, say, North Barlanark.

To express fury at The Turd and those who let it happen is clearly entirely sensible, but it shouldn’t be conflated with a phobic disapproval of all things modern. Your writer pleads that he once heaped praise on the Scottish Poetry Library, for which kindness its architect, Malcolm Fraser, griped that it felt like “being patted on the head by Boris Johnson”.

Yours truly also had a walk on role in the gestation of Edinburgh’s Festival Theatre, a brilliant success, with its old auditorium preserved behind a totally modern glass facade which defers gracefully to its historic context by stepping back from the street line, unlike the same architect’s glass banana shrieker on the Usher Hall, which is achingly painful to behold.

If Edinburgh’s new architecture can be dire, its planning is often little better. When Lothian University Hospitals Trust banished the Royal Infirmary to a pale of settlement near Dalkeith your scrivener advocated that instead of selling the Lauriston Place hospital to a developer’s consortium the buildings and their 19-acre site could become a student village, not only saving a few thousand students a lot of travel time, but also taking pressure off residential areas like Marchmont and the Southside, then succumbing to a surfeit of houses in multiple occupancy and much social discord.

In addition it would have reduced the need for all those ubiquitous student accommodation blocks (or ‘roosts’) which were beginning to infest every available scrap of land in the city centre. In retrospect, this idea was clearly a no-brainer which would have had clear benefits all round, but Edinburgh, as per usual, threw away the opportunity.

With the St James Quarter the deed is done, and there is no going back. The PTSD may mellow with time. The shopping centre, more Milwaukee than the promised Milan Galleria, will doubtless find its shoppers, the 152 apartments their elite residents, while The Golden Turd Hotel will rack up the bed nights with cheap deals for stag and hen frolics, or whatever.

Indeed, your scrivener would encourage every Scottish taxpayer to book a weekend there, and when the nice girl at reception starts making up the bill, think upon that £61.4 million they filched from our taxes, smile courteously, and say “Oh please don’t bother. I’ve already paid.”

Report: Palestinian Authority torturing and abusing detainees

Torture, both by the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas authorities in Gaza, may amount to crimes against humanity, given its systematic nature over many years.

More than a year after the PA beat to death prominent activist and critic Nizar Banat while he was in custody and violently dispersed people demanding justice for his death, including rounding up scores for peaceful protesting, no one has been held to account. Prosecutors brought charges against 14 accused security officers, but critics say the authorities are moving too slowly and are biased, including in a June 21 decision by military prosecutors to release the accused for 12 days.

“More than a year after beating to death Nizar Banat, the Palestinian Authority continues to arrest and torture critics and opponents,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “Systematic abuse by the PA and Hamas forms a critical part of the repression of the Palestinian people.”

In the early morning on June 24, 2021, more than a dozen PA Preventive Security forces, which monitor political activities and threats to the authorities domestically, arrested and violently assaulted Banat. He was a well-known critic whom the PA had previously detained for his activism and who planned to run on an independent slate during Palestinian Legislative elections in 2021 before they were postponed.

He died in custody, suffocating when his lungs filled with blood and secretions, an autopsy concluded. A March 2022 joint report by the Palestinian statutory watchdog, the Independent Commission Human Rights (ICHR), and the Palestinian human rights group al-Haq, found that the excessive use of force by PA security forces caused Banat’s death.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh formed an official committee to investigate the death, but its report, submitted five days later in June 2021, has not been made public. The trial against those accused of participating in Banat’s death is ongoing. The Banat family announced a boycott of proceedings in May, citing concerns including granting privileges to the defendants, such as allowing them out of prison to visit family without a court order.

In the months that followed Banat’s death, PA police forces violently dispersed popular protests demanding justice and rounded up scores of people for peacefully protesting. Jehad Abdo, 54, told Human Rights Watch that PA police officers in civilian clothes detained him in August 2021 while he was on his way to a protest. Prosecutors charged him with insulting “higher authorities” and “unlawful assembly,” charges that effectively criminalise peaceful expression and assembly, and released him four days later with charges outstanding.

The PA and Hamas have said that abuses amount to no more than isolated cases that are investigated and for which wrongdoers are held to account, but years of research by Human Rights Watch, including its 147-page 2018 report, “Two Authorities, One Way, Zero Dissent,” contradict these claims. Palestinian authorities have consistently failed to hold security forces accountable, as documented in the parallel report.

In 2021, the ICHR received 252 complaints of torture and ill-treatment and 279 of arbitrary arrest against PA authorities in the West Bank and 193 complaints of torture and ill-treatment and 97 of arbitrary arrest against Hamas authorities in Gaza. Hamas authorities have also executed 28 people in Gaza since seizing political control in June 2007, in a context in which due process violations, coercion, and torture are prevalent, and have summarily executed scores of other people without any judicial process, often on accusations of collaboration with Israel.

The parallel Human Rights Watch and Lawyers for Justice report also covers mistreatment and torture by Israeli authorities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and impunity for these abuses. Despite more than 1,300 complaints of torture filed with Israel’s Justice Ministry since 2001 stemming from acts allegedly carried out by Israeli authorities in Israel or the West Bank, including painful shackling, sleep deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures, these complaints have only resulted in two criminal investigations and no indictments over the past 20 years, according to the Israeli rights group Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.

As part of its duties under the Convention Against Torture to “prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”, the State of Palestine should cease all security coordination with the Israeli army that contributes to facilitating torture and other grave abuses, and stop handing over Palestinians, as long as there remains a real risk of torture and other prohibited ill-treatment for those handed over, Human Rights Watch said.

Law Society summer school gives legal inspiration to less-advantaged pupils

Pupils in grades S3 to S6 and a number studying at college logged on to participate in the sessions held over four days from Monday to Thursday.

A wide range of speakers and topics were included in the programme, such as talks by Law Society president Murray Etherington and Law Society chief executive Diane McGiffen.

Mr Etherington said: “This year’s summer school programme was once again a resounding success. I was delighted to watch so many young people engaging so enthusiastically and I’m sure many will be future members of our legal profession.

“This event has grown rapidly, underlining the strong interest from young people and those who’ve given their time on our panels. In its first year in 2017 we barely cracked double figures, with 12 pupils attending, while this year we went very close to hitting three figures for the first time.

“We were disappointed initially to have to move the summer school online in 2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, but we’ve now decided to make it a permanent feature. An online programme makes these sessions accessible to pupils from all across Scotland.

“Engaging pupils from less-advantaged backgrounds is an important part of our work to make the legal profession diverse, so it can better reflect and serve all communities in Scotland. The calibre of pupils on display this week points to a bright future for the profession.

“This week is by no means the end of the story. We’ll be aiming to further encourage these bright pupils to study law and provide other support where appropriate, for example through the bursaries we provide through the Lawscot Foundation.”

Rights watch

Beijing’s human rights policies drive unfavourable views of China, Pew survey finds | South China Morning Post

Concerns about China’s human rights record dominated a new global public opinion poll released on Wednesday, dovetailing with increasingly unfavourable views of the country among many nations in North America and Europe.

Melilla migrant deaths: Who’s to blame for the incident on Morocco-Spain border? | Middle East Eye

The deaths of at least 23 people while trying to cross from Morocco to the Spanish enclave of Melilla last week was the result of violence and complicity by police from both sides of the border, human rights activists have said.

Human rights groups demand the release of Mohamed El-Baqer | Egypt Watch

Twenty human rights groups issued a statement calling for the immediate and unconditional release of human rights lawyer Mohamed El-Baqer, director of Adalah Center for Rights and Freedoms.

The rights defender who dared challenge Kyrgyzstan’s security services | Eurasianet

Crusading lawyer Kamil Ruziyev took cases nobody else would and made plenty of enemies along the way.

Turkey: ‘You cannot touch Pınar Selek’s acquittal’ | Bianet English

The “We Are Still Witness” Platform has criticised the decision to overturn feminist author Pınar Selek’s acquittal in the trial over the Egyptian Bazaar explosion in 1998.

Indian journalist arrested over Twitter post | Financial Times

Indian journalist Mohammed Zubair has appeared before a magistrate after being arrested over a Twitter post, a move criticised as an attack on freedom of expression by press and human rights’ groups.

Qatar fails to offer World Cup safety guarantees to LGBTQ+ fans | The Guardian

Qatari authorities have failed to give a guarantee to travelling LGBTQ+ supporters that they will be safe at the World Cup, prompting leading organisations to advocate against travel to the tournament.

Amazon rainforest activist under threat in Brazil plans to flee his home | Mongabay

Erasmo Theofilo, an agroecologist, founded a farmers’ cooperative in one of the most hostile corners of the Amazon to defend landless and poor rural workers and promote sustainable farming practices. He has been the target of death threats, ambushes and attempts on his life.

The plan to overturn abortion rights in Europe | Politico

When news broke that the US Supreme Court had overturned decades of precedent and opened the door to abortion bans across the country, the reaction from opponents of the procedure in Europe was simple: We can do it too.

Quote of the day

It is inevitable that the mind which does not have a place to turn to or any stable base will undergo change from hour to hour and from minute to minute due to the variety of its distractions, and by the things that come to it from outside it will be continually transformed into whatever occurs to it at any given moment.

John Cassian, Conferences of the Desert Fathers (c. 420 AD)

And finally… bean counter

Melih Gökçek, who served as mayor for over two decades before standing down in 2017, was tricked by the tweet posted by a local newspaper columnist.

The tweet, coming after the discovery of oil reserves worth $1 billion, joked that Turkish authorities had also now discovered jelly bean reserves worth $6 billion.

Mr Gökçek referred to the tweet in a TV interview, denying suggestions from the presenter that it was “fake news”, TurkishMinute reports.

“They were discovered one after the other,” he affirmed, before admitting he did not know exactly what jelly beans are besides being “eaten by children”.