Retired boiler fitter fails to prove noise-induced hearing loss case against former employer

By Mitchell Skilling

John Pollock raised an action against Marshall & Anderson Ltd and Tata Steel UK Ltd, as the successors to the rights and liabilities of his former employees Alexander Anderson and Sons and British Steel, seeking £25,500 plus interest in damages. However, the pursuer abandoned his claim against the second defender on the third day of the proof, leaving only his case against the first defender.

The case was heard in the All-Scotland Sheriff Personal Injury Court by Sheriff Douglas Keir, with McQuade, advocate, appearing for the pursuer and Oliver, advocate, for the defenders.

Significant inconsistencies

From 1964 to 1971 the pursuer was employed as a boiler fitter for various companies, including two years with the first defender’s predecessor at their factory in Carfin, Lanarkshire. He was exposed to noise for around 75 per cent of his working day, requiring to shout to communicate with his colleagues and regularly work alongside people using pneumatic tools. From tax year 1970/1 to 1983/4 he was employed by the second defender’s predecessors as a shift engineer and then shift foreman, during which time he was provided with hearing protection.

In his evidence, the pursuer categorised his hearing as “terrible”, although he had not taken any steps to address the problem. He said that the first defender had not provided him with ear protection and, while he wore ear defenders for most of his time with the second defender, there were times when it was impracticable to wear them when working on smaller machines. The pursuer also accepted that he had undergone a hearing assessment around 10 years ago and was told at the time that his hearing loss was age-related.

For the pursuer it was submitted that it was clear from the evidence that the pursuer had been exposed to average weekly noise in excess of 95 decibels while employed by the first defender, which had not taken any steps to reduce noise in its factory. The evidence of acoustic consultant Gary Percival, who prepared a report based on information provided by the pursuer’s agents but did not interview him personally, estimated the pursuer’s average daily noise exposure to be in the range 98.2 dB LEPd to 107.5 dB LEPd.

Counsel for the first defender submitted that there were significant inconsistencies in the pursuer’s evidence and that of the experts instructed for his claim, which had a fatal impact on the calculations carried out by Mr Percival in relation to noise exposure. Furthermore, Mr Percival had failed to produce the pursuer’s precognition and questionnaire upon which he had based his calculations and to include the workings for those calculations, and in any event the pursuer had not proved that any breach of duty on the part of the first defender had caused him to develop noise-induced hearing loss.

Undermined the reliability

In his decision, Sheriff Keir said of the pursuer’s evidence: “I consider that the pursuer made a reasonable impression in court and appeared to be doing his best to assist the court. Standing the nature of his employment with the first defender, it cannot be reasonably disputed that he was exposed to high levels of noise. However, it was clear that there were material discrepancies between what he told the court and what he had told his solicitors and the experts involved in the case prior to that time in relation to key issues to be determined by the court.”

He continued: “I accept that the pursuer was giving evidence about events that occurred over 55 years ago and he should be afforded some latitude in that regard. I also accept that a witness will not necessarily give the same answer to a question asked by a different person at a different time, particularly in the unfamiliar confines of a witness box in court. However, I consider these discrepancies on critical issues to be significant and undermine the reliability of key elements of his evidence. Moreover, insofar as Mr Percival’s opinion is reliant on certain facts being established, the weight to be given to his evidence is similarly weakened.”

Considering expert views on three audiograms prepared for the purposes of the claim, Sheriff Keir said: “Taking the pursuer’s case at its highest, a potential diagnosis of NIHL was borderline standing Mr Newton’s quantification of NIHL in the right ear of only 2 dB based on the Paterson audiogram (the most recent of the three). Notwithstanding his acceptance that such a bulge was small, Mr Newton considered that it was still sufficient to satisfy Note 11(i) for a diagnosis of NIHL where there was a bulge of at least 10 dB in the left ear. His assertion that such a small bulge should be viewed as decisive was at odds with his evidence that a bulge would have to be 5 dB to be clinically significant. It was also at odds with Mr Robertson’s unchallenged evidence that a noise differential of 2 dB would be imperceptible to the listener.”

He concluded: “I therefore prefer the evidence of Mr Robertson to Mr Newton with particular regard to their key areas of dispute. It follows that I accept Mr Robertson’s evidence that any NIHL in the pursuer’s right ear sits squarely in the Note 11(iv) category and should be classified as ‘little or no trace’.”

Decree of absolvitor was therefore granted in favour of the first defender.

Interview: Lord Reed reflects on UKSC Glasgow sitting, changing times and AI

By Kapil Summan, editor

Upon his appointment as president of the Supreme Court in 2020, Lady Elish Angiolini recalled that in her practising days she once asked Robert Reed to write a paper on public interest immunity, which she suggested he take a few weeks to do. He appeared in her office with the completed paper the next day. He had, she said, produced a “masterpiece”. His erstwhile colleague on the bench, Lord Sumption, said that Lord Reed is “not a swaggerer” and that “he is not a bully”. “He doesn’t raise his voice. But he doesn’t need to because he’s highly respected as a thoughtful and highly intelligent judicial figure.”

The court sat in Glasgow’s City Chambers last week, following the previous regional sitting in Manchester in 2023 and before that Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. Asked about the value of these regional sittings Lord Reed says that “a large part of the thinking behind setting up the Supreme Court was to bring the processes of the highest court in the country into the public gaze and make it more transparent – and we’re not going to achieve that by sitting all the time in London” and that he was keen to bring the court to Glasgow before he retired. The justices had a “very full programme of events” meeting with students, the public, community leaders. “I think the message came over that we’re a court that exists to serve all the people of the UK – the people of Scotland just as much as anywhere else.”

He says it was also an opportunity to dispel misconceptions the public have about the court’s constitutional role, which is more important than ever in an age of Magna Carta enthusiasts and so-called sovereign citizens.

“During the Q&As over the course of the week, people would ask things like why the Supreme Court was blocking Scotland’s right to independence. You explain to them: do you agree the Supreme Court’s job is to apply the law? ‘Yes’. Do you know that the law governing the powers of the Scottish Parliament is set out in an Act of Parliament? ‘Yes’. So do you think it’s the Supreme Court’s duty to implement what the Act says? ‘Yes’. And then you tell them what the Act says, and they come away understanding why we decided the case the way we did.”

This points to a general problem with how the court’s function and its judgments are often misunderstood by the public. I suggest to Lord Reed that last year’s judgment in For Women Scotland was received by the public as a verdict on the ontological claims of transgender people rather than what it was: a clarification of the correct interpretation of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act and that, despite the media relaying what comes from the courts, there is perhaps an explanatory layer missing.

He says that the topic of communication with the public is “something we and other courts are giving a great deal of thought to” and that he is meeting his opposite number in Canada soon to discuss ideas on how to address it. He also says they have to consider that young people are “getting their information from media which cater for – or actively encourage – the dissemination of information in a very short and very visual format”.

“We need to develop ways of communicating with them in the way they communicate with each other, otherwise we’ll be speaking past them – and frankly, we won’t be defending the rule of law adequately unless we engage with them effectively.”

For example, the Supreme Court’s exhibition space deals mainly with the “reasons for the move from the House of Lords to the Supreme Court”, yet the typical visitor is 15-years-old – and this event now took place before they were born.

“We’re looking at ways of communicating that use very small amounts of text, and where text does appear, it presents information through personalised stories – the way even mainstream media tells a legal story, focusing on the individuals concerned and how the case affects the people involved, ending perhaps with a statement from a young person about how they think the case might affect their own life. It’s quite a radical departure from the traditional approach.”

The court is also working with the Attorney General’s Youth Ambassadors Programme which will “enlist young people with large followings on social media to act as ambassadors for the rule of law, explaining relevant events in a way other young people can relate to”, Lord Reed explains.

I put it to him that the judiciary has, in the wake of the Daily Mail’s ‘Enemies of the People’ headline, become more embroiled in politics – in the perception of the public – and that perhaps something stronger and more independent than the lord chancellor of the day, like an office for the rule of law, is needed to defend judges.

“The problem more recently has been the vilification of judges dealing with immigration cases – much more junior people in the legal system, far more vulnerable in all kinds of ways. They’re having to take potentially controversial decisions under intense time pressure, and they can be hung out to dry in the media. Some have actually faced very unpleasant and menacing behaviour towards themselves and their families – home addresses becoming known, for example. That is a serious worry. It’s something the lady chief justice has been giving a great deal of thought to, and I’ve been in discussion with the lord chancellor about whether there are ways of addressing it.

“Institutional ideas of the kind you’re suggesting – a rule of law office – have been given thought,” he says.

Yet he worries about disproportionate remedies.

“One of the difficulties is: how do we actually prevent it? Are we going to effectively reintroduce some form of contempt of court, or murmuring of judges – offences we’ve only just abolished within relatively recent times? If a politician decides there’s mileage in attacking the judiciary, are we seriously going to prosecute him for some offence? My own view is that any steps taken to protect the judiciary, in order to be durable, have to be based on a reasonable level of consensus within Parliament – at least the support of the major parties.”

Recent headlines on AI and law have frequently been about its misuse by practitioners but judiciaries around the world are recognising the need to embrace the technology.

Another Supreme Court justice, Lord Briggs, recently spoke about plans in Brazil to introduce court-approved AI for judges to use as the country faces a backlog of cases that stands at an incredible 80 million. Lord Reed thinks this is the “direction of travel for courts in the UK” too.

“We’re going to have to embrace AI for a variety of reasons, one of which is that litigants are already embracing it – resulting in a large increase in caseload for lower courts, which will eventually affect us. Using AI as a legal research tool isn’t particularly problematical, but using it to help produce work raises issues about confidentiality, which is why you don’t want to use a public system like ChatGPT. You need something bespoke – something like Copilot can be tailored for a particular organisation, and I think that’s the kind of model we’ll probably be adopting, though we haven’t got there yet.”

Lord Reed is stepping down from the court next January, when the Lords will benefit from his insight. What else does retirement hold?

“I would like to remain involved with the law. I enjoy problem-solving – that’s really the main attraction of being an appellate judge. I could sit in an armchair in my slippers doing Sudoku puzzles, or I could be working on legal problems, and I’d rather be doing the legal problems.

“I’m a member of the House of Lords, so once I retire from the bench I’ll be able to take part in the activities of the upper house, which is a great privilege. I’d also quite like to do some teaching if I get the opportunity. Besides that, I’m not entirely sure – but I think my wife and family would probably like to see a bit more of me than they have done in recent years, and I’d like to see more of them.”

UK laws ‘not ready’ for humanoid robots

Dr Carl Strathearn, a lecturer in computer science and researcher in autonomous social robotics at the university, said the rapid growth of humanoid robots is outpacing regulation and public understanding.

He was speaking ahead of DataFest 2026, Scotland’s national data and AI conference, which is hosted by The Data Lab and began yesterday at the Assembly Rooms in Edinburgh.

This year’s event explores how data and AI are changing business, public services and society, with sessions covering trust, regulation, skills, robotics, infrastructure, creativity and AI consciousness.

Dr Strathearn is among a line-up of international speakers including Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, OpenUK chief executive Amanda Brock, and AI governance expert Professor Rachel Adams.

He said falling costs mean humanoid robots are becoming increasingly affordable to buy, and that the UK should act to regulate them now rather than waiting for problems to emerge.

He said: “Humanoid robots are not science fiction anymore. They’re science fact. We are developing the technology faster than the safeguards around it.
“The time to act is now. Rather than waiting for it to come to our door, we should start now.

“At the moment, anyone can buy some of these robots online.”

Dr Strathearn said much of the current public understanding of humanoid robots is being shaped by highly controlled demonstrations and promotional videos.

He argued that many robots still struggle outside carefully managed environments, despite the impression often created online.

He added: “I don’t think robots are going to take over the world. A choreographed video is not the real truth of a robot’s capabilities. But the risk is that they are misused, and it only takes one major incident for it to ripple through the whole industry.

“We should also be teaching schoolchildren about robot ethics. Robots are a really tangible way of learning key STEM skills, and preparing people for the future economy.”

Humanoid robots are increasingly being developed by some of the world’s biggest technology firms, with companies promoting visions of robots working in factories, warehouses, homes, and public spaces.

But there are currently no specific UK laws governing their use in public spaces, around children, or in situations where people could be harmed. There are also unresolved questions around safety, liability, privacy, and misuse.

Dr Strathearn said other major economies, including China and the US, are already beginning to look more closely at humanoid robot standards and oversight, while the UK risks falling behind.

New guide launched to help smaller firms retain talent

The Guide to Retaining Talent in Smaller Law Firms outlines the financial and organisational cost of losing talent, along with changes that can be made to improve staff retention such as:

• Understanding what a firm’s staff value
• Creating a culture people want to be part of
• Building clear career pathways
• Offering realistic work-life balance
• Strengthening leadership and supervisory capability
• Improving learning and development

Law Society of Scotland president, Patricia Thom, said: “This new guide is full of insights and practical tips for smaller firms to retain the people who drive their business’s success and the services that clients depend on.

“I know from personal experience that smaller firms can sometimes feel at a disadvantage when it comes to attracting and retaining staff, but this guide makes it clear how many positives there are that should be promoted to colleagues and developed to their full potential.

“Smaller firms are a vital part of Scotland’s legal sector. This guide is one of several new initiatives the Law Society has developed to help smaller firms grasp opportunities and deal with the challenges of running their businesses.”

The guide has been developed in collaboration with Professional Training, a legal sector focused training company with a focus on staff retention.

CMS appoints Christy Farrer as first chief operating officer

In this newly created role, Ms Farrer will lead the firm’s operational strategy across its international offices.

She has spent the last seven years at CMS, where she has played a central role in building the firm’s practice management function. Most recently, she served as the firm’s chief strategy & practice management officer, driving the design, implementation and execution of firmwide strategy and leading the practice group and regional business management function.

Adrian Bell, managing partner at CMS UK, said: “Christy has already made a valuable contribution to CMS, particularly in the development of our practice management capability and in helping to shape and deliver our firmwide strategy. The creation of our first chief operating officer role is critical to strengthening how we run the firm and in ensuring we are set up to deliver consistently for our clients and our people. Christy brings exactly the combination of strategic insight and operational discipline that this role demands.”

Ms Farrer said: “I am delighted to take on this role at such an important time for CMS. This is a firm I know well and care deeply about, and I look forward to working alongside Adrian and the wider leadership team to ensure our operational foundations match our ambition. My focus will be on working with colleagues across the firm to continue to build on our strengths and create the conditions for all our people to do their best work.”

Cameron Irons: Nicola Sturgeon’s ‘no comment’ – beyond the headlines

In the wake of widespread reporting on former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s police interview, two words have been dissected, criticised, and, in many quarters, plainly misunderstood.

It is, then, an apt moment to move beyond the noise and examine what “no comment” really means, and why it remains so significant in Scots criminal law.

In public discourse, those words are rarely treated as neutral. They are often framed as evasive, strategic, even incriminating. They invite speculation and narrative. In a political context, they quickly become the subject of commentary that says more about perception than law.

But step inside a Scottish police interview room, and the meaning of those two words changes entirely.

A “no comment” interview is neither unusual nor exceptional. It is not, in legal terms, a tactic designed to frustrate the process. It is the routine exercise of a core right, engaged at a critical stage: before charge, often before full disclosure, and always within a setting controlled by the police.

To better understand that one should move away from the headlines and return to what actually happens at the outset of the interview.

The beginning: what the police actually say

Before any questions are asked in a Scottish police station, the interview begins in a structured way that defines the legal framework for everything that follows.

The officer will introduce themselves, confirm who is present, and ensure the interview is being recorded. What follows is the formal setting of the legal stage.

They will often begin in these terms:

“Before beginning this interview… I must remind you of certain information. Please listen carefully.”

The suspect is then told:

“You are under no obligation to say anything other than to provide your name, date of birth, place of birth, nationality and address.”

That reflects the requirement under section 31 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 that a person is informed they are under no obligation to answer questions beyond basic identifying details.

The officer then reinforces the framework of rights:

“While you are in police custody you have the right to a private consultation with a solicitor at any time…You have the right to have a solicitor present while being interviewed by police.”

The suspect is reminded they may request breaks, seek further legal advice, or indicate if they do not understand a question.

Only then does the interview turn to the moment that arguably matters most - the common law caution:

“I am now going to ask you questions about [the offence]. You are not obliged to answer any questions, but anything you do say may be noted, may be recorded, and may be used as evidence. Do you understand that?”

Only when that is confirmed does questioning begin.

Why that wording matters

Those words are deliberate and precise. They establish three essential propositions: the suspect does not have to speak; anything said will be recorded and used; and the decision rests with them.

Just as important is what is not said.

There is no warning that silence may harm a defence. There is no suggestion that failure to answer will carry consequences. That omission is deliberate. It reflects a legal system in which silence remains protected.

Crucially, a “no comment” interview is not defiance or obstruction. It is a direct and repeated answer, given after the suspect has been told, clearly, that they are entitled not to respond.

The officer may ask. The suspect may answer. Or they may choose not to do so.

How the interview unfolds in practice

The structured beginning does not detract from the intensity of the questioning that may follow.

Police interviews are very structured, and the questions are routinely prepared well in advance. In HMA v Hawkins, [2017] HCJAC 79, evidence demonstrated that officers prepared and followed a plan for questioning. The interview proceeded in stages, including what was described as an “impact” phase, during which the tone became firmer, and the allegation was put directly.

In Hawkins, more than 200 questions were asked on the allegation, and the accused was repeatedly invited to reconsider his position of answering “no comment”, which he eventually did.

The court ultimately excluded what he said, with Lady Scott stating:

The principle is therefore clear. Questioning may be robust, but it may not be coercive. Where pressure, particularly where it undermines legal advice, crosses that line, the consequence may be that the evidence is not used.

A different approach from England

The Scottish position becomes clearer when set alongside that of England and Wales. South of the border, the standard caution includes an additional warning:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court…”

That single line reflects a statutory regime, principally sections 34 to 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which allows adverse inferences to be drawn from silence.

Scotland has not adopted that approach. A Scottish court cannot invite a jury to conclude that a defence is fabricated simply because it was not disclosed in interview, nor can silence be used to supply proof. That reflects a deliberate choice to preserve the principle that the burden rests entirely with the Crown.

In Scotland, there is no adverse inference from silence in interview. The accused is under no obligation to assist the Crown, and what is sometimes characterised as a tactic is simply the exercise of a right.

Legal advice: timing and protection

The right to silence is rarely exercised in isolation.

Since the landmark case of Cadder v HM Advocate, [2010] UKSC 43, access to legal advice before questioning has been recognised as essential to fairness. Cadder concerned an accused who was detained and interviewed without access to a solicitor, and whose admissions were subsequently relied upon by the Crown at trial. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the lack of access to a solicitor before police questioning breached the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR, and ruled that the use of those admissions rendered the conviction unsafe.

In Condron v United Kingdom, (2001) 31 EHRR 1, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed that the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination lie “at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure”, and made clear that where silence is exercised on legal advice, that position must be properly taken into account in assessing fairness.

That very much matters in practice. A suspect may be asked to respond to an evidential case they only partially understand. Disclosure may be limited. The risks of speaking, of giving an incomplete or inconsistent account, are immediate and irreversible.

Advice to answer “no comment” is therefore not disengagement. It is often the only way to preserve position until the evidential picture becomes clear.

Beyond the headlines

From the outside, particularly in the glare of political commentary, “no comment” is easily turned into something it is not.

Inside the interview room, it is a clear and deliberate exercise of a right, invoked at the point where the individual faces the full authority of the state, often without sight of the evidence said to exist against them.

The courts have been consistent. Silence is not suspicion. It cannot be used to fill gaps in the Crown case, and it does not alter where the burden of proof lies.

What may be portrayed publicly as strategy is, legally speaking, something much simpler. It is a protection afforded to every suspect, regardless of the allegation or indeed the suspect’s status and profile.

A police interview in Scotland is not a demand for answers, but a legal process in which the individual retains the choice whether to provide them. And whatever is made of that choice beyond the interview room, the protections afforded by the law remain unequivocal.

Cameron Irons is a solicitor at Levy & McRae

Actors launch short film ‘SLAPP Suit’ on threat of corporate intimidation

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) are used to bury activists, journalists, whistleblowers, and non-profit organisations in legal fees, drain their time and resources, and ultimately make the cost of dissent too high. 

US-based fossil fuel pipeline company Energy Transfer has been bringing SLAPP lawsuits against Greenpeace in the US and Greenpeace International for nearly a decade in a “blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline”.

Mr Bardem said: “I made this film with Greenpeace because they’re fighting a monumental legal battle about free speech, but really it’s about something much bigger: widespread attempts to silence activism. The type of lawsuits used by pipeline company Energy Transfer are also being used to silence journalists, artists and ordinary people who care about their communities. The question is not why to speak out. But how could we not, if we want to have the same freedom in the future?”

The threat of corporate intimidation tactics like SLAPP lawsuits is far bigger than Greenpeace. Corporate polluters and greedy oligarchs know protest works – that’s why they’re trying to make the stakes so high no one will be willing to take the risk to defend people or the planet. 

Ms Finney said: “The right to protest in the UK is a huge battle. People demanding better is what built our country, but increasingly it’s becoming criminalised. Not enough people believe or see that our rights are really under threat, and that’s why we made this film: Greenpeace’s legal fight against Energy Transfer is one example of resistance, but there are many more. Bullies respond to strength and togetherness, and that’s what we need more of right now.”

Susannah Compton, Greenpeace International, head of programme – civic resistance and freedoms said: “The global threat of corporate intimidation tactics such as SLAPP lawsuits is an existential crisis for freedom of speech and protest for everyone who dares speak out against the powerful - whether Greenpeace would agree with them or not. If we do not defend our right to resist, we surrender the future to a few oligarchs who see power as a tool for empire rather than a shared responsibility.”

Horizon: Criminal inquiry faces five-year delay without extra funding

Commander Stephen Clayman said investigators need to almost double the size of the team working on the case if files are to be submitted to prosecutors for charging decisions by late 2027 or early 2028.

The Metropolitan Police-led inquiry currently has 111 staff but estimates it requires 210 investigators to meet that timetable. The projected budget for 2026/27 and beyond stands at up to £19.3 million, against a recently awarded Home Office special grant of £2.8m.

Mr Clayman said victims had already waited too long for answers.

“Many of these victims have been living with the impact of this for 24 years, some have already died and many more are reaching older age,” he said.

“Put simply, we do not have the luxury of time and must provide answers as soon as possible to those who so desperately deserve them.”

Police have so far interviewed 13 of 53 suspects under investigation, including seven this year. Mr Clayman described the inquiry as “hugely complex”, with more than eight million documents requiring forensic review.

He warned: “Without this, we risk our timelines being pushed back by as much as five years, which we know is unacceptable for those who have already been living with this for decades.”

Around 1,000 subpostmasters were wrongly prosecuted after Fujitsu’s faulty Horizon accounting system made it appear money was missing from branches. Some victims were imprisoned, financially ruined or ostracised, while others took their own lives in what is regarded as one of Britain’s gravest miscarriages of justice.

Public attention intensified after ITV broadcast Mr Bates Vs The Post Office.

A UK government spokesperson said: “The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan Police Service are carrying out an investigation into potential criminality in the prosecutions of sub postmasters and the wider presentation of the Horizon IT system as robust.

“The Home Office has provided £3.2m since 2023 to the MPS for Op Olympos and has allocated a further £2.8m in 26/27 and is considering requests for further funding.”

Hired gunman jailed over failed plot to shoot gangland figure

James Richards, 36, was hired by Glasgow-based gang leader David Nisbet to travel from Liverpool to carry out the shooting of crime rival Ryan Carvil for between £70,000 and £100,000.

But evidence gathered by police and prepared by prosecutors showed the plan faltered when Richards reneged on the arrangement at the 11th hour.

He was imprisoned at the High Court in Edinburgh for seven years and six months after pleading guilty to a charge of being involved in serious organised crime between April 9 and 13, 2020.

Richards was also made subject of a serious crime prevention order (SCPO) which will last for three years following his release from prison and is aimed at ensuring he does not return to a life of crime.

Messages on the encrypted communications platform Encrochat, favoured by criminals, revealed how Nisbet, the principal of an organised crime group in Glasgow, discussed the assassination plot with Richards and two other associates.

Eventually, he reached an agreement for Richards to carry out the shooting for payment that varied between £70,000 and £100,000. Conversations included plans for Richards to travel up from England to a flat in Lenzie near Glasgow before carrying out the plan to shoot Carvill.

Images were also posted showing a gun and a wrapped bundle of cash. On April 11, 2020, the accused was given a gun and taken on a tour of places where his victim was likely to be that day by criminal associates of Nisbet.

But Richards pulled out hours before the killing was due to take place over fears that his getaway car was not fast enough as well as doubts over the arrangements. Police officers then stopped Richards’ car on the M74 as he headed back south.

Although nothing of note was found in the vehicle, a subsequent analysis of the Encrochat communications revealed the scope of his involvement in the conspiracy to commit murder.

Prosecutor Sineidin Corrins said: “This was appalling criminality with all the hallmarks of a dispute between serious organised criminals.

“It was nothing less than an attempt to import lethal gangsterism from the wider UK on to the streets of Scotland. It could easily have jeopardised the lives of innocent people.

“James Richards has been brought to justice and is now serving a lengthy prison sentence. This conviction should send a strong message to others involved in this kind of criminal behaviour.”

Report exposes widespread killing of Scotland’s birds of prey

The new Patterns of Persecution report documents that between 2015 and 2024, there were 182 confirmed raptor persecution incidents in Scotland, with victims including nine Golden Eagles, ten Peregrine Falcons, 12 Goshawks, 27 Red Kites and 52 Common Buzzards.

The report’s analysis of government laboratory postmortem examinations, police investigations, prosecutions, intelligence reports, and eye-witness evidence shows there were a total of 62 shooting incidents, 54 poisoning incidents and 41 incidents involving the illegal use of traps.

The majority of these crimes take place in remote and difficult to access areas of the countryside with little chance of detection by the public. Previous cases have shown that culprits go to significant lengths to dispose of evidence of their offending, including the destruction of satellite tags.

Ian Thomson, RSPB investigations manager, said:“This report makes horrendous reading for anyone who cares about the protection of some of our rarest and most spectacular species. 

“Documented incidents were widely scattered across the country, from the Scottish Borders to the Western Isles, but it is telling that a significant majority, almost two thirds of recorded incidents (64.3 per cent), occurred on land managed for gamebird shooting.”

Duncan Orr-Ewing, RSPB Scotland’s head of species and land management, added: “The Scottish Parliament has recognised the adverse impact that criminal incidents on some grouse shooting estates have had on Scotland’s birds of prey and introduced legislation, the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, licensing grouse shoots. 

“We hope that the very welcome passing of this legislation, during the last year covered by our report, has created a significant deterrent to these crimes, and that the skies above our grouse moors will be safer for eagles, Hen harriers, Red Kites and Peregrines. This legislation therefore needs to be backed up with monitoring and effective enforcement.

“Time will tell, but recent incidents of raptors being shot, suspicious disappearances of satellite-tagged eagles and illegal trap use suggest that there is still a long way to go.”

The report also outlines the challenges in obtaining a sufficiency of admissible evidence to facilitate a prosecution. 

The recent conviction of a Perthshire gamekeeper who bludgeoned a Goshawk to death relied on the submission of video evidence taken by a covert camera deployed the RSPB to monitor the operation of a crow trap.

“There are hundreds of these traps in use in our countryside, with no compliance monitoring, little regulation and no accountability,” said Thomson. 

“We hope that NatureScot’s recently announced review of General Licences, which permit the use of such traps, will finally recognise the substantial evidence base documenting their widespread abuse and misuse and their indiscriminate nature, as well as the impact they are having on protected birds of prey”.

Blackadders LLP named as platinum STEP partner

The firm has retained its status as the highest-level partner in the global professional body which includes lawyers, accountants, trustees and other practitioners among its 23,000 members.

Laura McDowall, partner and head of private client at Blackadders, said: “This reaccreditation is a testament to the dedication and professionalism shown across our firm and it places us among only a handful of platinum partners in Scotland.

“We are also very proud to have one of the highest STEP member numbers of all firms in Scotland, with 16 full members and eight student members. This is a result of the commitment of our colleagues who have undertaken the STEP Diploma for Trusts and Estates (Scotland) which is a two-year course with four exams.

“Being a Platinum Partner not only reinforces our commitment to excellence but also sets us apart in our sector and supports our strong reputation for quality.”

Quote of the day

The title of my lecture draws on the title of a short story by the American writer Raymond Carver. The story’s central theme is captured by one of the characters who says, “it ought to make us feel ashamed when we talk like we know what we’re talking about when we talk about love”. The point is that love is something we think is familiar, when in fact, our understanding of it is limited and the language we use to talk about it is inadequate. I thought of this story because proportionality review in the human rights context can be almost as confusing, if possibly less likely to cause heartache.

Lord Reed of Allermuir, lecture at Oxford University on 13 May 2026

And finally… don’t bank on it

The law, approved by the State Duma, authorises employees at Russia’s central bank to use systems designed to repel unmanned aerial vehicle attacks without relying on special forces.

Other organisations covered by the legislation include Sberbank, the Russian Cash Collection Association and the Special Postal Service, which handles classified state correspondence.

According to Russian reports, employees will be “empowered to prevent the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles, underwater and surface vessels and apparatus, unmanned vehicles, and other automated unmanned systems”.

The measures permit institutions to defend protected sites and personnel by jamming signals, interfering with drone controls or destroying the devices.

Ukraine has increasingly used long-range drone attacks against targets deep inside Russian territory, stretching Moscow’s defensive capabilities during the war, which began in February 2022.

Jameson + Mackay Solicitors led by all-female partnership for first time in 145 years

Newly appointed senior partner, Victoria Buchanan, who now heads up the firm alongside fellow partners Debbie Macleod and Lindsay Carr, said: “This is an exciting change for Jameson + Mackay as the only Perthshire firm currently led by an all-female team as well as being one of the youngest partnerships in the local faculty. With prominent offices in both Perth and Auchterarder, Jameson + Mackay is a well-established face within the Perthshire legal sector and we look forward to continuing to help and guide clients, both old and new, with their legal needs for many years to come.”

The new partners were joined recently by former senior partner, and first ever female partner of the firm, Alison Ramsay MBE, who said: “I spent my whole working life at Jameson + Mackay. More than 40 years ago when I became a partner there were not many female solicitors working in Perthshire and very few at partner level. I am absolutely delighted that the general ethos of the firm, combining its traditional values and personal service to its clients, is being continued and now for the first time by an all female partnership. I am confident that the firm will go from strength to strength under their leadership.”

www.jamesonmackay.co.uk 

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

• 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, 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 13 years and been in business as a law firm for 26 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, 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.