President

I cannot introduce this month’s Journal without referencing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the appalling scenes we are witnessing and the stories we are reading about the desperate plight of Ukrainian nationals.

As is often the case in times of international crisis, it has been heartening to see the outpouring of support from around the globe, and inspiring to read about the courageous Ukrainians who have taken to the streets to oppose the invading forces. Their courage is matched only by that of those Russians who have spoken out against the invasion.

International law is clear that the invasion of Ukraine is an egregious breach of the rule of law, and we have added our voices to those of the CCBE, IBA and the UK Law Societies condemning Russia’s atrocious attack.

As a profession, we can and must play our part in showing that unlawful actions have consequences. The recent sanctions imposed on Russia by the UK Government are a significant part of the global response to Russian aggression. By ensuring that the sanctions operate – carrying out robust checks and thorough risk assessments – we will show our solidarity with the Ukrainian people.

We will of course continue to communicate with our members to make sure you have the most up-to-date information about what is required.

Listening mode

My column this month is otherwise about listening. The timing of it is perhaps ironic, given that listening is something of which President Putin appears incapable.

Back in the day, before inclusive call plans, “It’s good to talk” was an advertising strapline for a telecoms giant. Talking is certainly good for us – and to be recommended over the alternative; but conversation involves listening too.

It was in that vein that the Society hosted an engagement forum last month to discuss our next five year strategy. Not to talk, but to listen to our members.

We are keen to engage the profession and others in the formation of our new strategy, and were delighted to welcome 110 participants at the event on 18 February: attendees from island communities as well as big cities, solicitors in small high street practices and large corporate behemoths, solicitors from the Crown and the defence. Participants filled the spectrum between student associate members and fellows and, as an added bonus, a number of lay Council and committee members joined us too. Because, despite the value of improvisation – and we have all had to do a lot of that during the pandemic – it is only right that the Society identifies the profession’s key priorities, so that we can discharge our regulatory and representative functions in the public interest.

Many colleagues at all levels across the Society have worked hard thus far, and will continue to do so, to bring our new five year strategy to life; and the outputs of this forum will feed into Council debates as they set the strategic direction of our organisation.

I would like to say a huge thank you to all those of you who joined and contributed to these preliminary discussions. Be in no doubt, the concerns as well as the positive views of the profession will remain central to our thinking. If you weren’t at the forum but would wish to contribute, please do get in touch.

Listening too?

Within days of the forum, I attended meetings with both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice – to listen and to contribute. My innate understanding of issues around the not proven verdict is perhaps greater than the issues around freeports, but it is good to learn about other things; and Michael Clancy, our director of Law Reform, is someone whose views are taken seriously, not only by myself but also by the Secretary of State. It was a wide ranging discussion including, in the UK context, the new Bill of Rights consultation which by the time you read this will have been completed. It was helpful to receive reassurances around conformity with the rule of law, respect for Scotland’s distinctive legal system and the future application of Convention rights in Scotland.

As for not proven, I listened with interest to Sandy Brindley, CEO at Rape Crisis Scotland who also participated in the meeting with the Cabinet Secretary. It is perhaps inevitable, though, that there is a tension between someone whose starting point to the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence and someone who seeks to support a victim at a point before there is a conviction. With the help of much work from the Society’s Criminal Law Committee, the Council has provided a response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on “the not proven verdict and related reforms”. The Cabinet Secretary has assured me he will read it. You should too. I can only trust that the Government is in listening mode.

And I close, urging you to do all you can – professionally and personally – to support our brothers and sisters in Ukraine. Theirs is a desperate plight and extending the hand of friendship in whatever way you may feel you can, will I am sure be very gratefully received.