As the litigant (pursuer) in a small claims process at the Edinburgh Sheriff Court in Scotland, I have first hand experience of the negligence, I say corruption by the judiciary and their staff. No-one likes to lose, but I lost under such extreme circumstances that I believe it important, for the public's best interests, to both publicize the facts here, while doing what I can to change such a corrupt court and judges / sheriffs by filing both a European Convention on Human Rights process (for breaches of Articles 6, 13 & 14) and also a corruption complaint against Sheriff Principle Mhairi M Stephen and Sheriff N A Ross under the Complaints About the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2016 Act.
I detest and distrust generic judicial corruption warnings, so here I am taking the time and trouble to detail exactly why I accuse Sheriff Principle Mhairi M Stephen and Sheriff N A Ross of corruption, substantially, so that you can make up your own minds. I hope my warnings will help others avoid the same denials of justice as I have experienced and also to force reform of the Edinburgh Sheriff Court in Scotland.
I accuse the Edinburgh Sheriffs of a) fabricating evidence in favour of the other party, b) of repeatedly totally ignoring the key points / evidence, c) of admitting solely alleged unsubstantiated 3rd party witness statements by the other party as confirmed actual expert testimony, d) of ignoring burden of proof principles, e) of deducing the exact opposite meaning of expert laboratory evidence, e) of allowing post-deadline submissions by the other party, f) of refusing to honour the procedural right to an oral hearing, g) of giving the other party legal advice while refusing me assistance merely with procedural rules, g) of accepting clearly non-expert testimony as expert testimony akin to allowing a vegetarian barber to give expert evidence on a rack of lamb.
In brief;
1) I filed a European small claims for an auction item, a sword, that was not as described. Critically, part of the description was a name / trademark of an 18C maker, that the item was 18C, and that part of it was ivory. The description was "A Spadroon hilted navel hanger circa 1780, with cushion pommel, ivory
grip, anchor plaque, turned guard, blade with running fox engraving,
stamped S&G Harvey, also Board Ordnance markings, scabbard restored
and recovered, 77cm long".
2) When I received the item, I realized it was not as described, and the Edinburgh auction house (Shapes Furniture Ltd dba Shapes Auctions) agreed to take it back and refund. However, once they got it back, they then refused to refund and offered instead to resell it using the exact same false description (which would have earned them commissions from both me and the new buyer). Legally, I had bought from their client, "the vendor", but they refused to divulge who this was (so I could discuss this with them). So I sued Shapes and by default "the anonymous vendor".
3) After I filed the small claim, Edinburgh Sheriff Court advised me the auction house had not responded to the claim, and that I had therefore won. When I tried to enforce the claim however, suddenly Edinburgh Sheriffs Court announced that the auction house had responded and therefore the case was now to be adjudicated. I asked for proof of the on time response from the auction house (the envelope bearing the post office date stamp) but was refused.
4) When I contacted the Edinburgh Sheriff Court for procedural legal advise as they offer, I was told that they could not help me because there would be a conflict of interest; in this context, this means they were giving detailed legal advice to the auction company, which is alarming as it should be the individual helped before the company. What is more, they said I should get the advise from the Citizens Advice Bureau but I knew this was a crock, as the CAB only give advice to residents. Please note: In law this equates to a denial of justice through discrimination.
5) I compiled evidence, such as expert opinion from the world's leading expert on Board of Ordnance markings, expert opinion from the world's leading expert on Harvey family swords, opinions from several militaria specialist valuers, exerts from 4 reference books which showed the sword could not be authentic as described. I also repeatedly pointed out that the marking was not "S&G Harvey" but "SKG Harvey" (the later name never being used by the Harvey sword maker family, but used on various well documented reproduction weapons).
6) Shapes auctions' response was that they had a "ghostly" expert value it originally (though they never once provided any proof he was an expert or indeed any written statements from him - in other words, they submitted generic conjecture which is legally inadmissible), plus a hand written note from a furniture French polisher with no knowledge of swords or ivory claiming the item was as described, plus a hand written note from a pipe major militaria collector (also with no specific knowledge) claiming the item was described. They again refused to divulge "the vendor" on the basis of a mutual confidentially agreement between them. I challenged the admissibility of the conjecture, the expertise of the two falsely alleged experts and demanded the court acquire a statement from "the vendor" as to their knowledge of the item, either by written or oral testimony (such statement being crucial as "the vendor" could have been anyone / may have been a sheriff / judge for all I knew, may have known the item was a fake / reproduction, bought it in Pakistan, etc.).
7) Originally the Edinburgh Sheriff Court was going to hold an oral hearing and was arranging this (I was to give testimony etc from abroad, as I do not live in the UK). However, as the date approached for the hearing, the court suddenly changed its mind (unless I wanted to pay extra for this they said, even though oral hearings are provided for at no extra cost in European small claims procedures). I argued, but the court was insistent.
8) Worried by this turn of events, in particular the refusal of the court to demand a statement from "the vendor" (given such provision is specifically provided for in these claims), smelling corruption and an unlawful prehearing abitary decision, I decided to pay to have the "ivory" grip tested by a laboratory. The results showed it was animal, but could not be (elephant) ivory. Shapes auctions then claimed "ivory" included other types of ivory (marine ivory), so I provided proof that they had referred to it as if it were elephant ivory, that the law takes the view of the common meaning of "ivory" in such cases, and that the British never used anything but elephant bone (which it also was not) and elephant ivory in sword grips. Most likely, the grip is made from Asian water-buffalo bone; it has the feel of plastic (reflects hand heat very quickly and is softer than ivory).
9) To my utter amazement, Sheriff N A Ross gave a verdict in favour of the defendant, on the basis a) the ghostly expert did exist and was indeed an expert (in fact, Sheriff N A Ross even expanded upon what Shapes said this ghost had told them, thus creating additional evidence for the defendant, a completely unlawful act), b) the two other witnesses for Shapes were indeed experts, c) my witnesses were disadvantaged (and their testimony diminished) as they worked from photos of the item (dismissing the fact the antiques industry commonly works from high resolution photos), d) the lab test showed the grip could be elephant ivory (the report proved the reverse), e) the reference book material I provided could be wrong / was ignored, f) pretty much ignoring the fact that Shapes had agreed to refund (which was the latest and therefore applicable agreement between us) and said that Shapes could refuse to refund as their standard Terms & Conditions (which I was not made aware of and therefore legally could not be enforced) provided for this, and g) that hand struck markings could vary on such items (ignoring the fact that if the marking "SKG Harvey" was a hand slip or whatever to make the "&" look like a "K", that it would have been incumbent on Shapes to point this out in the description in any event).
10) By now, I smelled a stinking judicial rat. So I appealed and particularly / repeatedly highlighted certain key, impossible to legitimately defend / argue against facts;
a) that the item was not marked "S&G Harvey" as described, and irrespective of the reasons why (whether it was not made by S&G Harvey, or was a miss strike, or was wear), that the contentious character was clearly not an ampersand (&) and therefore this should not have been stated as it was in the description.
b) that the agreement by Shapes to refund if the item was not as described was the latest / last and therefore legally binding contract between us (although I also argued that they did not have any rights in any event under their standard terms to refuse a refund when I was not specifically made aware of those terms).
c) that Shapes had provided absolutely no expert testimony and that the "ghost" conjecture should not even have been admitted, deliberated or accepted by the sheriff, but was. Also that the lab test in fact proved the reverse of what the judge had claimed (a fact even admitted by Shapes). And therefore clearly indicated incompetence / negligence / corruption / bias / discrimination by Sheriff N A Ross.
d) that the testimony of "the vendor" was crucial to determine if Shapes Auctions had been told the item was fake / a reproduction, the history of the sword, the identity of "the vendor" in case there was a conflict of interests or indication that it was someone with knowledge dumping a reproduction on unsuspecting members of the public by abusing an auction.
Again, let me make it clear, I repeated and highlighted these as the main arguments of the appeal.
More to follow, specifically the appeal adjudication by Sheriff Principle Mhairi M Stephen; I say a lesson in nepotistic self-serving corruption. I have given Mr. Stephen 20 working days to substantially respond, or I shall publish what he refuses to deny or correct here.
