Education & Professional Qualifications
LLB (Hons), Dip LP Aberdeen University (1982- 1987)
Professional Career to date
Devil Masters: James Peoples, QC, Derek Ogg, QC.
2008: Appointed Queen’s Counsel
2002-2008: Second Standing Junior Counsel to Scottish Ministers
1993: Year of call
Professional Experience
Ruth’s main area of practice is concentrated on public law, with a particular emphasis in all aspects of planning and environmental law. During her period of appointment as Second Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Ministers she was retained on all areas of public law involving challenges to Ministerial acts. She has regularly appeared in the Court of Session in judicial reviews and statutory appeals. Ruth has advised the Scottish Ministers and the UK Government about the vires of legislation, both primary and secondary. She has acted for the UK Government in public law challenges, in particular the rights of prisoners to vote in domestic elections. She has been instructed on several occasions by the UK Government to draft submissions to the European Court of Human Rights. In 2011 Ruth appeared for the Advocate General in the Supreme Court in Axa General Insurance v Lord Advocate. In 2008, she acted for the successful appellants in Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner, the first case under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to reach the House of Lords.
In 2007 Ruth acted for various planning authorities to oppose an application to construct an EHV overhead transmission line between Beauly and Denny. This was the longest running such inquiry in Scotland.
Since taking silk in 2008 Ruth has continued to practice in all areas of public law. She has wide experience in areas such as extradition, education, discrimination/equality laws, freedom of information, human rights, mental welfare, licensing, professional disciplinary procedures, public procurement, regulation of pharmaceutical services and statutory interpretation. Ruth is regularly instructed by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities and other public bodies in Scotland, such as NHS Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. In 2010, Ruth was instructed by Transport Scotland in the Scottish Parliament Inquiry for the Forth Crossing Bill.
Ruth’s wide experience in public law is relevant to her other areas of practice. So she has been able to bring that experience to bear in areas of commercial contracts and property (having been Standing Junior Counsel to the Keeper of the Land Registers of Scotland), and also in the area of public procurement where she has advised and acted for companies seeking to challenge major public services contracts.
In addition to the wealth of experience that Ruth has in public law, she maintains a wide-ranging practice in the area of professional liability. She has acted on many occasions in actions arising out of clinical negligence (including the causation of, and quantification for, catastrophic injuries), and the negligence of other professionals such as solicitors, surveyors and planning consultants. Ruth has also advised in respect of various professional disciplinary procedures and tribunals.
Courts & Tribunal Experience
Supreme Court, House of Lords, European Court of Human Rights (written submissions), High Court, Court of Session (Inner and Outer House), Lands Tribunal, Land Court, Sheriff Court, Public Inquiries (planning), Parliamentary Bill Inquiries, Mediation (as Counsel).
Appointments & Memberships
2011 : Amicus Curiae, Parveen and Khan v Advocate General
2009 to date : Curator, Advocates Library
2006 to date : Ad Hoc Advocate Depute
2003 : Amicus Curiae, Advocate General v Taylor
2002-2008 : Second Standing Junior Counsel to Scottish Ministers
2000-2002 : Standing Junior Counsel to the Keeper of the Land Registers of Scotland
1998 : Amicus Curiae, McCue v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail; Kaur v Singh
Cases
Axa General Insurance and others v Lord Advocate and Advocate General [2011] UKSC 46
Challenge to an Act of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act as contrary to A1,P1. Scope of common law review of an ASP. Title and interest of litigants.
McGeoch v The Lord President of the Council [2011] CSIH 67
Prisoner challenged his disenfranchisement to vote in Scottish Parliament elections. Challenge based on a breach of EU law and his rights as EU citizen. Challenge unsuccessful. The prisoner’s request for a reference to the ECJ was refused as the question of EU citizen rights clearly did not extend to give the Scottish prisoner a right to vote in Scottish Parliament elections.
Uprichard v Scottish Ministers [2011] CSIH 59
Petitioner unsuccessfully argued that the Scottish Ministers should not have approved the Fife Structure Plan. Had she succeeded in the argument the decision would have resulted in a lack of strategic direction for planning in Fife Council.
O’Neill Petition for Judicial Review and Note of Objection [2010] CSOH 79
The case was about the correct construction of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act and Regulations insofar as relevant to the question of Counsel’s fees. The case was important for the Scottish Legal Aid Board as it required to know the basis on which it should pay Counsel’s fees.
Lloyds Pharmacy v National Appeal Panel [2010] CSIH 55
This case was about the provision of pharmaceutical services in cases of relocation. The case is of interest as it reviewed prior authorities in Scotland and in England. There was also an analysis of the primary legislation.
B v Scottish Ministers [2010] SLT 537
A patient sought to be discharged from a hospital order, indefinite preventive detention, following conviction. The case addressed the test of “risk of serious harm”, the standard of proof, and the weight and quality of evidence to meet the test.
Scottish Ministers v Doig [2010] 2009 SC 474
This was an important case under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The respondent asserted that the criminal standard of proof in civil recovery proceedings should be used because his innocence of a crime was being challenged in the proceedings. The Court did not accept that argument. Had it done so, this would have had serious consequences for the civil recovery of proceeds of crime regime. The Supreme Court has upheld this decision in Gale v SOCA [2011] UKSC 49.
Niven v Lord Advocate 2009 SLT 876
This case concerned the scope of the right under Article 2 ECHR to an inquiry following an unexplained death. When there had been a prosecution, albeit unsuccessful, that would usually be a sufficient discharge of the State’s responsibilities under Article 2. Article 2 did not guarantee a result.
Hallam Land Management Ltd v Scottish Ministers 2009 SC 347
This case was the final part to a long running planning dispute. The Court required to consider whether a certificate of appropriate alternative form of development was valid, and whether the planning authority had properly taken account of the “no scheme” world.
Trygort (No 2) Ltd v UK Home Finance Ltd 2009 SC 100
A tenant of commercial property sought to exercise a break option. The landlord argued that because the tenant had been in prior breach it was prohibited from exercising the option as it had been in breach of its obligations "at any time". The Court construed the lease in a commercially sensible manner, being that contended by the tenant that the breach could only prohibit the option if there was a continuing breach, and gained assistance from English authority.
Infant and Dietetic Foods Association Ltd v Scottish Ministers (No 2) 2008 SLT 723
IFDA argued that the Scottish Government had not transposed a European Directive properly. Similar legislation had been made in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The Court required to consider whether a reference to the ECJ was required, or whether the question of EU law was clear.
Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner 2008 SC (HL) 184
The CSA successfully appealed a decision that sensitive personal data (childhood leukaemia cluster statistics) should be disclosed. This decision was one of the first made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, and the first to reach the House of Lords. The judgment seeks to clarify the approach that should be taken in a request to disclose such information.
Moray Council v Scottish Ministers 2006 SC 691
A planning appeal in respect of a windfarm development. The decision of the Inner House is of interest as the Court approves the approach in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953 to decision letter complaints. In short, such challenges are not to be encouraged.
Campbell v Lord Advocate 2006 JC 265
An extradition case which provided the test that required to be met for demonstrating if delay was unjust or oppressive, under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003.The decision also addresses whether a person can be held to have deliberately absented himself from his trial.
PIK Facilities v Shell UK and BP Oil [2005] CSOH 14
The pursuers sought an order of specific implement following termination of a commercial lease. The respondents successfully argued that such an order was incompetent.
Lafarge Aggregates Ltd v Scottish Ministers 2004 SC 524
This is part of a long running dispute on the part of the pursuers to secure permission for a quarry on Harris. They sought to argue that an old planning permission was extant and included permission to mine. The Court required to be addressed in detail on the previous statutory regime, as that now applied, and apply that to the facts. The pursuers did not succeed in what was, at the time, a contentious dispute.
Publications
Chapter 18 Greens Scottish Planning Encyclopaedia, "Section 75 Agreements".
Directories
Recommended in Chambers UK Planning (Band 2) and Administrative and Public Law (Band 2)