The Right Honourable Eilish Angiolini Qc, Her Majesty's Advocate V. A.b. For An Order Under The Vexatious Actions (scotland) Act 1898
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Paton,Lord Emslie,Lord Hardie |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] CSIH 31 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 28 March 2012 |
| Year | 2012 |
| Date | 27 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | P982/11 |
i
| EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION | |
| Lady Paton Lord Hardie Lord Emslie | [2012] CSIH 31 P982/11 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LADY PATON in the petition of THE RIGHT HONOURABLE EILISH ANGIOLINI, QC, Her Majesty's Advocate Petitioner; against A B Respondent; for an order under the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898 _______ |
Alt: Party
27 March 2012
Introduction[1] The respondent, AB, raised various actions in Glasgow Sheriff Court. Such were their nature, number, and content that the Sheriff Principal, by letter dated 11 January 2010 (with list of cases attached) invited the Lord Advocate to consider bringing proceedings to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant. The Lord Advocate raised the current petition. A hearing took place in the Court of Session. The respondent represented himself, as he had done in the majority of the litigations referred to.
The respondent's personal circumstances[2] The respondent spent much of his youth abroad, where his father was posted. He became a piano tuner. He married Y, a foreign national. They had three children, P, Q and R currently aged 13, 12 and 11. The couple separated in about 2000. The respondent settled in Glasgow as a single parent looking after the three children. The children attended CD Primary School. In March 2007, they moved to another primary school (G).
The court actions[3] Many of the actions raised by the respondent related to CD Primary School, to social services, and to police intervention. The respondent raised actions against school staff, parents of pupils at CD, social workers, the City Council, the procurator fiscal and the police. In two litigations, he lodged lengthy counterclaims seeking damages and other remedies (which qualify as proceedings "instituted" by the respondent: paragraphs [23], [28] and [30] of Lord Advocate v McNamara 2009 SC 598). What follows is a chronological summary of most, but not all, of the respondent's litigations. As the respondent's pleadings were so wordy and lengthy, only abbreviated versions have been given. Sources include (i) the list of cases attached to the Sheriff Principal's letter of 11 January 2010; (ii) the petition and the respondent's manuscript answers; (iii) two files containing some of the court papers (the "Court Files"); (iv) a file containing court interlocutors; (v) verbal information given by the respondent in the course of the hearing. Only those litigations "instituted" by the respondent have been numbered below.
2005
1. AB v JB (SC1895/05)
[4] The respondent stated that the defender had made untrue statements that he was not the father of his children. He explained that the action had been settled.
2. AB v JS (SE754/05)
[5] The respondent said that his friend, JS, took the respondent's dog for a walk, but did not return it. It was a misunderstanding. The dog was ultimately returned.
2006
3. AB v CD Parent Teachers Association (SA6092/06)
[6] The respondent said that he paid a bill of about £93 out of his own funds on behalf of the Association in connection with candles. He sought repayment (all as averred in Case A8741/06 pages 28-29 and 49-50), and raised a small claim. The matter went to proof. The sheriff dismissed the action as the respondent was unable to prove that he had taken money from his own funds to pay the Association's bill.
4. AB v ML (SA6093/06)
[7] The respondent stated that he paid in advance for ML to give his child ten piano lessons (£85, as averred at page 28 of Case A8741/06). According to the respondent, ML did not provide the lessons. The action was raised, but was dismissed because the respondent could not find the relevant cheque stub.
5. Counterclaim in GM v AB (A8741/06): sections 6/12 and 6/20 of the Court Files
[8] GM, the head teacher of CD Primary School, raised an action against the respondent seeking interdict, non-harassment orders, and a power of arrest. She averred that the respondent's child had complained to school staff about being kicked in the back and slapped on the leg. In compliance with her statutory duties, GM made child protection referrals to the Social Services department in May 2006 and provided reports. That resulted in difficulties between the respondent and the school.
[9] On 13 December 2006, the court granted interim interdict in terms of Craves 1 and 4 (prohibiting the making of false statements about child protection referrals and any molestation or harassment of GM). On 6 February 2007, GM received a threatening letter from the respondent, quoted in paragraph [28] below. As a result, on 8 February 2007 a further interim interdict in terms of Crave 5 was granted (prohibiting the respondent from approaching GM, attending at her place of work, or communicating with her). Diets of debate set for 11 May 2007, 14 June 2007, and 16 August 2007 were discharged on the respondent's motions (page 3 of the Sheriff Principal's list of cases). A power of arrest was initially refused, but then granted on 8 May 2007, and extended on 10 and 16 August 2007.
[10] The respondent was initially represented by a solicitor, but the latter withdrew from acting on 18 January 2007. The respondent then drafted and lodged lengthy answers and a counterclaim, resulting in a record of 203 pages. He averred inter alia that GM was "an extreme Roman Catholic headmistress" (Answer 5 page 25) who was afraid of the truth (Answer 5 page 35), behaved in an "unethical" way (Answer 5 page 34), told lies to the court (Answer 5 page 35), wilfully covered up the assault of another young child (Answer 5, pages 31 and 34), and was conducting a personal vendetta towards the respondent (Answer 5 pages 22 and 34). The answers included inter alia the following averments:
"ANS 1 (page 6) ... [GM made] an unfounded and malicious child protection referral ...
ANS 5 (page 20) ... [a] fabricated and inaccurate child protection referral ... (page 22) ... [GM] is conducting a personal vendetta designed to cause [the respondent] and his family maximum distress ... (pages 35-36) ... The .... community support [the respondent] and his young children in their defence of [GM's] malicious and evil attacks upon said family ..."
Article 9 of Condescendence quoted a letter dated 28 November 2006 by the respondent to GM's solicitors as follows:
" ... (page 51) 'Please advise your client [GM] that as soon as charges are referred [against GM] or any court action commences either at my instance or your client's, I have a journalist with whom I enjoy a close relationship. The very next day a story will be printed in a major tabloid newspaper with a photograph of your client so the public are fully aware who made these unfounded allegations about my family and I ..."
[11] The respondent continued in the letter that he expected GM to admit liability, to make an offer of reparation to the respondent's family, and also to resign from the school. The respondent's answers had further averments, including the following:
"ANS 9 (page 55) ... said letters were written by [the respondent] because God told him to demand justice for his children. The pursuer is called upon as an extremist Roman Catholic to place her hand upon the Holy Bible in order to state she is telling the truth and nothing but the truth in relation to the abuse and malicious allegations she has made towards [the respondent] and his family as failure to do so shall be founded upon ... (page 57) ... the pursuer is interfering with his family life by her negligent and malicious actions ...
ANS 14 (page 78) ... To the reasonable man, the pursuer's conduct would be clearly and immediately defined as a personal vendetta toward [the respondent] with the sole intent to cause [the respondent] and his children the maximum amount of loss, injury and damage ...
ANS 15 ... (page 136-137) ... Explained and averred that said Mrs H's opinion of [the respondent] has been unduly influenced by the malicious acts and evil intentions of other parent members within the .... community. But for the malicious and evil acts of other said unknown community members, Mrs H's rejection of the [respondent and his children] would not have
happened ..."
[12] In his counterclaim, the respondent sought inter alia payment of £800,000 in damages, and the installation and independent monitoring of closed circuit television in all classrooms, halls, and other areas in CD and all other Glasgow Council schools (as the respondent averred that he had received reports of maltreatment from his children). The counterclaim includes averments (Statement 3, which ran to nearly 40 pages) that:
" ... The pursuer [GM] falsely, wilfully and maliciously accuses the defender of following three mothers [of pupils] home after school ... By falsely and maliciously accusing the defender of a [serious] offence, the pursuer and said three mothers have committed common law perjury ... The pursuer reported the defender maliciously in terms with section 57 child protection procedures ... The pursuer fabricated evidence ... The pursuer has wilfully and recklessly breached ... Article 8 of the Human Rights Act ... The pursuer did [a particular act] with the intent to harm and upset the defender and his children ... The pursuer did this wickedly and with evil intent ... with malice ... to cause the defender maximum injury, hurt, loss, damage and distress ... in pursuit of her personal vendetta against the defender and his innocent children ..."
[13] The action and counterclaim were sisted and re-sisted on inter alia 11 May 2007, 16 August 2007, 30 November 2007 and 7 November 2008 to enable the respondent to obtain legal representation and to apply for legal aid. They remain sisted. The interim interdicts remain in force.
6. Counterclaim in Glasgow City Council v AB (A8819/06): section 6/15 of the Court Files
[14] Glasgow City Council, acting on behalf of all the teaching staff at CD Primary...
To continue reading
Request your trial