Alexander Sutherland Returns to Full-Time Practice After Three Years as Advocate Depute
Ampersand is delighted to announce that Alexander Sutherland has returned to full-time practice at the civil bar after serving as an Advocate Depute for three years. During his time with the Crown Office, Alex prosecuted numerous cases in the High Court of Justiciary.
Alex’s return brings a wealth of experience to his practice areas, which include commercial law, public law (including judicial review and planning), and reparation. His time as an Advocate Depute saw him conduct over 30 trials in the High Court, handling cases involving murder, attempted murder, causing death by dangerous driving, possession of firearms, and rape.
Upon his return, Alan Moffat, Practice Manager said, “We are thrilled to welcome Alex back to full-time practice. His return strengthens our team and offers clients access to his unique blend of criminal and civil litigation experience. The time serving as an Advocate Depute in the Crown Office is invaluable, as he brings enhanced advocacy skills back to his civil practice.”
Alex’s expertise has been further recognised with his appointment as a Standing Junior to the Scottish Government in March 2024. He continues to serve as a reporter for Session Cases, a role he has held since May 2020.
With his fluency in German and French, Alex is particularly well-positioned to handle cases involving documents in these languages. His diverse background, including his contributions to legal publications and his experience tutoring Civil Court Practice at Edinburgh University, makes him a versatile and knowledgeable advocate.
For those seeking counsel with a proven track record in litigation and a broad range of legal expertise, Alexander Sutherland is available for instruction again.
Back
Ampersand Advocates Achieves Top Rankings Across Multiple Practice Areas in Legal 500 2025 Guide
Ampersand Advocates is delighted to once again be recommended as a top-tier set across multiple practice areas by The Legal 500 UK Bar Directory in their latest listings for the 2025 guide. The Stable has again achieved impressive rankings across five key practice areas, solidifying its position as a leading Scottish Set.
Ampersand has been listed as tier 1 in Administrative & Public Law, Personal Injury & Medical Negligence, Crime and Regulatory, and Property, Planning & Construction. The stable also secured a tier 2 ranking in Commercial Disputes. This comprehensive recognition spans an impressive 34 Senior Counsel rankings and 21 Junior Counsel rankings, including 2 rising stars, across the Scottish Bar listings.
Administrative and Public Law (Tier 1) Ampersand’s expertise in this area is highlighted by the rankings of Douglas Ross KC, Aidan O’Neill KC, Laura-Anne Van Der Westhuizen KC, Susanne Tanner KC and Paul Reid KC (2023 silk). The stable’s juniors Timothy Young and Ross Anderson are also recognized, with Michael Way noted as a rising star. Usman Tariq KC’s appointment to silk in September 2024 further strengthens the team.
Personal Injury and Medical Negligence (Tier 1) An impressive roster of silks includes Simon Bowie KC, Una Doherty KC, Lisa Henderson KC, Euan Mackenzie KC, Maria Maguire KC, Geoffrey Mitchell KC, Graham Primrose KC, Lauren Sutherland KC, Alan Dewar KC, Vinit Khurana KC, Douglas Ross KC and Fiona Drysdale KC (2023 silk). Jennifer Nicholson-White, Ayla Iridag, and Shane Dundas are recognized as leading juniors. James McConnell KC took silk in September 2024, further bolstering the team’s expertise.
Crime and Regulatory (Tier 1) The stable’s strength in this area is evidenced by the rankings of Simon Bowie KC, Lisa Henderson KC, Jamie Dawson KC, Una Doherty KC, Susanne Tanner KC, Geoffrey Mitchell KC, Paul Reid KC (2023 silk), and Fiona Drysdale KC (2023 silk). Ayla Iridag and Jennifer Nicholson-White are noted as leading juniors, with Michael Way recognized as a rising star. James McConnell KC and Usman Tariq KC were appointed to silk in September 2024.
Property, Planning and Construction (Tier 1) Robert Howie KC, Ailsa Wilson KC, Marcus McKay KC, and Laura-Anne Van Der Westhuizen KC are all ranked as leading silks. Eoghainn MacLean, Nicholas McAndrew, Ross Anderson, Timothy Young and Giles Reid are recognized as leading juniors.
Commercial Disputes (Tier 2) The stable’s commercial disputes team is led by silks Robert Howie KC, Laura-Anne Van Der Westhuizen KC, and Paul Reid KC (2023 silk). Ross Anderson, Eoghainn MacLean, Mark Boni, Timothy Young and Nicholas McAndrew are ranked as leading juniors, with Michael Way noted as a rising star. Usman Tariq KC’s appointment to silk in September 2024 adds further depth to the team.
Ampersand Advocates is also recommended in the Employment and Private Client and Family categories, with Aidan O’Neill KC ranked as a leading silk in Employment and Mark Boni recognised as a leading junior in Private Client and Family.
The Stable’s clerking team, led by Alan Moffat, received high praise for their efficiency, responsiveness, and proactive approach.
These rankings reflect Ampersand Advocates’ continued excellence and dedication to providing top-tier legal services across a wide range of practice areas in Scotland.
Full listings, for all of Ampersand’s rankings can be viewed on the Legal 500 website here.
Back
Sexual Offences Review webpage and Terms of Reference launched
The Sexual Offences Review has published its webpage and Terms of Reference to give information to the public and professionals about its work on reviewing how the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland deals with reports of sexual offences.
The review was commissioned by Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC , in recognition of the profound impact that sexual violence crimes have on victims and on society, and the fact that sexual offences now account for at least 70 per cent of the casework of Scotland’s High Court prosecutors.
Ampersand’s Susanne Tanner KC has been appointed to chair the review, assisted by colleagues seconded from Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Ms Tanner KC will make findings and recommendations to improve the way in which reports of sexual offences are dealt with and they will be published on the webpage in autumn 2023.
Full article can be viewed on the COPFS website here.
Back
Ayla Iridag
Ayla Iridag called to the bar after working as a solicitor for an International Law Firm, predominately in the fields of insurance and public law. Ayla specialises in actions arising from Health and Safety and Administrative Law matters. This includes personal injury and clinical negligence actions in both the Sheriff Court and Court of Session, as well as Fatal Accident Inquiries and Judicial Reviews.
Ayla’s public and administrative law practice is broad and examples of recent work include firearms licensing disputes, malicious prosecution and unlawful detention cases and orders under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Ayla has appeared in the Mental Health Tribunal. Ayla was appointed Standing Junior to the Office of the Advocate General in 2022 and in this role has been instructed by various government departments in actions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, petitions for Judicial Review and appeals against Health and Safety Prohibition Notices.
Ayla’s Health and Safety practice includes acting for insurers and commercial organisations in defending actions arising from workplace accidents; occupiers’ liability claims and road traffic accidents. Ayla is regularly instructed on behalf of health boards and medical organisations in respect of clinical negligence matters, often with a particular interest in mental health, as well as in Fatal Accident Inquiries across Scotland. Prior to calling to the bar, as a Solicitor and Devil, Ayla gained experience in health and safety prosecutions, including at trial. She has experience appearing in the criminal courts, including conducting commissions.
Ayla also has experience of regulatory proceedings, having conducted substantive hearings for the Nursing and Midwifery Council and Scottish Social Services Council.
Selected cases
Back
Katharine Muir
Katharine Muir called to the Bar in 2022 after 6 years as a solicitor in private practice. She has a varied civil practice which includes professional regulation, clinical negligence, product liability, judicial review, defamation, construction litigation and contractual disputes. She appears regularly in the Sheriff Courts and Court of Session and has been instructed in group proceedings.
Katharine has a particular interest in product liability. She has worked on some of the most high-profile product liability cases in Scotland as solicitor and since coming to the Bar. She has also advised manufacturers on product compliance and safety, labelling and advertising.
Back
Craig (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (for the Government of the United States of America) and another (Respondents) (Scotland) [2022] UKSC 6
The UK Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal of James Craig, a British citizen living in Scotland. In May 2017, the US Government made a request for his extradition to the US, where he is accused of committing an offence relating to securities fraud.
The process for determining whether a person should be extradited from the UK is governed by the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act“). By the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act“), Parliament inserted into the 2003 Act a number of provisions referred to as “the forum bar provisions”. These provisions aim to prevent extradition where the offences could be fairly and effectively tried in the UK, and it is not in the interests of justice that the requested person should be extradited. Section 61 of the 2013 Act provides that the forum bar provisions will “come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint”. The Secretary of State brought the forum bar provisions into force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in October 2013, but he did not bring them into force in Scotland.
Mr Craig wanted to rely on the forum bar provisions in the extradition proceedings brought against him in Scotland. He therefore issued a claim against the Advocate General for Scotland and the Scottish Ministers, arguing that the Secretary of State’s failure to bring the forum bar provisions into force in Scotland was unlawful. In December 2018, the Outer House of the Court of Session found in Mr Craig’s favour and made an order in which it “declared… that in its continuing failure to bring into force in Scotland the extradition forum bar provisions… the UK Government is acting unlawfully and contrary to its duties under section 61 of [the 2013 Act]”.
Notwithstanding that order, the UK Government failed to bring the forum bar provisions into force in Scotland until September 2021. In the meantime, the Lord Advocate continued to pursue extradition proceedings against Mr Craig. In July 2019, a sheriff decided that there was no bar to Mr Craig’s extradition under the 2003 Act and that his extradition would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention“). The sheriff sent the matter on to the Scottish Ministers, who in September 2019 decided that Mr Craig should be extradited to the US.
Mr Craig appealed, unsuccessfully, to the High Court of Justiciary. He appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
Lord Reed’s sole judgment, with which the other Justices agree, said:
Section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that a “member of the Scottish Government has no power to… act, so far as the… act is incompatible with any of the Convention rights” [25]. This means that the Lord Advocate has no power to conduct extradition proceedings against Mr Craig, and the Scottish Ministers have no power to order his extradition, if those acts are incompatible with Mr Craig’s rights under the Convention [37], [47].
There is no dispute that the extradition of Mr Craig would interfere with his right to respect for his private and family life, as guaranteed by article 8(1) of the Convention. Such an interference could, however, be justified under article 8(2), if it is “in accordance with the law”, if it pursues a “legitimate aim”, and if it is “necessary in a democratic society”. To satisfy the first of those three requirements, the interference must be in conformity with domestic law and the domestic law must meet the requirements of the rule of law, so as to afford adequate legal protection against arbitrariness. This is an absolute requirement. The executive is afforded no margin of discretion in meeting it [48]-[50].
The interference with Mr Craig’s rights under article 8(1) was not “in accordance with the law”, within the meaning of article 8(2) [52]. The order made by the Outer House in December 2018 was expressed in the present tense, making clear that the Secretary of State was “continuing” to act in breach of section 61 of the 2013 Act by failing to bring the forum bar provisions into force. The Secretary of State had a duty to act in conformity with that order, and his failure to do so was unlawful [41]-[42]. The extradition procedure followed in Mr Craig’s case did not therefore accord with section 61 of the 2013 Act [52].
It is no answer to this that the order made by the Outer House was merely declaratory, rather than coercive [43]. It is firmly established that there is a clear expectation that the Government will comply with declaratory orders, and it is in reliance on that expectation that the courts usually refrain from making coercive orders against the Government and grant declaratory orders instead [44]. This is one of the core principles of our constitution. It is vital to the mutual trust which underpins the relationship between the Government and the courts [46].
Accordingly, the extradition proceedings against Mr Craig were not conducted “in accordance with the law” and so were incompatible with his rights under article 8 of the Convention. It follows that the extradition order made against him is invalid [53].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
A new extradition hearing may be held before a different sheriff, at which Mr Craig will be able to rely on the forum bar provisions (in addition to any other arguments properly available to him).
Ampersand’s Aidan O’Neill QC, leading Fred Mackintosh QC, instructed by Dunne Defence, represented the appellant.
The judgment of the UK can be found here.
Back