Thursday, October 06, 2011

Offshore trusts, property holdings, insurance syndicates, hospitality from dodgy lawyers, yet no plans for a register of interests for Scottish judges

Parliament_House,_EdinburghScottish Judges refuse to declare hospitality or interests, yet their decisions on civil cases frequently side with vested interests, affect billions of pounds & countless lives. SCOTTISH JUDGES are refusing to disclose hospitality they receive or complete a register of interests which may potentially reveal to many court users some members of the judiciary presiding over civil damages claims, a professional negligence or medical accident claims, or even in some cases criminal cases, may well have accepted hospitality from, have a friendship or association with, or might even have a business relationship with whoever is standing at the other side of the court room. No matter the severity of the conflict of interest, no one has has the right to know, because there is no register of interests or hospitality for Scottish judges and no plans to bring one in by the current Lord President Lord Hamilton.

The Judicial Office for Scotland, which represents Scotland’s judiciary was forced to publish judicial expenses figures over a year ago after Diary of Injustice investigated judicial expenses claims and Freedom of Information requests revealed a significant amount of money being claimed by judges & sheriffs all across Scotland. The story of Scotland’s multi million pound judiciary and their expenses claims can be read here : Scotland's Judiciary and its expenses claims.

However, it seems transparency in the judiciary only goes so far and will NOT extend to publishing a full & frank register of hospitality or interests, with the Judiciary Office for Scotland declaring there are NO PLANS to publish a register of hospitality for Scotland’s multi million pound judiciary. A further statement by the Lord President available on the Judiciary of Scotland website appears to indicate there are no plans for a register of interests

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland stated : “The Judicial Office for Scotland does not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so. The Lord President has set out formal guidelines to the judiciary in the STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS. Para 4.9 and 7.2 address this particular point.”

While the Judicial Office may be reluctant to disclose more information on its members, curious court users & legal insiders who have long been looking into the relationships & financial backgrounds of “some” members of the Scottish judiciary say it is in the interests of transparency & justice that judges to submit to a register of hospitality & pecuniary interests due to the power & effect their actions & judgements in court have over billions of pounds, legislation as passed by our elected representatives & the public at large.

In an age where it is now unthinkable for elected politicians and anyone in a public office to avoid registering their outside interests or hospitality received, members of the judiciary who in some cases earn £200K plus a year from the public purse are allowed to remain exempt from complying with any requirement to disclose their hospitality their financial interests, because the judges themselves decided it was not to be required of them to do so. However, in an age where transparency must be brought to all those funded by the public purse, there are growing calls for this to change and for judges who are ultimately paid by taxpayers, to fall into line with everyone else bankrolled by the public purse.

Naturally, anyone receiving such a large salary along with expenses and considerable power & influence to their name, in this case, all starting life from the public purse in the name of upholding justice, looks for safe, sometimes discreet, or even ‘out-of-reach-of-the-taxman’ havens to invest some of their ‘well earned’ crust for sitting in judgement over the rest of us.

From enquiries carried out by a group of court users investigating hospitality & the financial interests of members of the judiciary who quietly exert their considerable influence within ‘little talked about circles’, the investments of some of those on the bench (not just in Scotland) appear to follow a wide and not always expected, range of destinations, ranging from finance companies, insurance companies & their syndicates, care homes (including one accused of abusing its patients), gambling, private schools, & so on, while some others hold burgeoning property portfolios ranging from the expensive to houses on former Council estates, financial relationships with letting agents & housing associations, and even offshore investments along with somewhat dubious trusts managed by equally dubious Scottish law firms operating abroad, the details of which would easily drag down politicians in lurid headlines in the national press, and this is without even mentioning alleged investments in massage parlours, sex saunas & ‘themed dating agencies’ in Thailand.

A legal insider who has been studying some of the preliminary research on ‘judicial investments’ said it was only a matter of time before judges will be forced to declare their financial interests, hospitality and details of who they associate with, to ensure there is public confidence in an open & transparent judiciary.

He said : “The problem here is you have judges making their own rules. Its no use allowing judges to decide for themselves what they should or shouldn’t declare. In any profession such a power is a recipe for corruption, just as we saw during the expenses scandal at Westminster, where politicians were caught out stealing from the taxpayer and some were sent to jail.”

He continued : “In the case of judges, rather than the issue being a case of theft of public funds via expenses although of course it cannot be discounted, there may be conflicts of interests in terms of a judge’s investments, relationships, meetings etc which must be disclosed in the public interest otherwise you will end up with a situation where a judge has a vested interest in a case before him and says nothing. I’m sure its happened before given the numbers of cases in the courts.

It has been pointed out to Diary of Injustice some members of Scotland’s judiciary have relationships & links with law firms which secretly wined & dined the Scottish Government & its officials. The same law firms then went onto win contracts worth tens of millions of pounds with the Scottish Government, investigated by Diary of Injustice & reported in an earlier article here : HOSPITALITY WINS : Law firms who won £20 Million legal contract wined, dined & lobbied Scottish Government’s Legal Directorate for three years

A senior solicitor speaking to Diary of Injustice yesterday agreed there is a need for full disclosure in the judiciary and indicated the issue was under advanced discussion in other countries. He said : “The subject of a judicial register of interests is being discussed in other jurisdictions such as New Zealand, and I feel we should move with the times in Scotland to require the judiciary to do the same.”

In New Zealand, there is Member’s Bill in the New Zealand Parliament, introduced in late 2010 by Dr Kennedy Graham of the Green Party to introduce a Pecuniary Register of Interests for all judges, after a scandal involving the resignation of Justice Bill Wilson rocked the New Zealand legal establishment and brought into question the interests & relationships between judges & others.

Justice Wilson was forced to resign after it was reported he had failed to step down in a case or disclose his business and financial relationships with Auckland QC Alan Galbraith when sitting as a member of the Court of Appeal in an appeal in which Mr Galbraith successfully represented the Wool Board Disestablishment Company in their appeal against superfine wool producers Saxmere over wool board levies. There were allegations that Justice Wilson owed Mr Galbraith $242,804, which was not disclosed to the Court of Appeal hearing. The debt was denied by Justice Wilson. More on the scandal can be read HERE, HERE & HERE.

There are concerns similar relationships between members of the judiciary and law firms, lawyers & advocates may well exist in Scotland and may have had an effect particularly on some cases where members of the legal profession and even the Law Society of Scotland itself has faced legal action in the courts.

The full details of which can be viewed online here Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. Dr Graham’s bill states :

It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach, and suspicion thereof. Public confidence in the standard of behaviour and conduct observed by leading servants of the people is a cornerstone of social harmony and political stability. A threshold of confidence to that end should ideally be enshrined in constitutional and legislative form. Little scope should be available for individual discretion or subjective perception.

The principle of transparency in this respect pertains in particular to issues of financial (pecuniary) interest. Nothing undermines public confidence in a nation’s institutions and procedures more than suspicion that a public servant may have, and especially proof that one has, suffered a conflict of interest arising from a pecuniary interest in a particular dealing in which he or she was professionally involved.

The correct balance in this respect appears to have been achieved over the years–the public interest in such annual statements is significant without appearing prurient, and few complaints have been voiced by those on whom the obligations are placed. There seems to be a general acceptance that such exercises are in the public interest and are neither unduly onerous nor revealing.

No such practice, however, has been observed in the case of the judiciary. Recent developments within New Zealand’s judicial conduct processes suggest that application of the same practice observed by the other two branches of government might assist in the protection of the judiciary in future.

Being obliged under law to declare pecuniary interests that might be relevant to the conduct of a future case in which one is involved would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgements about his or her personal affairs as each case arises. Having declared one’s pecuniary interests once, in a generic manner independent of any particular trial, a judge may freely proceed in the knowledge that, if he or she is appointed to adjudicate, public confidence for participation has already been met. Yet care is to be exercised to ensure that the final decision is left to the individual judge whether to accept a case. There should be no intention of external interference into the self-regulation of the judiciary by the judiciary.

This is the reasoning behind this draft legislation–the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as stated, is to promote the due administration of justice by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system, and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.

Additionally, in the New Zealand lawyer online, it was reported New Zealand’s Law Commission discussed the possibility the planned register of interests should be expanded to include all judicial officials who could affect a case, saying in Chapter 8.25 of their discussion paper. The Law Commission stated : “If there is to be legislation, should it apply to all judges, or only to judges of some levels, or to all judicial employees and officials such as prosecutors and registrars? An argument can be made that if there is to be financial disclosure it should be required of all officials whose positions give them sufficient potential to influence the outcome of a case, whether as a result of a bribe or other improper influence.” The New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests can be downloaded here : NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges' pecuniary interests? (pdf)

In Scotland, the situation is the exact opposite of moves in New Zealand to clean up its judiciary by requiring a register of interests. Lord Hamilton, speaking on ‘corruption in the judiciary’ claimed such issues “are virtually unknown in this jurisdiction”.

Lord Hamilton judicialLord Hamilton, Scotland’s Lord President. Lord President Lord Hamilton said in his statement : “While attempts to corrupt the judiciary are virtually unknown in this jurisdiction, a judge should be circumspect in the acceptance of any gift, hospitality, or favour from any private source. Where the benefit sought to be conferred upon the judge is not commensurate with an existing family or social relationship between him or her and the donor, or host, it should normally be declined. However, it is recognised that a judge may, from time to time, legitimately be entertained by legal, professional or public organisations or office-holders, in furtherance of good relations between them and the judiciary as a whole, or representatives of it. Furthermore, nothing said here should be understood as inhibiting judges from accepting invitations to give lectures, addresses, or speeches of a non-legal nature at dinners, or other occasions, or, in such an event, from accepting commensurate hospitality, tokens of appreciation for their efforts, or appropriate expenses of travel or accommodation.”

Lord Hamilton's statement continues : “It is considered appropriate that a judge may write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice and related matters. However, to obviate the perception that judicial office is being exploited for personal gain, a judge holding a full-time appointment should not generally receive any remuneration for such activities, with the traditional exception of fees and royalties as an author or editor, although the acceptance of a modest gift in recognition of a service given would be unexceptionable. Where a judge is offered a substantial fee for the activities described, such fee should go directly to charity. There is, of course, no objection to a judge accepting reasonable reimbursement of the cost of any necessary travel or accommodation required in attending lectures, seminars, etc. In the event of a judge engaging in literary, or other creative or artistic activities, there can be no objection to that judge receiving the normal royalties, fees, or other payments in respect of the results of those activities.”

Sheriff Lothian scan 2Lacking the fear of being caught : Senior members of the judiciary & Crown Office knew of hooker sheriff sauna scandal for some time yet chose not to act. Rumours are another is around the corner. However, in spite of Lord Hamilton has said, it appears some members of Scotland’s judiciary are not very interested in excusing themselves from cases where their personal relationships, hospitality received, or professional gain may affect the outcomes of cases, nor are some members too bothered about who they associate with in private, where unpublished meetings include dates with dodgy businessmen, crime gang members, prostitutes from massage parlours & saunas (a scandal with forced one sheriff to resign, pictured), dodgy lawyers accused of fraud (who happen to escape prosecution), convicted sex offenders, and associations & meetings with lawyers who are known to act for tax dodgers in the Cayman Islands & other offshore tax havens. There are even cases of some members of Scotland’s judiciary using relationships with Police Officers to further their own professional interests outside of their judicial role, and also in some cases, members of the judiciary have used Police Officers to harass opponents of their private law firm’s high profile clients anxious their double lives are kept from the media & public’s prying eyes.

Clearly just as with solicitors escaping investigation into legal aid payments and fraud prosecutions courtesy of Mr MacAskill, there are also problems in Scotland’s judiciary where it appears regulation, or the fear of being caught out, is not strong enough to prevent some of its members abusing their positions either inside the court or outside. While the integrity of many of Scotland’s judges is not in question, a register of interests and more effective regulation must be applied, if Scots are to have any confidence in, or chance of a fair hearing where vested professional & personal interests may regularly collide with the public’s right of access to justice and a fair hearing in the Scottish courts.

However, it may come as no surprise to readers to learn Scotland’s judiciary are not alone in failing to keep a register of interests. The same is true for the judiciary of England & Wales, right up to judges at the UK’s Supreme Court, who maintain they do not require to keep a register of interests, yet as members of the House of Lords prior to the setting up of the Supreme Court, Law Lords did provide details in the House of Lords register of interests.

The UK Supreme Court’s stance on a register of interests is broadly the same as Scotland in that one is not required because the judges themselves have decided they need not declare their interests. The Supreme Court’s statement on a register of interests appears in an online document stating :

Prior to the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest court in the UK was the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The members of the Committee were Lords of Appeal in Ordinary appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. Although those appointments gave them full voting and other rights in the House of Lords, the Law Lords had for some years voluntarily excluded themselves from participating in the legislative work of the House. Notwithstanding that, they were bound by the rules of the House and provided entries for the House of Lords Register of Interests.

On the creation of the Supreme Court the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary became Justices of the Supreme Court. They retain their titles as Peers of the Realm, but are excluded by statute from sitting or voting in the House, for so long as they remain in office as Justices of the Supreme Court. As such, they are treated as Peers on leave of absence; and do not have entries in the House of Lords Register of Interests. Historical information remains accessible via the House of Lords website.

Other judges in the UK, such as the judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, and the Court of Session in Scotland, do not have a Register of Interests. Instead they are under a duty to declare any interest where a case comes before them where this is or might be thought to be the case.

Against this background the Justices have decided that it would not be appropriate or indeed feasible for them to have a comprehensive Register of Interests, as it would be impossible for them to identify all the interests, which might conceivably arise, in any future case that came before them. To draw up a Register of Interests, which people believed to be complete, could potentially be misleading. Instead the Justices of the Supreme Court have agreed a formal Code of Conduct by which they will all be bound, and which is now publicly available on the UKSC website.

In addition all the Justices have taken the Judicial Oath – and they all took it again on 1 October 2009 – which obliges them to “do right to all manner of people after the law and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will”; and, as is already the practice with all other members of the judiciary, they will continue to declare any interest which arises in the context of a particular case and, if necessary, recuse themselves from sitting in that case – whether a substantive hearing, or an application for permission to appeal.

It is in the public interest and the interests of justice that our judges be required by law to join all others in public office, paid for by the public purse, to register their interests and any hospitality received. This is clearly in the interests of transparency, accountability and can only serve to reassure court users that they can expect fair & equal treatment - something we should all be entitled to as of right.

91 comments:

Anonymous said...

I must admit this is a good idea Peter however you will have to get round the antiquated views of the judges who seem to feel they are so honest they can be trusted.

"Trust me I'm a judge" is not something I'd every agree with.

Good work as always.

Anonymous said...

Against this background the Justices have decided that it would not be appropriate or indeed feasible for them to have a comprehensive Register of Interests, as it would be impossible for them to identify all the interests, which might conceivably arise, in any future case that came before them. To draw up a Register of Interests, which people believed to be complete, could potentially be misleading. Instead the Justices of the Supreme Court have agreed a formal Code of Conduct by which they will all be bound, and which is now publicly available on the UKSC website.

wow talk about arrogance!

Anonymous said...

After reading your other report about the Fiscal married to the alleged legal aid thief who got off being charged I am not surprised to learn there are links between judges & crooked law firms we need to know about

Who is honest in the justice system anyway?

Anonymous said...

Just think about it for a second. A litigant is suing an insurance company over a medical injury, or a professional negligence case, and it turns out the judge has a financial stake in the insurance company being sued, or regularly goes out to dine with lawyers from the insurance company’s legal team or the lawyers who swindled the litigant, and quietly on the side receives hospitality from the same law firm the litigant is left to face in the court with no chance of success because the lawyers have the judge in their pockets and none of it is declared! BLOODY DISGUSTING!

Anonymous said...

Good to see the Kiwis tackling the crooked judges but its no surprise to read the Scottish end are clinging onto their secret hospitality etc

I seem to remember that story you did on Douglas Mill's expenses at Glasgow Uni he was dining out with Sheriffs wasnt he?

Little wonder the judges dont want to have to declare it.

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with this,we need a public register for judges so we can all inspect it not just available through FOI

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with a judge doing some tax dodging then going onto write a rule book for his lawyer buddies and screw a client trying to sue crooked lawyers he knows and then runs off to Thailand to invest in/bang a few young boys?
If you are expecting any of that to be put in a register of interests I'd say forget it!
BUT WE ALL KNOW ITS GOING ON NOW DONT WE!

Anonymous said...

Very good Peter.Its nice to see you bringing new ideas into this old boys club justice system where words like "transparency" and "openness" seem to be omitted from daily life.

I support your register of interests for judges 100%

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Suffice to say if the judiciary want any credibility with the public they will stop this "Sod off we dont need to declare anything because we are judges" attitude and comply like the rest of us.

Some of these judges should try claiming benefits and Council Tax rebate and see how much they have to declare and get spied on at the same time to see if they are lying about it.

No honest judges said...

Honest judges lol

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south-wales-news/bridgend-maesteg/2010/07/15/judge-quits-after-rent-boy-scandal-91466-26854478/

Judge quits after rent boy scandal

Jul 15 2010 by Martin Shipton, Glamorgan Gazette

A CIRCUIT judge who faced newspaper allegations of an affair with a rent boy has quit his post.

Judge Gerald Price QC, 61, of Cowbridge, hit the headlines last summer over claims he had a nine-month fling with Christopher Williams, 26, a male prostitute he met via the internet.

The judge, who presided over trials in Cardiff Crown Court, was said to have allowed Mr Williams to sit on the court bench with him as he sentenced criminals. The Office for Judicial Complaints has confirmed Mr Price’s resignation.

An inquiry recommended he should be sacked as a result of his conduct but he resigned after a failed appeal and before he could be dismissed.

According to a story in the News of the World last June, the married judge set Mr Williams up in a flat in Swansea and paid him £420 a month for what he described as a “sex season ticket”.

Mr Williams claims Mr Price contacted him via email and that they met and had sex in a room at the Days Inn hotel in the M4 Sarn Park services. Subsequently, they met at Mr Price’s second home near Carmarthen.

Mr Williams told the News of the World: “I sat on the bench next to Gerald for at least five days in Cardiff, three in Swansea and once in Carmarthen. Security knew who I was and I was never stopped or hindered. Gerald passed me off as a law student.

“I was also in his private chambers behind the courtroom. That’s where I caught sight of a lot of court files and criminal records – stuff only the judge and counsel should see.”

A former three-time Conservative parliamentary candidate, Mr Price became an Anglican lay preacher in 1969.

Mr Price presided over many prominent cases. He was the judge who made an order to seize every penny owned by brothel madam Julie Hyett, a policeman’s wife from Pembrey, and gave her a 15-month suspended jail term.

Mr Price has refused to discuss the matter with the media, saying his privacy is being invaded and insisting through his lawyers that there is no public interest in the matter.

A spokeswoman for the Office for Judicial Complaints said: “Gerald Price QC, a Circuit Judge who was appointed to the Wales Circuit in 2000, has resigned from judicial office following an investigation into allegations about his conduct originally published in the media in June 2009.

“While the media reported a number of allegations against Judge Price, the judicial investigation only focused on those that had an impact on his role as a judge. The investigation found that his actions brought the judiciary into disrepute, rendering his position untenable.

“In the light of the investigation, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice informed the judge in December 2009 that they considered his behaviour merited removal from office.

“In accordance with the judicial discipline regulations, Judge Price was entitled to ask for their decision to be reviewed by a Review Body panel. He did so and the panel was chaired by Lady Justice Smith. The panel agreed with the original decision of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor and recommended that Judge Price should be removed from office. The judge has, however, resigned before the disciplinary process was formally concluded. His resignation took effect from June 30, 2010.”

The spokeswoman said the panel’s report would not be disclosed as it was considered confidential to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.

Mr Price remains a QC, but is not listed in the public directory of practising barristers maintained by the Bar Council, the regulatory body for barristers.

When asked whether any action had been taken or was contemplated against Mr Price, a spokeswoman for the Bar Council would only say: “The Bar Council is unable to comment on individual cases.”

Anonymous said...

Given how hard it is to sue lawyers I'm not surprised they are all arm in arm with the judges giving them the nod & wink to dismiss any cases against them.

So much for independence of the judiciary haha what a joke

Anonymous said...

Lady Smith's partner, purely coincidentally a senior partner at Sheppherd & Wdderburn solicitors, is one 'alliance' that has previously given rise to concerns.

If the Judges have nothing to hide there is nothing to be afraid of.....or is there?

Anonymous said...

How many judges are there in Scotland anyway?
Over 100?
I dont believe you can get 100 people without at least one of them being a bad apple these days its just impossible the way people's values & standards have slipped.
Also who chooses the judges anyway?
Its lawyers and the judges themselves.
No accountability no openness nothing and no register of interests!

Anonymous said...

This is the same judiciary who did as they were told and framed Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing on bought & paid for evidence so dont expect them to be very truthful about their fiddles!

Anonymous said...

I like this.It must be good because the judges said no.Who are they to say no register of interests is required from them?They are getting enough of our money to sit on cases which FREQUENTLY END UP GOING AGAINST THE REST OF US!

Anonymous said...

Against this background the Justices have decided that it would not be appropriate or indeed feasible for them to have a comprehensive Register of Interests, as it would be impossible for them to identify all the interests, which might conceivably arise, in any future case that came before them. To draw up a Register of Interests, which people believed to be complete, could potentially be misleading.


I have news for you Mr Supreme Court Judge.Many in public life already disclose their interests and hospitality by law.It is not "impossible" to list all interests when the will and the law is there to make it happen.You will know all about the law therefore do like the rest of us and declare your interests.

Anonymous said...

"There are concerns similar relationships between members of the judiciary and law firms, lawyers & advocates may well exist in Scotland and may have had an effect particularly on some cases where members of the legal profession and even the Law Society of Scotland itself has faced legal action in the courts."

I think this is a given Peter.It just cannot be all those cases involving lawyers get screwed up in the courts.Just like that failure to prosecute the 14 crooked lawyers who stole the legal aid the numbers of times lawyers get off in court from stealing is amazing and does not happen by accident.

Time to bring the judiciary into the real world so we know what they are up to.

Anonymous said...

I like your example from New Zealand.Very effective and very much required in the UK especially Scotland by the sounds of it.

Anonymous said...

Where did the property come from?Some poor soul who had their house repossessed by a f*cking bank?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

After reading your other report about the Fiscal married to the alleged legal aid thief who got off being charged I am not surprised to learn there are links between judges & crooked law firms we need to know about

Who is honest in the justice system anyway?

6 October 2011 14:34

ANSWER : NO ONE!
THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA

Anonymous said...

Yet more damning evidence confirming why Self Regulation Must End.

Excellent report.

Anonymous said...

I've already been through the ordeal of taking my lawyer to court.

One thing stood out a mile.Everyone there including the judge hated my guts and wanted to see the back of me.Case was adjourned and my lawyer refused to go back in unless I accepted the offered settlement half of which the bastard took for his own fees.

To all of you who think you can win against a lawyer remember the guy in the wig at the top table is not your friend.More like your enemy.

Make them declare all their interests just as you say Mr Cherbi.Who knows what will come out but it can only be good.

Anonymous said...

Interesting information on the judges financial habits.I'm sure some of them must be wondering who is looking over their shoulder?

Anonymous said...

Spot on.

If MPs used that argument about not having to fill in register of interests they'd sell us down the river in a minute (although they do that anyway) so bring the judges into line with everyone else.They are NOT special even though they believe themselves to be.

No one is above the law isnt that right and what applies to one is supposed to apply to all!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Just think about it for a second. A litigant is suing an insurance company over a medical injury, or a professional negligence case, and it turns out the judge has a financial stake in the insurance company being sued, or regularly goes out to dine with lawyers from the insurance company’s legal team or the lawyers who swindled the litigant, and quietly on the side receives hospitality from the same law firm the litigant is left to face in the court with no chance of success because the lawyers have the judge in their pockets and none of it is declared! BLOODY DISGUSTING!
=============================
Doctors lawyers accountants surveyors employers all insured by Royal Sun Alliance. Lawyers take on cases against these people but as they are all paying premiums to the insurance company you are claiming against you get three years torture, they get three years legal aid and your damages amount to £0.00. They are an evil network, avoid them at all costs.

If your employer has injured you, they will cover it up. This is why there is NEVER any medical evidence against an employer for occupational injury and why the Law Society is trying to shut down solicitorsfromhell.co.uk because there is a warning on that site see

ALL LAW FIRMS DANGER READ THIS under the search tab

Anonymous said...

I like the New Zealand Law Commission's idea of extending it to "all officials whose positions give them sufficient potential to influence the outcome of a case, whether as a result of a bribe or other improper influence"

You'd never get anyone here suggesting something like this (maybe you?)

Good to see people agree with it.Actually its so obvious we need it there should be action right away.

Anonymous said...

There are even cases of some members of Scotland’s judiciary using relationships with Police Officers to further their own professional interests outside of their judicial role, and also in some cases, members of the judiciary have used Police Officers to harass opponents of their private law firm’s high profile clients anxious their double lives are kept from the media & public’s prying eyes.

Do you mean high profile lawyers anxious details of their habits etc dont end up on the front pages of the tabloids.

Only a matter of time..

Anonymous said...

There's going to be a few judges resigning retiring or dumping their tax free investments if this register becomes reality!

Anonymous said...

To think this trash expect respect when they sit in judgement in our courts.

They are no fit to be a legal profession.

Michael Moore Come to Scotland with your megaphone at the Law Society please said...

It would be nice to see someone like Michael Moore of Capitalism A love Story fame standing outside the Law society of Scotland, (as he did Wall Street) with his crime scene tapes calling "this is a citizens arrest to the mendacious bastards in the Law Society" come out and pay for your crimes against the Scottish people.

A good video for U Tube because Salmond, MacAskill and the press are kissing lawyers posteriors. Well Michael you are welcome to do a story on the Scottish Legal Establishment if you have the time?

Anonymous said...

A stupid decision from the judiciary to refuse to participate in a register of interests.Even if they are not crooked they look even more so now and with all due respect the two paragraphs of bilge in the "Statement of Ethics" don't cut it Lord Hamilton.

Anonymous said...

What can I say Peter other than free men stick their necks out, Scotland owes a great debt to Peter Cherbi. Superb journalism.

Anonymous said...

Scottish Judges refuse to declare hospitality or interests, because they are in bed with the insurers lawyers clients are claiming damages from.

Scottish Judges are CRIMINALS.

Anonymous said...

IF EVER A PROFESSION DESERVED THE TITLE OF SCUM THESE PEOPLE FIT THE BILL.

Anonymous said...

Horrific.Really.
The story of the sauna sheriff made me sick to my stomach.How many more like him in the judiciary?
What a horrible bunch of people there are no words I can think of to accurately describe how I feel about it.
I will pray for people who are denied justice in Scotland at their judges hands.

END LAW SOCIETY POWER said...

THE LAW SOCIETIES ARE TERRIFIED OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION. THEY MUST NEVER CONTROL THE INTERNET.

JUDGES, SHERRIFS, QC'S, ADVOCATES, YOU ARE CRIMINALS. IF YOU COULD YOU WOULD USE TERROR LIKE HITLER, SEND IN YOUR SS AGAINST THE PUBLIC.

SHUT WEBSITES AND MANY MORE WILL RISE LIKE THE PHOENIX FROM THE ASHES. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

JUDGES WILL WANT US KNEECAPPED PETER said...

English, Scots Law Societies ‘team up’ in legal moves against “Solicitors from Hell” in bid to stop Legal Ombudsman ‘Naming & Shaming’ crooked lawyers.

THE LAW SOCIETIES ARE FROM HELL, CORRUPT, BLINDED BY HATRED FOR CLIENTS, WHAT THEY REGARD AS UNTERMENSCHEN (SUBHUMANS) TO BE ABUSED FOR PROFIT. EVIL UNACCOUNTABLE AND RUTHLESS, REMINDS ME OF THE NAZI'S BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON THE LAW SOCIETIES WOULD NO EXTERMINATE CLIENTS IS BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT EXPLOIT THEM ANY MORE.

Anonymous said...

Law Societies should face trial for crimes against humanity.

All are not equal before the law said...

A charity administrator who took more than £70,000 from a fund for sick children has been described as a "heartless fraudster" after he was jailed for 15 months.

North Yorkshire Police confirmed Howard Rose, 63, was jailed at York Crown Court after he admitted stealing £76,040 from the Yorkshire Children's Hospital Trust.

Rose, 63, of Earswick, York, was the trust's administrator.

Police said he used his position to divert funds which charities had donated to the trust to his personal bank account using false invoices. Rose used headed paper bearing the charities' logos to cover up his wrongdoing and used the money he stole to pay off his debts.

Detectives discovered Rose had been taking money for almost three years, between June 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010.

A force spokesman described him as a "heartless fraudster".

Detective Sergeant Garry Ridler, of North Yorkshire Police's major fraud team, said: "Howard Rose abused his role within the trust for his own personal gain, without sparing a thought for the children he was supposed to be helping.

"He stole funds which people had donated for the care of sick children and for that he fully deserves the sentence he has been given. He now has time to reflect on the major breach of trust which he should be ashamed of, considering the length of time in which he had been taking what amounted to a substantial amount of money.

"Anyone who thinks they can get away with deception on this scale is mistaken. The police will thoroughly investigate and you will be brought to justice."

Yorkshire Children's Hospital Trust works to provide equipment to help paediatric services in the region.
============================
Bad boy Howard, if you were a lawyer screwing legal aid there would not have been enough ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.

A "heartless fraudster", ah reminds me of the Law Societies membership.

In Scotland only the plebs are prosecuted for Legal Aid fraud said...

As we have been reporting for years Legal aid is the golden goose of the legal mafia. They have been stealing decent men's livelihoods in civil courts to prop up the criminal lawyers making a fortune from defending their serial criminal thug pals

Fourten lawyers reported after being accused of fiddling Legal Aid - but not one prosecution.


A banana republic under the Scottish Nazi Party.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see you taking the judiciary to task for their own scandals and all the dirty info we should be told about.

You have my vote in the bag if you ever stand for the parly!

Anonymous said...

I thought the Judges & Sheriffs were public servants?

They obviously do not think so?

Given that their own conduct and propriety or otherwise is central to their job function;

Give them 1 month to register all interests and to declare all unlawful acts committed by or being committed by them.

Failure to fully comply will result in immediate cessation of all salary, allowances and expenses, whilst police carry-out necessary investigations.

If the Police find out that either they have not declared something or have lied, then they should be sacked/prosecuted with no possibility to retire before hand with no entitlement to a fat-cat pension.

Under this full disclosure, all mis-deeds should be made public to make an example of the individuals and to act as a deterrent for the future and to ensure that the Scottish Judiciary is a truly found to be a paragon of justice, instead of being glibly called this by the self gratifying,incestious and unnaccountable legal elite.

Keyser Sozer

Anonymous said...

Secretive, therefore corrupt, a legal system to be proud of I dont think.

Judges may as well be directors of insurance companies. Lord Gill was this in your review?

Anonymous said...

Glad my work day is drawing to a close.

We spent all afternoon debating how dangerous Cherbi's exposure of legal aid fraud is to the rest of us. The conclusion was "very dangerous".
What will you do if more solicitors stand in front of trains to get out of being prosecuted?
==================================
From the clients side all lawyers are very dangerous. Any who stand in front of trains cease to be dangerous.

Anonymous said...

There was an American judge who was quite properly jailed recently(see below), but such conflicts of interest don't happen here, or do they? There's only one way to be sure, a Public Register Of Interests.

"After more than 10 years of allegedly sending youths to private prisons in exchange for around $1 million in kickbacks, former Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Ciavarella was sentenced to 28 years in prison — essentially a life sentence for the 61-year-old convicted criminal.

In February, a jury found Ciavarella guilty on 12 counts of everything from conspiracy and racketeering to money laundering and tax evasion. Another 27 counts, including bribery and extortion, were rejected by jurors.

The federal charges stemmed from Ciavarella’s involvement in a criminal plot to fill up privately owned juvenile-detention facilities. According to prosecutors, he was handing out wildly inappropriate sentences to first-time offenders and even children as young as 10.

Some of the crimes for which children were being jailed by Ciavarella included stealing a jar of nutmeg and countless first-time drug paraphernalia charges. One teenage girl was sentenced to three months for making fun of a school official on the Internet.

Another teenager sent to a correctional facility by Ciavarella later killed himself, which the family blames on the corrupt former judge...."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/8576-pennsylvania-judge-jailed-for-28-years-in-kids-for-cash-scheme

Anonymous said...

I wouldnt be surprised if some of these judges are getting property on the cheap from some of those lawyers appearing in front of them.After all the repo market is full of crooks and lawyers who buy up the lot and let it out or distro it among their friends for favours

Anonymous said...

The public prosecuters at the Crown Office have two policies on prosecution.

A non lawyer will face the courts for Legal Aid fraud.

14 Lawyers over six years, no court proceedings.

A country with a system like this has corrupt institutions, it proves one fact internationally. It is not a justice system, it is an oligarchy, of judges, lawyers politicians and insurance companies.

All of you lawyers out there, rights are only available when someone can enforce rights. This proves that even in a democratic country, powerful factions can create a line of difference where all are not equal before the law. It is foolish indeed to believe that everyone is free in a democratic country. If the state actors are corrupt, any outcome can be engineered.

Anonymous said...

Corruption is not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of Scotland however its nice to know our country is contributing to your clean up of crooked judges & lawyers.

I suspect just as there we never got to know the full truth about the Wilson scandal.

Distance changes nothing huh!

Anonymous said...

If the legal profession is as rotten as I think it is the judiciary will have their own problems too.After all judges are lawyers promoted to the bench.There is not one judge in Scotland who has not been a lawyer.FACT.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for your comments & emails on this article.

As many of you agree with the idea a register of hospitality & interests for the judiciary should exist, I believe a campaign on this issue is in order ... more to come soon.

Some comments have not been published, due to the detail offered regarding specific cases which I would like to cover in further more in-depth articles for readers consideration.

With regard to one comment which identified a particular judge and a relationship with a law firm, please could the person contact me via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com. Such a case is suited to a headline or two.

Rather than Scotland owing myself a debt, I would prefer to say Scotland owes its victims of injustice a great debt, but as we see, the legal establishment of Scotland appear to enjoy holding people in a state of injustice, and go on to cause more every day ...

Anonymous said...

Self regulating judges are as crooked as self regulating lawyers now we know it for sure.
So much for all that rubbish about no attempts to bribe judges in Scotland and the UK.
What a joke!Its going on all the time just like with politicians!

THOSE AT THE TOP SEE LIFE FROM THE TOP said...

The judges are paying your damages, so they all milk the Legal Aid moneypot, the Crown Office protects ones doing this illegally, and you get £0.00 no matter what you have suffered.

Clients have web sites the Law Society want closed.

Lawyers have,

The Law Society.

The Legal Defence Unions.

Corrupt arrangements with insurers and MSP's to prevent policy changes to protect the public.

Lawyers decide who faces court and for what.

Would this list not put you off trusting any lawyer?

And those scoundrels Cameron and Milliband, you can have my £65.00 unemployment benefit any day and I will gladly do your jobs.

Anonymous said...

Another teenager sent to a correctional facility by Ciavarella later killed himself, which the family blames on the corrupt former judge...."
==================================
These legal people, evil incarnate, no values whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Which branches of the judiciary are affected by this?
Judges or Sheriffs or both?

Anonymous said...

I can think of a few lawyers who head off to Thailand in their spare time.I hope the cops over their nab them good and proper AND these filthy judges who are at it too!

Anonymous said...

Lord Hamilton can give good speeches but it seems his colleagues are not listening.

Also to mention words like ethics and Scotland in the same sentence well its just not on because there are no bloody ethics in Scotland certainly not in the courts not in government not in politics and not in the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

Hmm

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt it the Lord President himself who appoints all these judges?

He has some explaining to do considering what you have written here and why did he close the door so firmly on a register of interests?

Is it because he knows there are things going on with some of the judges which will end up worrying the public and cause them to resign?

Someone said in a comment these judges may as well be directors of companies and I think this is true but they want to hide it because of what companies are involved in it all I think.

Anonymous said...

I think the judges will be worried your report on this will give people ideas.They wont want too many difficult questions on what they have been up to in secret.

Also if they have to declare everything I wonder how many will declare if they are members of secret societies.

Anonymous said...

From the country which produced the politically motivated verdict on Lockerbie it is of little surprise to learn its judiciary are as corrupt as its legal profession.

You have 120+msps and a 10,000 army of lawyers yet no one except this blog has suggested a register of interests for the judges.

With those odds against transparency Scotland must be a little fucked up if you don't mind me saying so.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone ever noticed all these supposedly independent enquiries led by these judges who dont want to declare their interests ending up not apportioning blame to the culprits of whatever disaster crime corruption or medical blunder took out a few of the population?

This hostile attitude by the judiciary towards the rest of us is yet again more evidence none of them can be trusted.

Anonymous said...

A good posting as ever Peter although I have to say I am not surprised.

As far as I am concerned and I think a great many people share the same view the entire justice system is rotten to the core including lawyers the police and courts and now they are busy taking everyones houses away from them and guess who gets to buy them on the cheap yes its the same scum in the justice system or the bankers who took the case to court.

Why ordinary people tolerate this I dont know alas they must have a lot more courage in North Africa to protest against their lives being ruined by scum like this than we do.Sad.

Anonymous said...

Its not too difficult to see where the judges allegiances lie - you just need to look at the courts website and the judgements to see who they usually side with and it certainly aint the small man!
Funny how the Law Society have never successfully been sued for ruining the lives of clients and barring them from justice as we see in case after case isnt it?

Anonymous said...

I'd also like to draw to your attention the amazing coincidence that anyone who has exposed the judiciary and the legal profession in Scotland has from one or more of the following either

1.Died unexplained
2.Been murdered
3.Lost their job
4.Lost their home
5.Lost their family
6.Been run out of Scotland
7.Been fitted up on a false charge and jailed
8.Endured daily visits from bent cops to persecute them
9.Lost everything
10.Committed suicide

and these are not just the clients who were ruined because there are a few journos who suffered the same not counting the ones who were bought off by the legal mafia

Very fishy isnt it

Just who is going round killing off the critics of lawyers and getting away with it I wonder??

Anonymous said...

The legal establishment of Scotland appear to enjoy holding people in a state of injustice, and go on to cause more every day ...

That is why they want to close web sites.

Anonymous said...

An excellent debate for the entire UK however I notice politicians are conspicuous by their absence from this register of interests for judges idea.Just why is it MPs disappear when needed for issues like this?

Is it because they are too busy milking tv license payers for appearance fees on the BBC?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046636/MPs-paid-thousands-appear-BBC-As-Corporation-cuts-politicians-given-licence-fee-cash-TV-radio.html

MPs paid thousands to appear on the BBC: As Corporation cuts back, politicians are given licence fee cash to go on TV and radio

MPs are being handed thousands of pounds of licence fee money simply to appear on the BBC.

The cash is being doled out to politicians for guest slots on shows where they do little more than promote themselves or their party.

Exposed for the first time in a week when the Corporation announced swingeing cuts that will leave BBC2 a channel of repeats, the practice allows MPs to receive ‘disturbance payments’ on top of expenses when they take part in programmes such as Any Questions? or Have I Got News For You.

Senior politicians including Diane Abbott, Hilary Benn, Sir Menzies Campbell and Caroline Flint have enjoyed being paid to turn up on panel shows, according to research conducted on the parliamentary register of members’ financial interests.

It proves the BBC has become a money-spinner for the political classes.

One of the most lucrative shows is Have I Got News For You, which can attract a fee of £1,500, but BBC2’s Cash in the Attic – currently under threat of being axed – once paid Miss Abbott £1,000 for an appearance.

Anonymous said...

Interesting the Crown Office and I presume the Scottish Court Service knew about Lothian all along yet chose to do nothing.I wouldn't be surprised if there are others up to the same.
I imagine some time was expended trying to cover up the story until it became too well known as is usual in these types of cases.

Has anyone bothered to check cases he sat on and his judgements during the time his bosses knew what he was up to?

Same applies to any in the same circumstances.

I think you know what I am getting at so I'll leave you to your investigations and look forward to reading more.

Anonymous said...

Ultimately the judiciary could stop most of the injustice happening in Scotland but they do not and frequently side with the ones who are causing it.They are not stupid they know exactly what is going on in many of the cases before them yet time after time ordinary people who have been ripped off by legal thugs,banks,dodgy accountants etc are shown the door with a wasted time in court where they get nowhere while the crook gets off the hook.

To any of members of the judiciary reading this comment ITS OBVIOUS WHAT YOU ARE DOING YOU DO NOT RESPECT THE PEOPLE AT ALL

Anonymous said...

Kind of worrying to hear there are deaths/murders of those going up against lawyers.

Has Scotland slipped into some mafia state run by lawyers/judges or has it always been like this?

btw I enjoyed the newspaper story about the sick judge.What a fine example of Scottish judges he must be!

Anonymous said...

BBC News

The Catholic Church in Scotland has stepped up its campaign against proposals to allow gay marriage.

The Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, has written to every parish in Scotland, urging all Catholics to oppose the planned legislation.

He said the Scottish government did not have a mandate to "reconstruct society on ideological grounds".
================================
Mario, I watched a TV programme called Homosexuality in the Catholic Church, where men left the diocese because they were gay.

It amazes me that a church that has paid out vast sums of money for the conduct of paedophile priests can have any moral standing. What right does the Church of Rome have to lecture decent Catholics? A church like this does NOT FEAR GOD.

Catholicism, like any other ism, is an ideology a system of beliefs that tells us why we are here (God created us) and has a plan of action (to increase the power of the church) keep you in your job. I always find it strange how men who are meant to celibate think they have a right to lecture all of us.

If men and women were all celibate the human condition of death would wipe out the human race. Do not lecture us, get your own church in order by prosecuting paedophile priests not by cannon law (which is self regulation) but by the legislatures in the countries where abuse has happened.

Clergy amaze me by their hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

This fog which exists around the judges over what they get up to and their interests has to go.They are doing a job paid for by the public therefore we have a right to know what their interests are and hospitality they are getting all laid out in a register like everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Just who is going round killing off the critics of lawyers and getting away with it I wonder??

8 October 2011 21:03

Someone who must be linked to the Law Society because this lot are clearly out of control and have no respect for anyone

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/10/09/police-swoop-in-prison-car-park-to-arrest-lawyer-accused-of-smuggling-attempt-86908-23477170/

A LAWYER has been accused of trying to smuggle cannabis into one of Scotland's toughest jails.

Police swooped on solicitor David Blair-Wilson after guards at Saughton prison, Edinburgh, raised the alarm.

Blair-Wilson was arrested and charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act after police searched a car in the prison car park on Thursday.

He was quizzed at St Leonard's police office in the capital where he complained of chest pains.

He was then transferred to the city's Royal Infirmary where he was held under police guard, though he has since left hospital.

A police spokesman said: "A search was carried out of a vehicle within the prison car park and drugs and other items associated with organised crime were seized.

"We continue to gather intelligence on organised criminals - including those serving time in prison - and will act on any information relating to illegal activities."

Blair-Wilson was found guilty of professional misconduct by Law Society chiefs eight years ago after numerous complaints.

He was given a 10-year ban, preventing him working with legal transactions of a financial nature.

He avoided being struck off but was ordered to work under supervision for 10 years. One client accused Blair-Wilson of giving false information on his behalf to a court while another said he misled him. A clinical psychologist and legal assistant accused him of failing to pay fees they were owed.

Blair-Wilson failed to respond to the Law Society's concerns and ignored repeated demands to hand over his accounts.

He was previously a criminal law specialist and worked for Nigel Beaumont & Co in Edinburgh. Since qualifying as a lawyer in 1982, he has worked for nine different law firms. He now works for Edinburgh solicitor Massimo D'Alvito.

Mr D'Alvito said: "I didn't know anything about this. It came as a shock to me."

In 2007, lawyer Angela Baillie - dubbed Ally McDeal - was sentenced to 32 months in jail for handing over heroin to client Peter McConville in Glasgow's Barlinnie prison.

Anonymous said...

"It is in the public interest and the interests of justice that our judges be required by law to join all others in public office, paid for by the public purse, to register their interests and any hospitality received. This is clearly in the interests of transparency, accountability and can only serve to reassure court users that they can expect fair & equal treatment - something we should all be entitled to as of right."

I like where you are coming from Peter!

Anonymous said...

The link between corrupt judges & corrupt Police Officers is not restricted to Scotland.
In any country you will get crooked cops eager to please judges by doing a few favours I've seen it for myself.
I think you Scots need to rethink your judiciary and how it goes about its business.

Anonymous said...

I play a regular round of golf with an eminent Judge who said that your website is detested by Judges and Lawyers alike.

He went on to aver that they were all taking bets on who could catch the pimpernel first?

So I asked the ermined one, 'well what about it, have you ever been caught out telling lies?'

His ruddy cheeks puffed back at me as he snorted, 'I don't tell lies and that's the truth', and he wandered off.

Hmmmmm.....

Anonymous said...

I thought it was considered normal practice for both Advocates to meet the Judge in his chambers beforehand so as they can decide between them who is going to be allowed to win each case?

Anonymous said...

Anyone appearing before a Sheriff or Judge should refuse to cooperate until they can prove that they are not on the take (ie can prove that they are impartial)

Anonymous said...

A few of the judges must be doing their nut over this one.When are you going to publish more about them?I'd like to hear which ones have been avoiding paying their taxes for a start!

Anonymous said...

Lord President Lord Hamilton, a man that is all. Nothing special, but he want to keep us all in the dark about their conflicts of interest.

Justice Hamilton, what do you know about that word?

Anonymous said...

Judges in their own cause. The reason the Scottish Legal System is so badly corrupt is because it is a closed system.

They are absolutely all powerful and unaccountable.

I'm all for maintaining the independence of the Judiciary but I would have them monitored and scrutinised by members of the public who took on the job for a short fixed term and who were chosen at random (like Jury Duty). They would serve their public duty and be responsible for holding Public Officials to account.

CAMERON'S CABINET HATE THE POOR said...

THE CABINET RICH LIST.

WE ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER DAVID, I THINK NOT.


1. Lord Strathclyde £10m - Leader of the House of Lords, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

The 2nd Baron Strathclyde, more normally addressed as Tom, is wealthy even by the aristocratic standards of the Lords. The half-Belgian peer owns a lucrative slice of his family’s estate management company, Auchendrane Estates, has numerous private directorships and a £2.3million house in Westminster.

2. Philip Hammond £7.5m - Secretary of State for Transport

Hammond had been expected to take the No2 position at the Treasury until the coalition agreement was struck, but there is little need for him to make personal economies. His stake in property company Castlemead has been estimated to be worth up to £6million in shares and dividends. He also co-owns a £1million house in Westminster and a £400,000 home in Woking, Surrey.

3. George Osborne £4.6m - Chancellor of the Exchequer

The youngest Chancellor for more than a century holds a £2million stake in his father’s luxury wallpaper company, Osborne & Little, and lives in a £2million family home in London’s Notting Hill. His constituency property in Tatton adds another £600,000.

4. Jeremy Hunt £4.5m - Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport

Hunt, a lambada-dancing party high-flier, owns a stake in the educational publisher Hotcourses estimated at nearly £3million. He also owns a property in Surrey, a house in Hammersmith, West London, and a half-share of a holiday home in Italy.

5. David Cameron £4m - Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service

The PM and his wife both come from wealthy backgrounds and enjoy substantial property assets of their own: their London home has been valued at £2.7million and their constituency house at £1million. Mrs Cameron’s work as the creative director of Smythson, the upmarket stationers, earned her a £300,000 bonus. Both are in line to inherit fortunes from their parents: the combined wealth of the Camerons’ parents has been put as high as £30million.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1280554/The-coalition-millionaires-23-29-member-new-cabinet-worth-1m--Lib-Dems-just-wealthy-Tories.html#ixzz1aOppXxht

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are the pits.

Judges like to keep their secrets dont they said...

This is probably one of the best ideas I've heard for a long time and congratulations to the New Zealanders who are brave and honest enough to take this forward.
Its a pity we dont have politicians of this ilk in Scotland although at least we have Mr C to keep the legal mafia in check!

Keep up the good work Peter!

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article.

A number of suggestions and tips have come in via email & unpublished comments.

I will look into the information provided for future articles on this subject.

I certainly agree with those of you who back the idea of a register of interests for the judiciary and will keep reporting on this issue until there is movement ...

Anonymous said...

It's about time the spineless wimps in 'the lamestream press' and our 'independent' broacasting corporations evolved into something with a little backbone.

Excellent reporting.

Anonymous said...

To the comment of 9 October 2011 20:27

This is surely more than a little off topic. That said, you may wish to reflect on the fact that the Church of England is currently being broken apart over the issue of homosexual clery and Brian Souter's independent poll has overwhelmingly confirmed that the vast majority of people in Scotland were against the repeal of Clause 64.

Anonymous said...

How many of those currently
'serving' on the Bench remain members of the Law Society of Scotland I wonder?

Something else that might usefully be known if the SNP have the guts to enforce a climate of
'transparency and accountability' in Scotland.......(don't hold your breath waiting)

Anonymous said...

This register of interests should be made now without any delay and Lord Hamilton's excuses tossed out the window.Same goes for the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary.DECLARE YOUR INTERESTS AND HOSPITALITY

Anonymous said...

nice to know there's no one you can trust in the legal system

Anonymous said...

The Judicial Appointments Board is the body which recommends judges to the Lord President.

Its full of lawyers and yes you guessed it judges!

http://www.judicialappointmentsscotland.gov.uk

I think we need to have some declarations of jobs for the boys as well as their financial interests!

Anonymous said...

Well Peter I hope this goes through and we finally get to see how these judges live instead of as someone else said this veil of secrecy around them which is not proper and as Lord Hamilton should know himself not in the interests of justice or transparency.