Lord President Lord Gill branded Scots justice Victorian & unfit for purpose, yet transparency of judges interests seems a step too far. THE SPECTACLE of a country’s most senior judge arguing against public expectations of transparency & accountability in the justice system and indeed public life, makes for an uncomfortable feeling that judges have something to hide. And so, in response to calls for greater transparency of the country’s judiciary, Scotland’s Lord President Lord Brian Gill, the author of the much acclaimed Civil Courts Review which has yet to bear fruit four years on for Scots locked in bitter court disputes, has issued a stern rebuke of a PUBLIC PETITION filed by a law journalist & campaigner calling for a Register of Judicial Interests.
In a sharp letter to MSP members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, the Lord President, Lord Gill condemned calls for greater transparency & public accountability of Scotland’s judiciary, and went on to attack proposals calling for judges to declare their interests, financial or pecuniary wealth, and other connections in a publicly available register as “misguided” and “naive”.
Even more worryingly, the Lord President goes so far in his letter to claim transparency across the courts system is not desirable in the form of a registrar of interests, as judges' privacy should be protected to prevent the media or individuals gaining knowledge of judges invariably significant wealth, criminal records, undeclared business connections, work, & wealth earning or otherwise relationships outside and even inside the courtroom.
In a terse, bitter tirade against media investigations into the judiciary which revealed several of Scotland’s judges have criminal records, and one judge convicted of benefits cheating Lord Gill went on to brand those enquiring of judges secrets as “aggressive media” and “hostile individuals”. He also claimed that if a register of interests for judges existed, it may be more difficult to recruit judges in the future.
Given judges must be above reproach, and must uphold the values of transparency & accountability they hold those appearing before them in court, and that decisions taken by the judiciary can have a huge impact on public life, even contesting legislation passed by our elected politicians, can judges who refuse to be held to the same standards as everyone else in public life, be trusted ?
Lord Gill’s letter to the Scottish Parliament in full, is available online here PE1458_B Lord President 05.02.13 or at the Scottish Parliament website HERE (pdf) :
RESPONSE FROM LORD PRESIDENT LORD GILL : PUBLIC PETITION PE1458: REGISTER OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS
Thank you for your letter dated 9 January 2013 in respect of the above. I am firmly of the view that a Register of Judicial Interests is unnecessary and I do not support the terms of the petition.
Is there a practical need for a register of judges' pecuniary interests?
The catalyst for this petition appears to be New Zealand legislation prepared following a case where a judge failed to recuse himself. To my knowledge, no such situation has arisen within my tenure as Lord President. The Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) considered the need for a Judicial Register of interests as part of their First Evaluation Round Report on the United Kingdom dated 14 September 2001' and concluded as follows
"As regards the institutions that are entrusted with the fight against corruption the GET noted that judges in the United Kingdom are not required to register their interests. Given, however, that the United Kingdom judiciary is generally perceived as conforming to social demands for observance of high integrity standards, the GET did not consider it necessary to address a recommendation in this connection." (paragraph 87)
Although yet to be published, I understand that having reconsidered this issue in their Fourth Evaluation Round Report last year, they remain of the view that a register or asset declaration system for members of the Judiciary is unnecessary.
Another reason why there is no practical need for this measure is that there are currently sufficient safeguards to ensure that judicial impartiality is maintained. The current safeguards in place in Scotland are established by the terms of the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics for the Scottish Judiciary and the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. I refer to the SPICe Briefing which details these provisions but would wish to draw the Committee's attention to the following points
* The Judicial Oath, is taken by all judicial office holders, and requires judges to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will..
* The Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics, issued in April 2010, states at principle 5 that all judicial office holders have a general duty to act impartially and,in particular, notes that "Plainly it is not acceptable for a judge to adjudicate upon any matter in which he, or she, or any members of his or her family has a pecuniary interest...".
* The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 contains provisions in section 28 and section 35 to regulate and investigate the conduct of judicial office holders. The Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2011 came into force in 2011. To date there have been no substantiated complaints alleging judicial bias. In addition,the Conduct Committee of the Judicial Council intends to consult in the Spring of this year on rules under section 35 in respect of fitness for judicial office in tribunals.
In my view there is no need for the further measure of a "Register of Judicial Pecuniary Interests" as advocated in this petition.
Misconceptions within the petition
The petition appears to proceed on an apparent misconception that equal treatment in terms of disclosure obligations of each of the three branches of Government is desirable. The three branches have significantly different roles to perform. The judicial role requires independence and impartiality in relation to the individual case which the judge has to decide. In this context, the potential for conflict of interest or apparent bias extends beyond pecuniary interests alone. The judge's duty of disclosure is more far-reaching than a bare listing of particular pecuniary interests identified by legislation as warranting disclosure. For example, a judge's disclosure duties, as set out in the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics, will extend to material relationships
The petitioner is also incorrect in his assumption that "being obliged to declare pecuniary interests ... would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgments about his or her personal affairs as each case arises." This is a naive interpretation that does not appreciate the role of a judge. Judicial conflicts of interest based on a judge's pecuniary interests arise infrequently but, when they do, the existence of an entry on a judicial register of pecuniary interests would not relieve the judge concerned from his or her obligations to make full disclosure and to reach a principled decision as to whether recusal is warranted. For that reason, I do not consider that the vehicle that the petitioner proposes would achieve its stated purpose of "providing greater transparency within the judicial system and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role."
Practical considerations
In practical terms it would be impossible for all judicial office holders to identify all the interests that could conceivably arise in any future case. The terms of the Judicial Oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics ensure that such a difficulty does not arise and that the onus is on the judicial office holder to declare any interest at the outset.
This is a view shared and supported by the Justices of the Supreme Court who have publicly stated 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 believe to be compete, 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 publically available on the UKSC website."
Unintended consequences
The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused. These are significant concerns. If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. It also raises the question whether such a measure would have an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of the Judiciary.
AS OTHERS SEE IT - A PETITION FOR A REGISTER OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS BACKGROUND :
Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests. Diary of Injustice has featured coverage of the petition in earlier reports, Register of Interests for Judges.
The petition also features references to debate in the Parliament of New Zealand who are considering legislation to create a register of interests for the judiciary. It is time for Scotland to move in the same direction and create a similar register of interests for the judiciary of Scotland and all its members, increasing the transparency of the judiciary and ensuring public confidence in their actions & decisions.
The full details of the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, should be looked at for a model of similar legislation in Scotland, can be viewed online here Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.
The New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests which recommends further inclusion of court staff in a register of interests, can be downloaded here : NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges pecuniary interests? (pdf)
In comparison to New Zealand’s effort to ensure transparency in the judiciary, Scotland’s judges and the Scotish Government have, unsurprisingly backed away from any similar measures, even concealing criminal charges and convictions of Scottish judges, where in one case a Scottish judge was charged with fiddling benefits claims, exposed in a Diary of Injustice investigation into Judge’s financial fiddles, here : CAREER CROOKED : Investigation reveals Scottish judges are CONVICTED CRIMINALS, Drunk Drivers,Tax Dodgers & alleged BENEFITS CHEATS
The on-going investigation by Diary of Injustice into members of Scotland’s judiciary has already revealed a series of judges appear to be involved in OFFSHORE TAX AVOIDANCE schemes, associations with convicted criminals & organised crime, prostitution rackets, accepting hospitality & payments from well known corrupt solicitors representing dodgy law firms while others on the bench are engaging in questionable investments & duties which appear to be in conflict with their positions as members of the judiciary. More on these findings can be read in an earlier article here : Offshore trusts, property holdings, insurance syndicates, hospitality from dodgy lawyers, yet no plans for a register of interests for Scottish judges
Judges demand honesty, transparency and accountability of everyone yet claim that they alone are above the need to demonstrate the same.
ReplyDeleteWhat a nice, cosy little cartel they have in Scotland - no wonder they want it to stay that way.
The present system reeks of outdated privilege and is clearly completely undemocratic.
ReplyDeleteOne person alone ultimately decides who is appointed to the Judiciary - some democracy there - and the same person is also, purely coincidentally, responsible for 'discipline' of the appointees.
Talk about a Closed Shop!!!
Must be something very big to hide here if a judge who rants on about justice etc in court comes out so angry against a call to declare their interests!
ReplyDeleteThank You the DOI Team for your Public Service journalism, it truly is Chicken Soup For The Soul?
ReplyDeleteOh well if they are tax dodgers and benefits cheats then you can understand why they dont want to declare!
ReplyDeleteHaha actually the stuff about the benefits cheating judge is amazing I mean who the heck can argue against declaring something like this they must be out of their minds!
Lord President Lord Gill branded Scots justice Victorian & unfit for purpose, yet transparency of judges interests seems a step too far. THE SPECTACLE of a country’s most senior judge arguing against public expectations of transparency & accountability in the justice system and indeed public life, makes for an uncomfortable feeling that judges have something to hide.
ReplyDelete================================
A compliment Lord Gill you are a public servant in a democracy. You are not a dictator who uses terror to control people. We have a right to know if you are above reproach, if your judicial power is legitimate. You have more power than politicians because the pubic have the vote. Secrecy will lead to more scrutiny. Perhaps your ideology is like the civil courts system in Scotland, not fit for purpose.
If we transferred the principles of controlling the judiciary [we currently have] to the political realm we would have dictatorship. You cannot be voted out of office and you want secrecy. This suggests you and your faction have much to hide. It is no longer acceptable.
In view of your revelations I think Lord Gill's letter to the parliament is a touch arrogant and to be honest I always thought judges had to declare their interests in some kind of register you are asking for.
ReplyDelete"THE SPECTACLE of a country’s most senior judge arguing against public expectations of transparency & accountability in the justice system and indeed public life, makes for an uncomfortable feeling that judges have something to hide."
ReplyDeleteAye you are spot on there mate these judges do have something to hide jesus who would have thought a judge would be so against something like this when they sit there on the bench all day pontificating to the rest of us and giving backing to some of the most evil social deprivation policies carried out by the ConDems to ever hit this country.
Just goes to show these lawyers/judges think they run the country and to hell with the rest of us.When I say this to people they laugh now read Lord Gill's letter to the Scottish Parliament and see for yourselves I was right all along!
ReplyDeleteGo for it Peter make this happen!
'The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused. These are significant concerns. If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. It also raises the question whether such a measure would have an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of the Judiciary.'
ReplyDeleteThis man is totally and utterly out of touch with reality and his belligerent legal stance is contemptuous and I'll considered?
It is also clear that he holds the citizen Petitioner with a thinly concealed contempt for having the temerity to have Judges to be required to PROVE that they are above the law?
Lord Gill, has brought the Judiciary into disrepute by his stance and seems overly concerned that the Public might find out that Judges may have been subverting the course of Justice for some time? He has certainly considerably reduced the trust the Scottish People have in Judges, for what is such a simple and straightforward request?
How can ANY Judge continue to think that they can act as a Judge, when they are convicted criminals and where, by the very fact that they are convicted criminals, shows that they do not possess the minimum standard required by a Judge, that is to have good and honest judgement?
After all, it is largely irrelevant what certain oaths say or regulations in legislation SAY's....It is how the JUDGES can prove that they are complying with these rules that is the nub of this problem?
Are we expected to take their WORD for it?
I don't think so......?
If Cardinals, Bankers, Politicians, Police, the Law Society of Scotland & the Crown Office can all tell lies then considering that the common denomination in all of these cases is an abuse of POWER, then it is even more likely that Scottish Judges may be liars too, therefore they simply must be shown to be able to PROVE that they have the TRUST of the Scottish People or if they refuse to comply, then they must be sacked forthwith?
What about the propriety of the Judge in the farcical and vindictive Robert Green Case, which involved the waste of Public Tax payer cash on a face-saving agenda of the State against a good citizen of these Isles?
ReplyDeleteWhy is this even an issue?
ReplyDeleteThe Judge is arguing for the indefensible?
Surely, there is a very important message missing in all of this?
Are the Judges not supposed to be serving the people and not for them to be trying to wriggle away from their responsibilities?
Lockerbie, now this?
What a laughing stock the rest of the world must think of us?
Lord President goes so far in his letter to claim transparency across the courts system is not desirable [OUT OF TOUCH INDEED] in the form of a registrar of interests, as judges' privacy should be protected to [[[[[[prevent the media or individuals gaining knowledge of judges invariably significant wealth, criminal records, undeclared business connections, work, & wealth earning or otherwise relationships outside and even inside the courtroom. WHAT WILL EXPOSURE WILL END YOUR CAREER AND YOU WILL LOSE MONEY THEN?]]]]] WRONG GILL IF YOU WANT ALL THIS KEPT SECRET YOU ARE UNFIT TO BE A JUDGE, WHAT PLANET IS THIS GUY ON? SECRECY IS THE MOTHER OF CORRUPTION, YOU ARE SO PREJUDICED AND COMPLACENT YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH A TRAIT THE SELF REGULATOR IS ALWAYS LAST TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
ReplyDeleteHE IS MORE VICTORIAN THAN HIS REVIEW.
It is strange to see Lord Gill having to rely on the EU to justify the lack of need for a register of interests with the argument that because they say we dont need it I'm not backing the idea.
ReplyDeleteRemember this is the same European Union that is mired in billions of pounds of fraud (annually) and is buckling under so much financial pressure and dumping its citizens on the street from Greece to Spain to Portugal courtesy of bankers,lawyers and the courts & judges who backed up these lunatic debts.
If anything this petition should also be sent to the European Parliament and Westminster and adopted immediately as a requirement of all judiciaries including those who sit on the European Court.
Scotland could become a model for transparency if this is adopted rather than having some judge argue against it.
Lord Gill was very ill advised to write such a letter and this is starting to remind me of Michael Martin and the Westminster expenses scandal.You all know what happened next http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5348954/MPs-expenses-Michael-Martin-to-stand-down.html
ReplyDeleteThe Judicial Oath, is taken by all judicial office holders, and requires judges to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.. MEANINGLESS WORDS.
ReplyDelete=================================
Oaths to protect the public are a crock of s**t. We know the only oath that is real are the unwritten unspoken lawyers oaths to lawyers. Also there is no complaints system and they fear transparency because they are a network off fanatically secretive criminals who want secrecy maintained to underpin their corrupt profitable organized crime syndicate.
To adapt a quote from the philosopher Thomas Hobbes they are a confederacy of deceivers who claim they provide access to justice, when the reality is they want to dominate the public for profit and then cast them aside where they are barred from legal redress.
Nothing this rotten can go unchallenged because criminals run our courts and profit from our misery. Only a Judicial Oaf would expect us to believe this garbage. Oaths are b******t. Lawyers care about clients the same as Hitler cared about the 6th Army at Stalingrad. No accountability means clients are superfluous.
Please someone explain to me how a judge with a criminal record can still pass themselves off as a judge?
ReplyDeleteThe greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
ReplyDeleteEdmund Burke
---------------------------------
Self regulation is a secret vile system designed to close the doors of justice to the victim and leave the perpetrator free to look for his next victim. Cyclical injustice.
Dear clients we did not agree to this because we were never consulted. They want to keep this imbalance of power because the greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse. Is a man obsessed by power fit to dictate to us? Never, he cannot prove their power does not result in abuse. Don't ask the lawyer or Lord Gill about how they use their domineering power, ask their victims about the consequences of that power.
Then you will learn to avoid them like the bubonic plague. Trust no lawyer.
As if the UK Supreme Court attitude to a reg of interests should be a model for an independent Scotland!
ReplyDeleteNotice people Lord Gill fails to mention anything about the Scottish judges with criminal records in his letter.Very sad indeed.Is there anyone in the justice system we can actually trust?
ReplyDeleteFound this story online and it is supposed to be in the Herald but not on their website any longer for obvious reasons I suppose
ReplyDeletePart one
Male, white, middle class, privately educated, Edinburgh resident, New Club member ... is it time to change the face of the Scottish judiciary?
INVESTIGATION: By Paul Hutcheon, Investigations Editor, and Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor
IT IS not often the heads of government and the courts come together in the same room in Scotland. The separation of political and judicial power, one of the mainstays of the nation's democracy, means the first minister and lord president are rarely in each other's company However, in the coming weeks, Alex Salmond will be legally obliged to confer with Lord Hamilton on the selection of three new judges.
Together, they will pore over a list sent to Salmond on Tuesday by the Judicial Appointments Board, recommending who should be awarded the scarlet robe, known colloquially at court as the "red jersey". Their decision will then be forwarded to the Queen for final approval.
The rarity of the encounter emphasises its importance, as judges are at the heart of Scotland's establishment. Their decisions not only reflect the civil and criminal law, they also contribute to it, establishing precedents that affect the lives of thousands.
In 2001, Lord Abernethy's acquittal of a student accused of rape because there was no evidence of force, despite the woman repeatedly saying no, threw the country's rape laws into chaos. Although a later review rejected this interpretation, it is only now that legislation is passing through Holyrood to reform Scotland's antiquated sexual offence laws.
Part two
ReplyDeleteYet in spite of their power, precious little is known of the men and women in wigs who earn some of the largest salaries in the public sector. On the eve of a momentous decision for Salmond and Scotland's legal system, a Sunday Herald investigation of the 35 judges in post on January 1 this year reveals the country's bench to be deeply unrepresentative of Scotland in terms of race, gender, and class.
While appointments must be made on merit - no-one would argue for incompetent judges - the investigation shows how the Scottish bench invites a perception that is a self-perpetuating and well-guarded clique likely to deter applicants with the "wrong" background.
Earlier this year, amid much media approval, three female Scottish judges made history by sitting together on the same civil case. What was less well publicised by the Scottish Court Service was that the trio constituted almost the entire female judiciary of the nation.
Only four women - Ladies Paton, Dorrian, Smith and Clark - wear the scarlet robe, compared with 31 men at the start of the year, a paltry 11%.
Other areas of public life, such as politics and less elite parts of the law, have managed to address equally striking gender inequality, but never the Scottish bench.
According to Sex And Power, an index produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, female appointments to the bench lag significantly behind other areas of public life. Women filled 32% of all public appointments in 2007-2008, covering 26% of all head-teacher posts in secondary schools and 21% of university principals. A third of MSPs are women.
In the law in Scotland, there has been progress in terms of women taking up the profession. Half of this autumn's trainee advocates are women, compared with one in 20 in the 1990s, but on present form, there is little prospect of this being mirrored on the bench. In the past six years, only two of the 14 judges appointed have been female.
The legal establishment's record in appointing ethnic minority judges is also poor, as not a single member of the bench is black or Asian, and two Jewish judges, Lord Caplan and Lady Cosgrove, have now retired.
"We need to work towards a truly representative judiciary," said a spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. "How many disabled people, people from the LGBT lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community or from different race or faith groups sit on the bench? What are the barriers that prevent these groups from progressing in our legal system? Our judiciary needs to become more reflective of Scottish society."
Part three
ReplyDeleteThe living arrangements of the 35 judges also point to a caste far removed from those appearing before them in the dock. Although the court of session, which hears civil and appeal cases, is in the capital, the high court, which hears the most serious criminal trials, moves around the country.
Yet public records show that 89% of the "senators of the College of Justice" live in the Lothians, 83% in the capital itself, and 71% in just four plush Edinburgh postcodes. Twelve judges, or 34%, live in the New Town area, and five in the Grange. Another five, or 14%, have an EH4 1 code, which covers the most affluent parts of Edinburgh's west end, while 8% stay in Trinity. Not a single judge lives in Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen or any other Scottish city.
The most recent Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, which two years ago divided the country into 6505 small neighbourhoods and ranked them according to poverty and affluence, confirms the extent to which the country's judges and their families are physically cut off from most of Scotland.
The second-least deprived neighbourhood in Scotland - area 6504 on the index - consists of a handful of streets and just under 800 people, but they include no less than five judges: Lords Carloway, Kingarth, Turnbull, Uist and Nimmo Smith all live within a few yards of each other in the west end of Edinburgh, near the Dean Bridge Two judges live three doors apart on Ann Street, regarded as the city's most desirable address. The average house price in area 6504 last year was £488,143 - more than three times the national average. The pattern is repeated across the judiciary.
The most affluent 1% of Scotland on the index is home to 13 judges, or 37% of the total. The richest 5% is home to 20 judges, or 57% of the bench. By contrast, the poorest 5% of Scotland's council wards produce 25% of the prison population.
Part four
ReplyDeleteWealth, of course, is a factor. On the lowest rung of the judicial pay ladder, remuneration for the 21 senators of the College of Justice currently sitting in the court of session's Outer House is £170,200. Above them, the 11 judges of the Inner House, who hear appeals, each earn £193,800.
The country's most senior judge, the lord president, earns £211,000, while his deputy, the lord justice clerk, earns £203,800. Lord McGhie, chair of the Scottish Land Court, who makes up the 35th member of Scotland's judiciary, is a relative pauper on £136,500. All told, the combined bill for judges' salaries this year will exceed £6 million.
A survey of the senators' schooling suggests judges have a similar upbringing, as well as similar tastes in property later in life. While only 4.5% of children in Scotland attend private schools, 71% of judges were educated in the independent sector. A third attended either George Watson's College, Edinburgh Academy or Glenalmond in Perthshire.
Sometimes the clubbishness is quite literal. Membership of the exclusive New Club, a lynchpin of the Edinburgh establishment, appears de rigeur amongst senators, with 43% of judges listed as members in Who's Who.
The patterns becomes even more vivid at the highest levels of the judiciary.
While four members of the 35-strong bench are female, only one woman currently sits in the Inner House, equivalent to 9% of the total. Similarly, while 71% of all judges live in just four Edinburgh postcode sectors, such as EH3 6 and EH4 1, the percentage jumps to 90% for the Inner House. Attendance at independent schools also increases for Inner House judges, from 71% to 82%.
part five (final)
ReplyDeleteThe creation in 2002 of the JAB, which advises ministers on the selection of judges, appears to have made little progress in modernising the bench. Set up to make the appointments system more transparent, the board's recommendations have helped appoint 14 judges. Of these fourteen, two (15%) are women - a slight improvement on the overall figure of 11% - while four (29%) attended state schools, the same figures for judges overall.
Both the board and the wider legal profession acknowledge that a problem exists. Neil Stevenson, head of diversity at the Law Society of Scotland, said: "It is vital that membership of the judiciary is diverse and reflects modern Scotland and that the system of appointing judges is open and transparent.
"The society is working with the JAB and others to examine the barriers that might exist - or that people perceive exist - about becoming a judge or sheriff. We want to ensure that Scottish solicitors are supported and encouraged to apply to become a judge, if that is their career choice."
It is against this backdrop that the three vacancies to the bench have taken on an added significance. Two of the vacancies are the result of recent deaths - Lord Macfadyen and Lord Johnston - while the third has arisen through the forthcoming retiral of Lord McEwan. Applications for a red jersey are supposed to be secret, but in the gossipy world of the Scottish legal system, a handful of favourites have already emerged.
These include Gordon Jackson, the former Labour MSP for Glasgow Govan, and the QCs Valerie Stacey and Paul Cullen. As Glasgow residents, Jackson and Stacey buck the trend for living in the capital - although both have houses in the exclusive Pollokshields area.
Cullen, a member of the New Club, lives in Edinburgh's Morningside. Another name being mentioned is sheriff Ian Peebles.
There is a growing consensus that increasing diversity on the bench is a worthwhile goal, although not everybody signs up to this ambition. Lord McCluskey, a retired judge, said he was sceptical of the arguments for diversity. "It isn't just a case of saying we should appoint three women to the bench," he said. "If I am going to be in hospital for an operation on my brain, I don't want the surgeon to be picked by reason of diversity. I don't want a one-eyed woman from Jamaica. Merit is the only consideration."
Scotland’s judiciary has already revealed a series of judges appear to be involved in OFFSHORE TAX AVOIDANCE schemes, associations with convicted criminals & organised crime, prostitution rackets, accepting hospitality & payments from well known corrupt solicitors representing dodgy law firms while others on the bench are engaging in questionable investments & duties which appear to be in conflict with their positions as members of the judiciary.
ReplyDelete==============================
This is why secrecy is their weapon, they belong in prison but make no mistake they are jailing people and are committing crimes self regulation hides. Scottish justice is a mockery.
Looks like you hit a raw never with this one,Peter.Good work!Now watch as the judges try to ditch all their tax fiddles and ill gotten gains before this register becomes a reality.You are going to have a field day with this one!
ReplyDeleteIn a sharp letter to MSP members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, the Lord President, Lord Gill condemned calls for greater transparency & public accountability of Scotland’s judiciary, and went on to attack proposals calling for judges to declare their interests, financial or pecuniary wealth, and other connections in a publicly available register as “misguided” and “naive”.
ReplyDeleteAn immature naive man indeed. He and his colleagues have had their own way for far too long. His attitude stinks and they cannot be honest when he wants a register struck out. A law unto themselves.
Just imagine what will happen to someone standing in front of Lord Gill when he says "declare your interests to the court" and the guy tells him to stuff it because he doesn't need to.
ReplyDeleteYes that's right my good sir,Lord Gill will say something like "For refusing to answer my question you are in contempt of court and off to jail until you decide otherwise"
This was in the Sunday Mail today and lots more apparently Gill has been summoned to the Parliament to explain why he is blocking the register of interests petition and the msps dont mince their words!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotlands-top-judge-summoned-appear-1753545
In comparison to New Zealand’s effort to ensure transparency in the judiciary, Scotland’s judges and the Scottish Government have, unsurprisingly backed away from any similar measures, even concealing criminal charges and convictions of Scottish judges, where in one case a Scottish judge was charged with fiddling benefits claims.
ReplyDeleteThey are all benefiting then. Politicians in on the act because the judiciary will not prosecute them. What a stitch up.
Stunning arrogance from a judge and enough to tell us there is something fundamentally wrong with how the courts operate amid this claimed independence of the judiciary and how they get away with writing their own rules for their own benefit.
ReplyDeletePut it this way Peter,your regular stories about crooked lawyers and corrupt regulation are shocking enough but this one really gets to the heart of the problems of Scotland's justice system.
A MATTER OF TRUST : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill attacks Scottish Parliament petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scots Judiciary
ReplyDelete===================================
Reeks of corruption. Honest men don't hide.
This letter of response mentions various pieces of legislation which to all intents and purposes is SELF-REGULATION and as such should be struck-out forthwith?
ReplyDeleteFurther, these pieces of legislation fundamentally fail to deal with the the most important question that is transparency?
They require that ALL TRUST is given to the conduct & actions of The Lord President, without him proving that he has attained the minimum standard required?
In fact, if he was of a mind to let-off a fellow Judge Scot-Free, then under these rules there is nothing to stop him from doing so and without the guarantee of transparency this system of self-regulation is incestuous and lends itself for easy corruptibility?
Either the Judges fully and completely agree to total transparency and a Register of Interests or they should be invited to join the Job Centre queue?
A possible question for the Committee to ask The Lord President is:
ReplyDeleteCan The Lord President explain to the Committee exactly how convicted criminals, who have shown a singular failure to demonstrate the ability to exercise good judgement and to abide by the law of the land can continue to draw a salary as a judge, paid for by the People and to explain how these criminals have not recused themselves (as by their actions they have shown that they do not meet the minimum standards of being a Judge) and have continued to act as if nothing has changed and have deceived the Public in doing so and have defeated the ends of Justice (i.e pretending that Judges are above the law)?
Now, that answer would be worth listening to...?
Is Lord Gill fit to be The Lord President of Scotland for failing to agree to PROVE that Scottish Judges actions are above reproach?
ReplyDeleteHow can he defend the indefensible?
What does he know and what has he got to hide?
You will notice in the 2011 regulations squeezed into existence by Lord Gill's predecessor that there is significant mention that where there is a conduct allegation against a Scottish Judge, as long as he resigns / is allowed to retire, then he is to be let-off Scot-Free?
You could not make this stuff up?
What do we expect when the Judges write their own rules that they have to comply with?
All judges no matter what country they are in should be declaring their interests in some kind of register and I am very surprised no one has talked about this until now although maybe this silence is because of the remarkable hostility this judge exhibits in his letter to your legislature.
ReplyDeleteOh well I am not surprised with the comments.After all who is going to support a judge who puts himself and his colleagues in the judiciary above the same rules the rest of us have to go by.Actually this whole thing is a complete scandal if you ask me and there should have been a register of judges interests years ago.Agree with everything said so far.
ReplyDeleteHelluva good blog you have here and I like how you publish the evidence to back up your investigations into these judges and lawyers.Honestly had no idea Scotland's justice system was as rotten as this!Now I know!
ReplyDeleteYes,arrogance beyond belief that letter is completely out of order and why cant he quote some home grown examples of no registers of interest instead of having to refer to some European waffle
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbe.org/IMG/pdf/Conflicts_of_interest_-_ABA_Position.pdf
ReplyDeleteSome good reading there for you about conflicts of interest and lawyers who if I remember correctly are supposed to declare any conflicts of interest to their clients.It should be no different for judges.Good luck with your legislation.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletePlease someone explain to me how a judge with a criminal record can still pass themselves off as a judge?
Simple his or her identity is kept secret. Secrecy is their weapon of domination. We are dealing with pompous twits who have their heads so jammed up their back ends they think how dare these plebs question us.
Gill is a man, not some judicial Leviathan, he is accountable to us because his decisions and actions affect us. Welcome to 2013 Brian get over it.
Lord President Lord Gill demands obedience from the public in court and for all we know he could be the convicted benefits fraudster. This situation beggars belief.
ReplyDelete'A Matter Of Trust'
ReplyDeleteExactly right.
This whole thing is about 'Trust' and if the actions of the Judiciary are consistent with them having the People's 'Trust'?
A wise man once said, you can demand respect but by doing so you will never COMMAND respect?
Are the Judges demanding respect or COMMANDING respect?
Are they continuing to hide criminals in their midst or do they have and demonstrate they have characters above reproach?
Me thinks this is an easy question?
Lord Gill we have right on our side.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLord President Lord Gill branded Scots justice Victorian & unfit for purpose, yet transparency of judges interests seems a step too far. THE SPECTACLE of a country’s most senior judge arguing against public expectations of transparency & accountability in the justice system and indeed public life, makes for an uncomfortable feeling that judges have something to hide.
================================
A compliment Lord Gill you are a public servant in a democracy. You are not a dictator who uses terror to control people. We have a right to know if you are above reproach, if your judicial power is legitimate. You have more power than politicians because the pubic have the vote. Secrecy will lead to more scrutiny. Perhaps your ideology is like the civil courts system in Scotland, not fit for purpose.
If we transferred the principles of controlling the judiciary [we currently have] to the political realm we would have dictatorship. You cannot be voted out of office and you want secrecy. This suggests you and your faction have much to hide. It is no longer acceptable.
10 March 2013 15:04
sssssssssssssssssssssss
IT IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE.
Go now. You have shat in your own nest by deceiving the Public who pay your vast wages?
"We need to work towards a truly representative judiciary," said a spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. "How many disabled people, people from the LGBT lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community or from different race or faith groups sit on the bench? What are the barriers that prevent these groups from progressing in our legal system? Our judiciary needs to become more reflective of Scottish society."
ReplyDelete10 March 2013 19:19
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
I would settle for a Scottish Judge regardless of race, creed or religion who had a character above reproach?
There is a growing consensus that increasing diversity on the bench is a worthwhile goal, although not everybody signs up to this ambition. Lord McCluskey, a retired judge, said he was sceptical of the arguments for diversity. "It isn't just a case of saying we should appoint three women to the bench," he said. "If I am going to be in hospital for an operation on my brain, I don't want the surgeon to be picked by reason of diversity. I don't want a one-eyed woman from Jamaica. Merit is the only consideration."
ReplyDelete10 March 2013 19:24
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech
Maybe if Scottish Judges WERE appointed on merit, we would have a lot that would not be convicted criminals, would not be protecting convicted criminals within their midst and would be happy to have a Register of their Interests and to be happy to be transparent?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJust imagine what will happen to someone standing in front of Lord Gill when he says "declare your interests to the court" and the guy tells him to stuff it because he doesn't need to.
Yes that's right my good sir,Lord Gill will say something like "For refusing to answer my question you are in contempt of court and off to jail until you decide otherwise"
10 March 2013 21:15
Dooooooooooooooooooh!
Could the reason they are against transparency be because those convicted criminal judges would be known to the Public and they would term this 'not to be in the Public Interest' (which means it would be wrong for the Public to know what they were getting up to) because when a convicted criminal judge sentences someone to jail, the condemned person shouts back at the Judge, 'You are the bloody criminal' and this is what they do not want as a) this would upset them, and b) this would mean they would get the sack and would have to pay back all of the money they had stolen from the tax-payer for continuing to pass themselves off as a judge?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteStunning arrogance from a judge and enough to tell us there is something fundamentally wrong with how the courts operate amid this claimed independence of the judiciary and how they get away with writing their own rules for their own benefit.
Put it this way Peter,your regular stories about crooked lawyers and corrupt regulation are shocking enough but this one really gets to the heart of the problems of Scotland's justice system.
10 March 2013 22:05
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffu##ers
Let us not forget the crooked Crown Office and the evil Law Society of Scotland?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAll judges no matter what country they are in should be declaring their interests in some kind of register and I am very surprised no one has talked about this until now although maybe this silence is because of the remarkable hostility this judge exhibits in his letter to your legislature.
10 March 2013 22:44
-----------------------------
I am shocked and stunned.
I presumed that Scottish judges had to already do this?
When are our police going to grasp the Scottish Thistle and rid Scotland of these parasites?
ReplyDeleteScotland, the most corrupt small country in the World?
I was a fervent supporter of the SNP and the right for Scottish People to determine their own state but I have completely changed my mind as Scotland seems to be run by a corrupt few and our Government is in league with them and only pay lip-service to us Scots?
ReplyDeleteI do not understand how Lord Gill can allow convicted Judges to continue to work as if nothing has changed?
ReplyDeleteThese judges are supposed to know the difference between right and wrong and it is this sole fact that qualifies them to be able to pass judgment on others?
This is the same kind of corrupt thinking as those criminals who gave Jimmy Savile the keys to the wards for his after hours rounds?
What the Public don't know they cannot use against us?
So, when he was not in POWER, he recommends a complete overhaul of Scotland's judicial systems, describing it as Victorian and not fit for purpose?
ReplyDeleteThen, when he get's the TOP JOB, everything is fine, nothing to see hear, please move along....?
Transparent?
Should anyone really be surprised a Scottish judge (the most senior one at that) comes up with an attack like this against a call for transparency?
ReplyDeleteLockerbie et all comes to mind and the words of the UN Observer who said we have a banana republic justice system.He was spot on with that phrase because this is the kind of thing we accuse foreign countries of and think we are better.Turns out not!
Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill attacks Scottish Parliament petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scots Judiciary.
ReplyDeleteA Judge especially in this position is out of touch because the public are now sick of a profession who constantly break the law. And they do this because the Law Society, Crown Office don't prosecute. We have a legal system that uses difference to prosecute members of the public and clear lawyers. It is like Lord Gill marking his own exam papers, a political therefore corrupt legal system in Scotland.
'The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences. [IT WOULD MAKE IT HARDER TO SWING CASES IN FAVOUR OF INSURERS] Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy [AND PRIVACY TO AVOID PAYING TAX] and freedom from harassment [Tugenhst used the harassment to close Solicitors from Hell] by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. [YOUR FREEDOM TO DOMINATE MUST MEAN OUR FREEDOM TO INVESTIGATE.
ReplyDeleteYes I heard about this and the fact the LP's letter overkill has backfired big time.
ReplyDeleteThink of it this way Mr Cherbi.
You must be seen as an incredible threat to even the judges themselves for a man in such a position as Lord Gill to come out with a letter like this and use what I would call a few lines of intemperate language.Presuming of course he wrote the letter himself as his signature seems to be missing unless it has been redacted.To be honest Gill's letter looks as if it is missing a last page although I checked your links and yours is the exact same version on the Scottish Parliament website.Perhaps his last few lines were over the top or something else?Worth checking out if you are able to.
What is the big fuss about?There are plenty registers of interest around already so why should the judges be exempt from doing the same.
ReplyDeleteI think Gill's attitude and I suspect most of his peers boils down to them having clearly got used to having it their own way for too long.
The Judicial Oath, is taken by all judicial office holders, and requires judges to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will..
ReplyDelete===================================
Oaths have no validity, a secret promise which is no promise at all.
More of the "Do as I say not as I do" culture from judges who elevate themselves above their real place in life.If Gill is worried about hostile individuals he doesn't need to look far because some of his own colleagues on the bench can be very aggressive in court when it pleases them.
ReplyDeleteA previous comment suggests a comparison between Lord Gill and this petition and Michael Martin's role as Speaker at Westminster during the expenses scandal.This is a fair comparison given the strength of Lord Gill's objections to what is after all a call for transparency within a judiciary who foist their varying versions of transparency upon the rest of us whether we like it or not.
ReplyDeleteHmm nasty!
ReplyDeleteI think the judge overreacted a bit but the benefit to you is people are going to see this and ask what the hell is going on in the judiciary.
Also that long story someone posted from the Herald (funny how it is now deleted from the herald website!) you can obviously see the problem here is the judges declaring their wealth and connections.
There must be a lot to hide on this one and you better watch out mate because these people have the power and will stop at nothing to protect their secrets.You wont be the first person to have an accident or something worse when some big scandal comes along and threatens to reveal a lot of dirt.
layman said...
ReplyDeleteTo be honest Gill's letter looks as if it is missing a last page although I checked your links and yours is the exact same version on the Scottish Parliament website.Perhaps his last few lines were over the top or something else?Worth checking out if you are able to.
11 March 2013 10:28
Now you mention it I have also checked and cant see Gill's signature anywhere although the letter is obviously from his office.
Could it be someone else wrote it for him or there is another reason he did not sign it or as you say there may have been something he did not want published?
Very fishy not to put your signature to such a strong almost dictatorial letter am not happy about this at all and hope the msps get to the bottom of it and get this register of interests for the judges started asap
Crazy letter bound to trip him up.What was he thinking?
ReplyDeleteIs it not crystal clear that The Lord President's judgement has been harpooned and that the Scottish Judiciary are playing out a cult which is no longer serving the Scottish People but has been twisted through unabated power and greed so that the only people they serve is themselves?
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of Moby's?
Sometimes the clubbishness is quite literal. Membership of the exclusive New Club, a lynchpin of the Edinburgh establishment, appears de rigeur amongst senators, with 43% of judges listed as members in Who's Who.
ReplyDelete++++++++++++++++++++++
Is this the same 'New Club' where it was reported that a number of Scottish judges each bet a £1 with each other in a competition to see who could get away with the most utterly corrupt Decision over the year........?
That's it, I am emigrating and leaving this rotten and corrupt country!
ReplyDeletelayman said...
ReplyDeleteYes I heard about this and the fact the LP's letter overkill has backfired big time.
Think of it this way Mr Cherbi.
You must be seen as an incredible threat to even the judges themselves for a man in such a position as Lord Gill to come out with a letter like this and use what I would call a few lines of intemperate language.Presuming of course he wrote the letter himself as his signature seems to be missing unless it has been redacted.To be honest Gill's letter looks as if it is missing a last page although I checked your links and yours is the exact same version on the Scottish Parliament website.Perhaps his last few lines were over the top or something else?Worth checking out if you are able to.
11 March 2013 10:28
--------------------------------
You are right.
There is a page/pages of this letter missing?
I wonder what he went onto say?
Whatever it was he has obviously hurriedly acted to prevent its publication?
Very worrying indeed?
I would love to hear The Lord President explain to the Scottish People, when exactly did Scottish Judges stop protecting the rights of the Scottish People and instead were only concerned with their own importance and their own fat wallet?
ReplyDeleteI have just finished reading page one of the LadyBird book of elementary justice in Scotland and it says that it is unlawful and against the human rights of the Scottish People to have criminals passing themselves of as Judges?
ReplyDeleteGo figure!
What have an unknown number of Scottish Judges got in common with Fred West, Harold Shipman, Peter Sucliffe and the Moors Murderers?
ReplyDeleteYep, that is right........they are all convicted criminals?
They have also ALL shown that they do not know right from wrong and have a warped sense of Judgement?
What is the difference between some Scottish Judges and Megrahi?
ReplyDeleteMegrahi was wrongly convicted by a Scottish Court?
I wonder if any of those Judges who reached this subversive Decision against Megrahi were convicted criminals?
So apparently you are misguided,naive, have many misconceptions about judges and are incorrect they need to have a register of interests.
ReplyDeleteWell.We definitely need to get this passed via Parliament as quickly as possible because with that list of insults you can be sure there clearly is something being hidden by these judges and they are desperately afraid of it getting out.
You have rattled someone's cage that's for sure!
Dont forget to raise the issue of the Speculative Society http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/feb/19/ukcrime.humanrights
ReplyDeleteWhile some say this secret society is all harmless fun there are people involved in it who compare it to 'Think Tanks' used by mainly Conservative Governments to take an unpopular issue and make the public believe it to be the best way forward.
Downright sinister is what I would call them and the amount of money floating around these secret societies would turn heads if truly exposed.
I have looked at this letter from Lord Gill and also wonder if it is published as complete.Surely Gill would have concluded no register need exist (although he said many times throughout the three pages) then signed the letter at the end as Lord President.There does seem to be a sudden cut off in the last paragraph and looking at it and the comments here the length of the letter and content should be verified by someone if possible.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI have looked at this letter from Lord Gill and also wonder if it is published as complete.Surely Gill would have concluded no register need exist (although he said many times throughout the three pages) then signed the letter at the end as Lord President.There does seem to be a sudden cut off in the last paragraph and looking at it and the comments here the length of the letter and content should be verified by someone if possible.
11 March 2013 23:25
Maybe something so bad in it his secretary decided to tear it out before sending it to the parliament!
http://www.cdrex.com/the-right-honourable-lord-brian-gill/2200922.html may as well declare this since it is already online
ReplyDeleteBy his own words and such strong resistance to transparency Lord Gill has wiped out any remaining credibility or legitimacy of the Scots judiciary and legal system.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cdrex.com/the-right-honourable-lord-brian-gill/2200922.html may as well declare this since it is already online
12 March 2013 01:21
This link lists some charities Lord Gill is a director of.
So why is the man so against a register of interests when at least some of the information that should be in a register is available on the internet?
Would it not be better to have a properly constituted register of interests as Peter is looking for so that the information is verified and maintained under some kind of rules structure instead of having lots of websites publish this kind of material under different guises?
I hope the Scottish Parliament are taking note of this because as far as I can see there is no reason Gill or the rest of the judges can refuse to complete a register of interests under these circumstances.
12 March 2013 12:52
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say and also this is very important and basically knock's Gill's arguments to keep these things secret out of the box.
Gill's letter sounds even worse now we can find out at least some of this information on the web.I'm sure even he must agree its better to have it all in one place and published by the judges instead of having it dished around the internet unless of course they want it that way so its hard to find.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteScotland’s top judge Lord Gill attacks Scottish Parliament petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scots Judiciary.
A Judge especially in this position is out of touch because the public are now sick of a profession who constantly break the law. And they do this because the Law Society, Crown Office don't prosecute. We have a legal system that uses difference to prosecute members of the public and clear lawyers. It is like Lord Gill marking his own exam papers, a political therefore corrupt legal system in Scotland.
11 March 2013 10:03
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Many already think the political Law Society of Scotland and the political Crown Office are holding either ends of the skipping rope, with the Scottish Government being dictated to jump to their every whim in the middle?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCrazy letter bound to trip him up.What was he thinking?
11 March 2013 19:03
hhooolllyyyycccrrraaaappppp
Maybe, that he is above the law of the land?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo apparently you are misguided,naive, have many misconceptions about judges and are incorrect they need to have a register of interests.
Well.We definitely need to get this passed via Parliament as quickly as possible because with that list of insults you can be sure there clearly is something being hidden by these judges and they are desperately afraid of it getting out.
You have rattled someone's cage that's for sure!
11 March 2013 22:09
wewwewewewewewewewewew
The sneering and contemptible way the Judge wrote the letter was not missed?
It was clearly meant as a great insult to one of Scotland's finest sons - The self effacing foot-soldier against tyranny, the eloquent and courageous Peter Cherbi of A Diary Of Injustice In Scotland?
Shame on you Gill?
You should be heralding Peter Cherbi as a champion of the Scottish People and the fact that you are not says it all, doesn't it?
You can just tell from the attitude of these judges how they feel about the rest of us (in other words we dont have the right to exist or criticise them)
ReplyDeletePut it this way if this lot were on the Titanic they would requisition all the lifeboats for themselves, assign one judge to each boat and order those in the water to push it along so m'luds avoid the strenuous exertion of rowing a boat and having to declare it later on.
People only react like the Judge has in his letter when there is a great deal to hide.We all know this from all the scandals day in day out we have to put up with.Clearly there is much to hide and from reading that Herald story it is definitely about money and wealth.What's the matter m'lords?We all know you lot have a few houses each and money coming out of your ears,so why not declare it like the rest of us have to otherwise when we dont you call us tax cheats and send us to jail.What's so special about judges?nothing,that's what other than they are writing up their own oaths and rubbish rules that allow them to dodge what they like when they like.The game is up Lord Gill.Come clean along with all your judiciary.
ReplyDeleteYes quite the guy for openness isn't he.This is a really shocking attitude from a judge.Actually very sad because it is confirmation our justice system is little more than a front for the powers that be rather than all that rubbish about access to justice we always get thrown at us mere plebs.
ReplyDeleteOh yes now we are getting to the truth about the courts which is - Expect justice on our terms not yours and do not expect to question who we are what we do and how we do it.
ReplyDeleteWith this kind of attitude from the top judge himself,in his own words,I imagine a lot of people are now feeling vindicated over their claims the Scottish justice system is a standing joke, a banana republic or just a plain old fraud.
Question = Why does a country's top judge go on the offensive when he and his colleagues are asked to fill in a register of interests ?
ReplyDeleteAnswer = Too much to hide.
This is a classic case of those who set themselves apart from the rest of us utter contempt for public opinion.
Who on earth believes this Lord Gill when he says it is impossible for a judge to list all their interests?
ReplyDeleteHow does everyone else manage to do it yet judges cant or more like wont..
So Lord Gill can only rely on the arrogance of the UK Supreme Court judges who refuse to be a part of a register of interests (yet seem to have been in one when they were in the House of Lairds) and the dodgy EU who must have come up with that wording after a Friday night drinking session.
ReplyDeleteJust goes to show the judges have learned nothing from Lockerbie and everything else since.Arrogance at its finest and no one need wonder now why Scots justice is so backward and corrupt as Gill has answered all these points and some of his own, himself.
Yeah we better hide the identity of a judge who is a benefits cheat instead of putting out some long press release giving his name age and d.o.b.
ReplyDeleteThe only kind of people who respect those who hide from transparency are crooks and the corrupt.
# Anonymous @ 12 March 2013 12:52
ReplyDeleteWas aware of this but thanks anyway and you do make a good point ...
Agreed.Gill's reaction is indicative of too many secrets and the will to preserve the present system where judges can say what they like without recourse or it seems recusing themselves when necessary.
ReplyDeleteand just think what these judges will get up to in an independent Scotland where Salmond now wants to muzzle the press!
ReplyDeleteVery worrying that a man and his colleagues who have so much power over the rest of society will react in this way just over a register of interests.Clearly the instinct of self protection has kicked in once again but in writing the letter in such terms Lord Gill has negated any platform of trust for the judiciary in the future.
ReplyDeleteIs it true that the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office are bringing out a new App priced £0.49 as a charm offensive to try to let Scotland's People learn all about their work and to properly understand them?
ReplyDeleteIt is to be called The Crims and they are hopeful it will sell well and lead to a worldwide franchise of their collective brand name?
Doh!
Newsflash from the Court Of Session Petitions Department...?
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that The Cosa Nostra are preparing to serve a writ on the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office for bringing gangster's name into disrepute?
This is a view shared and supported by the Justices of the Supreme Court who have publicly stated 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 believe to be compete, could potentially be misleading.
ReplyDeleteWhat a feeble excuse coming from a judge.Clearly there is much to hide and potentially a lot of corruption going on within the judiciary.They have basically confirmed this with their own stance on the issue.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWho on earth believes this Lord Gill when he says it is impossible for a judge to list all their interests?
How does everyone else manage to do it yet judges cant or more like wont..
14 March 2013 21:43
Cvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvc
He has put his very judgement under scrutiny and has not come out very well?
What does that say about his judgement and ability to judge?
The judge is upset because he knows there are secrets in the judiciary which need to be published..
ReplyDeleteThis is by far the most arrogant and condescending letter I have ever read coming out of a judge.Who the heck does this guy think he is and why is this even being debated?
ReplyDeleteA register of interests for judges must be made law and published immediately if there is to be any confidence in the decisions taken by these people.
A very odd letter coming from a country's Chief Justice.
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone should tell him its Scotland not North Korean.
Be very careful
ReplyDeleteYou are a brave journalist for investigating judges
You should also be well aware these people are utterly ruthless and will use the law and all its power to defeat anyone who exposes corruption in the judiciary
This letter has been written by someone who is absolutely against what you are doing and it would not surprise me if Scottish judges try to do something against you to shut you up or even have you murdered
I am sure it has happened before in other countries so who is to say it cannot happen in Scotland when the people holding such power feel threatened their secrets will be revealed
Stay safe my friend you are an inspiration
Difficult to believe a judge can be so stupid and argue in such dangerous terms against a register of interests for themselves while enforcing the laws on those who are already required to declare.
ReplyDelete