Scottish Parliament will hear evidence on register of judge’s interests after summer recess. MSPs from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee made it clear at last Tuesday’s committee meeting they still want to hear from Scotland’s top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill who has so far been reluctant to attend Holyrood to discuss issues of judicial transparency raised in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
The move by members of the Petitions Committee who have also decided to hear evidence in public sessions from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), Moi Ali, comes after the Lord President refused to appear before MSPs to explain his vociferous opposition to the proposal seeking to create greater transparency in the judiciary.
During last Tuesday’s meeting at Holyrood, Chic Brodie MSP, the Deputy Convener of the Petitions Committee spoke on the issues of transparency in relation Lord Gill’s refusals to accept invitations from the Petitions Committee to attend the Parliament and speak on the matter.
Chic Brodie said : “We are looking for openness and transparency, but the Lord President has chosen not to attend to explain why there should not be a register of interests for judges, as there is for members of Parliament, members of the Scottish Police Authority and so on.”
The Deputy Convener also drew attention to the fact that Lord Gill was being selective in which Parliamentary Committees he attends.
Mr Brodie said : “I recently attended the Justice Committee to talk about changes to the Scottish Court Service; it is somewhat paradoxical that the Lord President was happy to go along to that committee to explain?or not to explain, as the case may be?the rationale behind those changes.”
Commenting further on Lord Gill’s terse opposition to the petition and refusal to provide answers to questions from members of the Petitions Committee, MSP Jackson Carlaw said : “Lord Gill’s response, which took us to something of an impasse from our point of view, was, “It’s not happening down south, and neither I nor anybody else has any intention of doing it, so get your tanks off my vested-interest lawn.”
Mr Carlaw also agreed that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, be invited to attend an evidence session to speak to MSPs on the merits of a register of interests for the judiciary.
Agreeing with Jackson Carlaw, John Wilson MSP also raised the possibility Lord Gill should reconsider his earlier refusals to attend the Petitions Committee after MSPs have heard from Moi Ali.
Mr Wilson went on to comment on the Lord President’s position regarding the Scotland Act, pointing out the issues being dealt with in the petition did not relate to decisions taken by judges in court, rather it related to the administration of the judiciary where it is the position of the petitioner that Parliament should have the right to speak to judges on these subjects.
John Wilson MSP said : “I hope that, once we have heard that evidence, Lord Gill might reconsider his position in relation to section 23(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. Basically, my interpretation is that Parliament and its committees cannot call judges or sheriffs to give evidence on and to be accountable for judicial decisions that they have made, but the petitioner’s main point is that we should hear from Lord Gill in his role as the Lord President, which involves overseeing the judiciary.”
The discussion on Petition 1458 drew to a close with the Committee agreeing to invite the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence at a future meeting. The Committee also agreed to write to Dr Kennedy Graham MP of the New Zealand Green party. Dr Graham’s bill for a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges in New Zealand, helped in-part inspire Petition 1458.
Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali has already voiced her support for the proposal in a letter to MSPs, reported by Diary of Injustice here : ‘Better Transparency would enhance Judiciary’ as Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer issues support for Register of interests for judges
Full video coverage & transcript of the Public Petitions Committee’s discussion of Petition 1458 :
Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scottish Judiciary 25 June 2013 Scottish Parliament (Click image to watch video)
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)
Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener) : PE1458 is on a register of interests for members of the judiciary. Recommendations for action that the committee might wish to take are included in the papers. One is to invite Moi Ali, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, to give evidence to the committee at a future meeting. We could also take any other action that we consider appropriate.
Before I make any personal comment, I seek the views of members of the committee.
Previously, the committee decided that there was no further purpose in pursuing the Lord President. I pointed out that the Government appointed JCR had particularly strong views on the matter and said that, although the Lord President wants to talk only about the constitutional principle, that principle needs to be seen in the light of potential constitutional changes. The view was that we should seek to close off the petition with the Lord President.
However, I certainly recommend that we get Moi Ali in here to hear her views.
Jackson Carlaw MSP: I agree. I thought that we had reached something of an impasse. When I saw the support for the proposal from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer?an appointment that was established under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008?I felt that, given that the weight of evidence so far from the establishment has been of one colour, it would be interesting to hear why the Judicial Complaints Reviewer takes a different view.
Malcolm Chisholm MSP: I have not been involved in the petition, so I would really like to ask a question. I have read Lord Gill’s view of judicial independence in relation to attending the committee and answering questions. Are his and others’ objections to the register based on the same principle of judicial independence, or are they not really to do with that at all? I do not know whether anyone can answer that, but it seems to me that the petition raises interesting general questions about the line between judicial independence and accountability and political oversight. In part, that relates to an issue about judicial independence that I raised in last week’s debate in Parliament on the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill. I am curious about the issue.
Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener): The view that was taken was that there are other mechanisms and checks and balances, such as recusal, that secure the independence of the judiciary without exposing judges to what would be seen as a breach of the Scotland Act 1998 in performing their role.
Malcolm Chisholm MSP: So the issue is about a register that would affect judicial independence, rather than just about the Lord President appearing here to answer questions. Is that what you are saying?
Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener): That is the difficulty and the reason why we are struggling. We are looking for openness and transparency, but the Lord President has chosen not to attend to explain why there should not be a register of interests for judges, as there is for members of Parliament, members of the Scottish Police Authority and so on. That is his view.
Jackson Carlaw MSP: Lord Gill’s response, which took us to something of an impasse from our point of view, was, “It’s not happening down south, and neither I nor anybody else has any intention of doing it, so get your tanks off my vested-interest lawn.” We were unable to find a way to break through that, but the information that we have received from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer potentially offers us an interesting extension of the discussion. However, I do not think that the issue that the petitioner raised has ever been properly and fully addressed, beyond the Lord President saying that he does not think that a register is necessary and, surprisingly, neither does anybody else who is currently employed in the profession.
John Wilson MSP: I agree with Jackson Carlaw. Given the interesting comments in the response from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, it would serve a purpose to invite her to give evidence to the committee. I hope that, once we have heard that evidence, Lord Gill might reconsider his position in relation to section 23(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. Basically, my interpretation is that Parliament and its committees cannot call judges or sheriffs to give evidence on and to be accountable for judicial decisions that they have made, but the petitioner’s main point is that we should hear from Lord Gill in his role as the Lord President, which involves overseeing the judiciary.
I hope that Lord Gill might reconsider his position in the light of the fact that we are to take further evidence. I hope that that evidence will draw out other issues that are relevant to our deliberations. I support Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion to take evidence from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.
Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener): Okay. We will invite Moi Ali to give evidence.
I recently attended the Justice Committee to talk about changes to the Scottish Court Service; it is somewhat paradoxical that the Lord President was happy to go along to that committee to explain?or not to explain, as the case may be?the rationale behind those changes.
Do members have any other comments?
Jim Eadie MSP: I just want to reinforce Mr Carlaw’s and Mr Wilson’s points. Notwithstanding the points that the Lord President made in his letter to the convener that judges cannot be compelled under the Scotland Act 1998 to appear before committees of the Parliament, I note the statement in that letter that“a register of interests for the judiciary is both unnecessary and unworkable.”
It would have been beneficial if the committee had been able to hear oral evidence from the Lord President about why he thinks that that is the case. Like John Wilson, I hope that the Lord President will reconsider that. However, I certainly endorse the view that we should hear further evidence from other expert witnesses.
Angus MacDonald MSP: I draw the committee’s attention to the petitioner’s letter, in which he asks the committee to approach a Green Party member of the New Zealand Parliament, Dr Kennedy Graham, who is currently putting his Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill through that Parliament. We could approach Dr Graham to ask for his views.
Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener): We can e-mail Dr Graham, but we will need to ask him very specific questions. I do not think that there is any harm in that but, as the clerk has just pointed out to me and as the correspondence makes clear, the suggestion is that the New Zealand Government is intending to move in the direction of recusal. Should I formulate some questions and just zap them around everyone?
Angus MacDonald: That would be fine, convener.
Jim Eadie MSP: I do not think that we should rule out a future evidence session involving experts from furth of Scotland. When the Health and Sport Committee considered minimum unit pricing of alcohol, it benefited greatly from evidence from Canadian experts?notwithstanding the time difference between the two countries.
Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener): I thought that you were going to suggest that we go out there to speak to them.We have covered the position.
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary filed by law journalist Peter Cherbi calls on the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a requirement that all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.
Previous articles from Diary of Injustice including video footage of the Petitions Committee meetings and further information on the drive to create a register of interests for Scotland’s judiciary can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Ha! I bet Lord Gill loves the anti transparency tag which he certainly deserves.
ReplyDeleteWell done,very good debate and good to see our msps standing up to the closed courts.Looking forward to more reports of the evidence hearings.
ReplyDeletenot fit to be a judge if he is so anti transparency
ReplyDeleteLord NONO and his pals on the bench must have lots to hide!
ReplyDeleteJohn Wilson has a very good handle on your petition regarding Lord Gill's misuse of the Scotland Act.
ReplyDeleteBut surely all in the committee must be wondering just like us why Lord Gill is so hostile to such a simple question about the interests of the judges.
My opinion is the judges are playing for time while they dump their ill gotten gains or hand it to their families.I really do not think there is any other explanation because what Gill has effectively done is discredit the entire judiciary by refusing to appear in front of the msps.
Keep up the pressure!
Clearly he is the Lord President of difference because he is happy to be questioned and or give opinion on the Scottish Courts but don't ask about pecuniary interests. Says it all really.
ReplyDeleteHe will be mega annoyed by DOI, good on you.
How can anyone trust a judge who argues against transparency and more to the point how can anyone trust any of his judicial colleagues as none have come forward and dissented from the party line.As far as I am concerned there is enough evidence already to make this register a requirement in law and should be done without any more delay.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is ALL about the perception of the Rule of Law in Scotland, Accountability and Vested Interests?
ReplyDeleteThe MSP's are perfectly correct about the terms of the Scotland Act, where they cannot call a Scottish Judge's Legal Decision (as a result of a court dispute) into question, as quite rightly Judges must be separate from Political Interference to prevent huge corruptions of Justice like the Megrahi cover-up scandal from taking place (Scotland's Shame)?
However, there is a huge difference between a Judges opinion and a Judges Legal Decision and it is clear that Lord Gill has acted as if these two different instances are one and the same?
This betrays the thought process of The Lord President as he has obviously become accustomed himself to the belief that his every spoken word must be treated with fear and trembling and that everything he says is The Word?
i.e. he clearly believes that he,The Man, is omnipotent and that everything he says should be adopted without question and without people questioning his opinion or actions? (The words of a man who believes that he is UNACCOUNTABLE and who believes that as a Scottish Judge, this alone makes him untouchable and out of reach of the law)?
Accountability and Transparency have NO VETO and the sooner The Lord President is reminded of that the better?
After all, Lord Gill is asking for the Scottish People to take his WORD for it, or take one of his colleague judges WORD for it, that they would recuse themselves (i.e that they be the sole person deciding and that they should be trusted based solely on their word or conscience)
This is the exact OPPOSITE OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY and it is a worrying indictment of the Judgment of Scottish Judges that they still don't get-it?
Especially when balanced against the fact that Scottish Judges are pretending to be fit to practise, after being convicted criminals (i.e. they have demonstrated a flagrant disregard to the laws of the land and consequently proven by virtue of their convictions that their Judgment and morality cannot be relied upon and certainly not as a Judge)?
A Register of Judges Interests is not unworkable, Gill does not want any scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteVery good points in your petition and you know exactly what kind of questions to be asked as well as getting this debate in your parliament.
ReplyDeleteGreat work!
You should be on Channel 4 Dispatches or they should be onto this story about the judges.If all this has been happening in Scotland with your own judiciary you can bank on the same being the case in England & Wales.
ReplyDeleteLord Gill is clearly an intelligent man and no doubt has known all along that his reliance on the Scotland Act was invalid.
ReplyDeleteThe question is of course, why did he choose to misrepresent it in this way?
In reply to the comment of 2 July 2013 19:49, true, the judges may well be playing for time while they dump their ill gotten gains.
ReplyDeleteHowever another reason may well be that Lord Gill knows he can not rely on his colleagues to be truthful with him regarding any hidden assets and relationships giving rise to the potential for conflicts of interests.
Has Lord Gill not made his own position untenable by taking up a stance that he cannot even justify or defend?
ReplyDeleteHis huffiness in not continuing to appear before the Public Petitions Committee, whilst appearing before other Parliamentary Committees, then trying to conflate the reason for doing so with the Scotland Act, shows his contempt for the MSP's and the Scottish Public?
Scotland needs a new forward thinking Lord President who embraces the true meaning of Justice (not what it has come to be in Scotland) & Transparency rather than the dinosaur incumbent who is stuck in the past, has no grip of reality and who's judgement is in question in choosing to keep secret the fact that several of his Judges are convicted criminals who's judgement cannot be relied upon and he has resorted to pettiness about which Committee he will appear before?
ReplyDeleteScotland surely deserves better?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLord Gill is clearly an intelligent man and no doubt has known all along that his reliance on the Scotland Act was invalid.
The question is of course, why did he choose to misrepresent it in this way?
3 July 2013 11:23
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Yes because he is stuck in the past and has become to people jumping to his every demand?
Total bollox!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteYou should be on Channel 4 Dispatches or they should be onto this story about the judges.If all this has been happening in Scotland with your own judiciary you can bank on the same being the case in England & Wales.
3 July 2013 11:19
I agree - this is a national problem not just in Scotland and its high time the media took notice instead of being subdued by their own lawyers (many of whom have a vested interest keeping the debate quiet because they hope to end up as judges someday)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/judges-called-on-to-register-their-gifts.21143914
ReplyDeleteJudges called on to register their gifts
Paul Hutcheon
Investigations Editor
Sunday 9 June 2013
SCOTTISH judges are being called on to register any gifts and hospitality they receive, after it emerged that ordinary court service staff are compelled to declare the presents they receive from solicitors and QCs.
The Sunday Herald has learned that court clerks and other officials have declared around 500 gifts and examples of hospitality in the last six years, most of which are from legal firms, yet members of the judiciary are under no such obligation.
Leading QC John Scott said the introduction of a voluntary register was a "good idea".
The Lord President, Lord Gill, last week sparked controversy by snubbing a parliamentary committee's request for oral evidence on a potential judicial register of interest.
MSPs wanted to ask Lord Gill about a proposal that would result in members of the judiciary having to declare outside financial interests, such as shareholdings, but the country's top judge refused on the grounds of "constitutional principle".
However, the Sunday Herald has learned judges and sheriffs do not even have to register any gifts they have taken, a basic disclosure requirement for other public servants.
The lack of accountability contrasts with the stringent rules for the Scottish Court Service (SCS) staff who work with judges and sheriffs.
Figures obtained by this newspaper reveal court employees regularly receive presents from the legal firms and lawyers who use the system.
Between April 2008 and March this year, around 500 gifts and examples of hospitality were declared.
Treats were given to sheriff clerks, who manage the sheriff courts, to be distributed among staff. Individual gifts included 21 bottles of Lanson champagne, Chanel perfume and Marks & Spencer gift vouchers.
A "trip in a light plane" for a senior court official was also recorded, while a solicitor paid a ￡25 parking charge for a sheriff clerk. Football tickets were also offered, and accepted.
In 2010, the SCS became concerned about whether staff failed to register gifts. An external probe was launched, undertaken by former Accountant in Bankruptcy chief executive Gillian Thompson. It included interviews with 147 staff and focused on compliance.
According to the report, the majority of staff acknowledged "accepting gifts could be perceived by others to compromise their neutrality".
Although Thompson did not find any breaches of the rules, she recommended the SCS tighten its policy.
As a result, the court service ruled that all gifts worth less than ￡15 must be recorded, while presents above this value must also be approved by senior staff before being accepted.
But members of the judiciary are not governed by a registration rule.
John Scott QC, a partner in Capital Defence Lawyers, said: "A voluntary register of gifts and hospitality might be a good idea."
A Judicial Office for Scotland spokeswoman said: "There is no register for gifts and hospitality for the same reason that there is no register of interests. Judicial office-holders are bound by their oath and subject to the guidance contained in the Principles of Judicial Ethics."
In response to the Herald lap dog........now we are expected to accept a VOLUNTARY Register?
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of codswollop!
If Scottish court staff are accepting perquisites, as Public Servants, then they are obviously showing by their actions that they are not neutral, as their job description requires?
There needs to be an urgent overhaul of the Scottish Courts System & Justice in Scotland because this slide towards corruption has spread too far?
How can we have a voluntary Register of Interests when the problem is that the Judges et al's own Judgement is being questioned?
This is just the most stupid thing I have ever heard of?
These creeps need to understand that they are there to serve the Public and not to stuff handfuls of cash down their boots?
All staff who take perquisites should be disciplined or sacked on the spot?
What is wrong with this country have standards slipped so much?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
You should be on Channel 4 Dispatches or they should be onto this story about the judges.If all this has been happening in Scotland with your own judiciary you can bank on the same being the case in England & Wales.
3 July 2013 11:19
I agree - this is a national problem not just in Scotland and its high time the media took notice instead of being subdued by their own lawyers (many of whom have a vested interest keeping the debate quiet because they hope to end up as judges someday)
3 July 2013 15:57
Yep I agree how about we all start putting this story about if the tv are going to keep ignoring it. I reckon Cherbi has hit on one of or maybe they holy grail of how the judges and their brethren keep themselves in business because there is deffo a lot of money involved in these undeclared interests and the top judge is not going out on a limb against transparency just for the odd fiver out of place.
Herald story :
ReplyDelete"Between April 2008 and March this year, around 500 gifts and examples of hospitality were declared.
Treats were given to sheriff clerks, who manage the sheriff courts, to be distributed among staff. Individual gifts included 21 bottles of Lanson champagne, Chanel perfume and Marks & Spencer gift vouchers.
A "trip in a light plane" for a senior court official was also recorded, while a solicitor paid a ￡25 parking charge for a sheriff clerk. Football tickets were also offered, and accepted."
Yes but they forgot to declare the bribes and also how many staff have been getting cheap homes courtesy of local lawyers who keep telling clients their houses are not selling like they did with me and then some weasel ends up making us an offer of £87,000 for a £260,000 house up for sale for 2 years and our solicitor advises us to accept without telling us the bitch works in the Sheriff court and her sister works in his office.
We did not take the offer and the house is still up for sale with an estate agent and I found out the rest after getting calls from people who said they tried to put offers in on our house to be told it was sold!
ReplyDeleteJohn Scott QC, a partner in Capital Defence Lawyers, said: "A voluntary register of gifts and hospitality might be a good idea."
HAHA RIGHT!
When the hell did "voluntary" ever work for anything when there's a whiff of corruption so big the country's most senior judge tells our Parliament to ** off.
That review of the gifts fiddles at the courts also sounds whiffy after reading it was done by a former AIB boss.The same AIB who are wasting millions on private firms of accountants mixed up with lawyers who are doing the gift giving anyway!
# Anonymous @ 3 July 2013 18:04
ReplyDeletePlease send in more details on what you have said in your comment to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Ah so it's official - Lawyers are bribing Sheriff Clerks and have been getting away with it for years.
ReplyDeleteWell if the Sheriff Clerks are getting bribed with champagne and flying around the bribes for the judges must be huge!
Also look at that - lawyers are paying parking fines of people who work in our courts!If that isnt evidence of corruption going on I dont know what is!
Never thought as a solicitor I might end up having to support Mr Cherbi but in this case,as Jackson Carlaw may well say.. I smell the whiff of vested interests here ..
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Herald story, is this the same John Scott QC giving quotes on a register of gifts who was accused along with other directors of Esto Law Ltd of misusing information gained in legal aid negotiations?
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1010602.aspx
ESTO directors deny improper actings 13 December 2011
The directors of a new venture offering to relieve criminal defence solicitors of the burden of advising suspects detained in police stations, have denied making improper use of information gained in negotiations with the legal aid authorities.
Cut to the end ;
Glasgow solicitors have reacted with hostility and suspicion, some accusing the former LANT members of using "insider information" to develop the ESTO model, or of paving the way for criminal legal aid franchising in Scotland - a model opposed by the profession. However the ESTO directors have insisted that all the information on which they based their venture has been available to the whole profession, and that the concern had been "overblown".
Later on, we are treated to the Law Society's whitewash of all the allegations against Esto Law and strangely enough I cannot seem to locate any of the reports detailing the actual accusations against the Legal Aid Negotiating Team who all went off to form Esto Law.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/solicitor-business-cleared-by-law-society.16845251
Solicitor business cleared by Law Society
Lucy Adams Saturday 25 February 2012
THE Law Society of Scotland has concluded there was no wrongdoing by a firm offering an out-of-hours phone service for lawyers.
Its report yesterday revealed there was no evidence to support last year's high-profile allegations of wrongdoing by the directors of Esto.
Cut to the end;
Mr Scott, former director, said: "The report clears us of any 'wrongdoing' and states specifically that there were no conflicts of interest and no potential conflicts of interest. I welcome that."
******
Oh well that is fine then isn't it. So Mr Scott's idea of a voluntary register of gifts for the judges is a non starter because Lord Gill or whichever dinosaur replaces him will step right in and make sure any complaints where a non declaration has occurred will be given the same whitewash treatment to protect their colleagues. Much in the same way Lord Gill threw out the cases against judges raised by the JCR.
While we are arresting all the Police over the plebgate affair to distract attention away from the fact the entire population of Britain is being screwed to bits by the banks I think we should also start arresting some of these judges and court staff like the one in the earlier comment with the sister in the lawyers office who tried to buy the person's home on the cheap who are clearly just as big a bunch of robbers as the bankers and the rest of the lawyers.
ReplyDeleteDelighted to see you are getting such a good debate at the Scottish Parliament on this petition!Hope it shakes the judges wigs some more!
ReplyDeleteGood luck mate!
I cannot believe that Scottish Court Staff have had their fingers in the till too?
ReplyDeleteAre Judges & Sheriffs not responsible for allowing this slide in standards, as they are responsible for their own courtroom and staff?
If they are allowing their staff to stuff 50 pound notes up their jumper then what are they doing while this is gong on?
It's a very small step from accepting gifts and then feeling obliged to lose files, allow matters to drift to time-bar, forgetting to process paperwork, forgetting to call witnesses etc etc?
Then Court Staff begin to expect reward for doing the dirty (which they always explain away as, 'accidents will happen' and 'mistakes can and do exist'?)
In the is so-called review, was a record taken of the Scottish lawyers and Scottish law firms who were engaged in these dodgy practices?
What do you mean you forgot?
Conveniently swept under the carpet?
KISS (keep it simple stupid)
Public Servant = No Perquisites!
How have these crooks got away with this for so long?
ReplyDeleteThe protests from your chief judge about the register of interests seem a bit weak now we are learning the court workers are up to their necks in 'hospitality' otherwise known as bribes and kickbacks in most industries.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGlasgow Steel said...
Never thought as a solicitor I might end up having to support Mr Cherbi but in this case,as Jackson Carlaw may well say.. I smell the whiff of vested interests here ..
Regarding the Herald story, is this the same John Scott QC giving quotes on a register of gifts who was accused along with other directors of Esto Law Ltd of misusing information gained in legal aid negotiations?
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1010602.aspx
ESTO directors deny improper actings 13 December 2011
The directors of a new venture offering to relieve criminal defence solicitors of the burden of advising suspects detained in police stations, have denied making improper use of information gained in negotiations with the legal aid authorities.
Cut to the end ;
Glasgow solicitors have reacted with hostility and suspicion, some accusing the former LANT members of using "insider information" to develop the ESTO model, or of paving the way for criminal legal aid franchising in Scotland - a model opposed by the profession. However the ESTO directors have insisted that all the information on which they based their venture has been available to the whole profession, and that the concern had been "overblown".
Later on, we are treated to the Law Society's whitewash of all the allegations against Esto Law and strangely enough I cannot seem to locate any of the reports detailing the actual accusations against the Legal Aid Negotiating Team who all went off to form Esto Law.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/solicitor-business-cleared-by-law-society.16845251
Solicitor business cleared by Law Society
Lucy Adams Saturday 25 February 2012
THE Law Society of Scotland has concluded there was no wrongdoing by a firm offering an out-of-hours phone service for lawyers.
Its report yesterday revealed there was no evidence to support last year's high-profile allegations of wrongdoing by the directors of Esto.
Cut to the end;
Mr Scott, former director, said: "The report clears us of any 'wrongdoing' and states specifically that there were no conflicts of interest and no potential conflicts of interest. I welcome that."
******
Oh well that is fine then isn't it. So Mr Scott's idea of a voluntary register of gifts for the judges is a non starter because Lord Gill or whichever dinosaur replaces him will step right in and make sure any complaints where a non declaration has occurred will be given the same whitewash treatment to protect their colleagues. Much in the same way Lord Gill threw out the cases against judges raised by the JCR.
3 July 2013 20:30
Yes, I remember this well as the Law Society of Scotland were trying to punish the Glasgow Bar Association for drawing attention to the nepotism and corruption at the Law Society and that they were drunk on power?
I remember too that as soon as this fraud was publicised that Esto collapsed in on itself (last one out gets all the blame)?
Show's that the Herald is still peddling Law Society of Scotland apologist's opinion to preserve the status quo at all costs?
Best having the Judiciary comply with an extremely strict and thorough Registers of their Interests and making it a criminal offence if they fail to declare something or fail to recuse themselves?
It's a shame we have to go to these lengths to get Public Servants to act properly?
Gill doesnt have a leg to stand on now after the Herald story so get this register made law and make it compulsory not voluntary.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhile we are arresting all the Police over the plebgate affair to distract attention away from the fact the entire population of Britain is being screwed to bits by the banks I think we should also start arresting some of these judges and court staff like the one in the earlier comment with the sister in the lawyers office who tried to buy the person's home on the cheap who are clearly just as big a bunch of robbers as the bankers and the rest of the lawyers.
3 July 2013 20:51
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This may explain why court staff are always hostile, unfriendly and treat the Scottish Public with thinly disguised contempt?
They are all People Haters?
Tremendous forensic reporting yet again from the DOI Team. Leaders in their industry?
ReplyDeleteYes very telling isnt it the judge and the entire judiciary falls down on such a simple question about interests.Proves to me beyond any reasonable doubt the trust these judges claim we have to have in them is based on sand,much like other so-called pillars of the establishment.
ReplyDeleteYes I am also of the opinion the judge is playing for time probably to allow his colleagues to dump their scams and fiddles before any register does come along.
ReplyDeleteLord No-No's defence appears to be the equivalent of a small boy sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA-LA-CAN'T HEAR-LA-LA-LA-LA-CAN'T HEAR-LA-LA" until the problem goes away.
ReplyDeletethe problem is that he knows that it probably WILL go away.
even if the petitions committee come to the view that a register would be a good thing, there is no way the Scottish Gov't, specifically Kenny MacAskill, would pick such a big fight with the judicial establishment.
Since it is now established fact that Lord Gill was trying to pull the wool over the MSP's eyes by claiming constitutional privilege and been found to be telling porkies. Will the MSP's write to NONO and ask him to appear before them to justify and explain his crazy stance?
ReplyDeleteMust say it is a real eye opener reading your blog about the justice system in Scotland.I suppose if this is the way judges react when questioned about their own dealings we can expect the same to be true of most judges so I support your petition and also think we should now be having the same debate at Westminster.
ReplyDeleteGood work on the blog and all the reporting you do.
A bit laughable Scott offers up a comment about a register of gifts as "voluntary" after what the Herald story reveals re gifts to court staff.
ReplyDeleteIn any case all this hospitality should be banned because it has the perception of being given as incentives and no matter how anyone including Scott wants to view the matter the act of giving a gift does influence the recipient no matter what spin is put on the matter.
I shudder to think what influence has been gained over the judiciary re the undeclared hospitality and interests they are so fearful of disclosing to this petition and the Scottish Parliament.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLord No-No's defence appears to be the equivalent of a small boy sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA-LA-CAN'T HEAR-LA-LA-LA-LA-CAN'T HEAR-LA-LA" until the problem goes away.
the problem is that he knows that it probably WILL go away.
even if the petitions committee come to the view that a register would be a good thing, there is no way the Scottish Gov't, specifically Kenny MacAskill, would pick such a big fight with the judicial establishment.
4 July 2013 16:11
------------------------------
Good analogy!
The DOI Team seem to have touched a raw nerve here?
ReplyDeleteAs Jackson Carlaw MSP said, this panic reaction by Gill has got more to do with vested interest than it has to do with accountability to the Scottish Public?
If this is attitude of the overseer of Scottish Judges, then what is he frightened of, what is he trying to keep secret?
'He Doth Protest Too Much'? And He Doth Wrongly Cite The Scotland Act, And He Wrongly Interferes In The Parliamentary Committee Process By Inviting The Convenor & Deputy Convenor Of The PPC Into His Chambers So That He Could Blow Dry Their Hair (Hair-Dryer Treatment)
Time for change already. The old wood is ridden with rot?
Best having the Judiciary comply with an extremely strict and thorough Registers of their Interests and making it a criminal offence if they fail to declare something or fail to recuse themselves?
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame we have to go to these lengths to get Public Servants to act properly?
4 July 2013 00:27
Yes exactly because these judges have too much power for some slack version of a voluntary register as touted by the QC in the Herald story.
To be honest I am surprised anyone put forward the idea of a voluntary register after watching the debates at the Scottish Parliament in the video clips featured here.It seems to be clear the msps are not even looking at this and the petitioner has good support from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer for a statutory register of interests.It is also worth noting the bill in New Zealand which I have read up on also puts forward a statutory register not a voluntary version.
This is the best investigative journalism website on the Internet for uncovering the massive corruption being perpetrated by Scottish lawyers
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct 3July 21.38. That is exactly what happens , documents get removed from files ,and nobody seems to know anything about it, certain words in the proof appear to have mysteriously changed ,and the LSS do not entertain any complaint. It is corrupt from top to bottom, the answer is stay clear of all lawyers they approve of all the aforementioned.
ReplyDeleteLord Gill knows he can;t rely on his colleagues to tell the truth - given the various convictions they already have - and equally Wee Fatty an McRaskill know that they are going to be between a rock and a hard place if they block any future action on this petition - suported as it is by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.
ReplyDeleteAll of the above is dependent however on all who read this blog making it known to all who care about the rule of law, and their entitlements in a functioning democracy.
We are finding out drip by drip by the Team at the DOI that Scotland's lawyers have gotten used to a protected existence throughout their careers to such an extent that they have lost all sense of reality with respect to the rule of law and everything that they do and those who are connected to them are all about grabbing cash?
ReplyDeleteScottish lawyers stealing Legal Aid Money?
The Law Society fixing cases by colluding with the SSDT & SLCC so that their members get the lightest sanction possible, in order to keep their Block Insurance Premium held at artificially low levels?
The Crown Office staff (Public Servants) getting paid bonuses for doing their job?
Court staff (Public Servants) getting kick-backs for favours done for crooked lawyers?
And finally, Scottish Judges & Sheriffs who are convicted criminals still operating as Judges in order that they can fraudulently keep getting paid their fat salary (the Lord President is keeping their identities a secret from the Scottish People - Once the Scottish Public know their identities, they would have to be sacked on the spot as any Advocate could usurp the Judge by saying, 'you cannot find my client guilty because YOU ARE A CRIMINAL')
Time to call time on these crooks. If Scottish Judges are unwilling to disclose their Interests in order to prove their adherence to the rules then they are not fit to be a Judge?
ReplyDeleteJust HOW exactly would a Register of a Scottish Judges Interests be UNWORKABLE?
ReplyDeleteSurely what Lord Gill meant was that it was 'unacceptable' to him not unworkable?
It is the easiest of processes.......?
They write down and declare their interests and a civil servant would check to see if everything complied?
What is clearly apparent is that Judges have no compliance procedures written down for them to adhere to. It looks as though there are no rules for them and that they are just winging-it?
The trouble is, when they have no rules to monitor and check their conduct and they are winging-it, the only system that makes sense is one where Scottish Judges are a law unto themselves, where there is no scrutiny of the standard of their decision making, therefore there is no quality control and where decisions are unreliable and pot luck. Plus, there would be no disciplinary processes and no willingness or incentive to get decisions correct?
Given that Scottish lawyers are in the habit of giving inducements and rewards to court staff and court staff are in the habit of taking them, are we supposed to believe that somehow Scottish lawyers do not include Judges in this and that Judges are immune to such inducements?
ReplyDeleteSecrecy seems to be protecting the old boy, back-slapping system from being revealed?
Who knows what goes on behind closed doors in wood panelled rooms?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletenot fit to be a judge if he is so anti transparency
2 July 2013 17:37
Correct.And that anti transparency view is going to stick.
Like all judges this one has a power complex taken to the extreme.His attitude says it all about the judiciary - out of control and unaccountable to anyone and also using their positions to do as they please and not declare it.
ReplyDeleteIn any other instance what I have just described is called corruption and I do not see any reason to change that description for the judiciary.
Well done for alerting all of us to it now this debate must move forward on a national level not just in Scotland and all judges must be required to disclose all their interests like plenty others as Mr Brodie refers to during the discussion.
Dont worry too much about Scott's remarks.His opinions on transparency have to be viewed along with the Esto Law debacle as someone already pointed out.
ReplyDeleteThey seem so indignant about being allowed to do what they please, as if they have come to accept over time that as Judges & Scottish lawyers they somehow deserve to slurp up the gravy and don't even bat an eyelid?
ReplyDeleteTheir corruption knows no bounds and they are beyond redemption & trust?
Scotland's Judicial & Prosecutorial System is antiquated, corrupt and needs shut down, stripped out and started again?
And a Register of Scottish Judges Interests seems like a good common sense place to start?
As for the number of Scottish Judges that are criminals and who are committing treason by hiding being secrecy, they should be jailed for perverting the course of justice along with all of those that knew what they were doing was wrong but kept silent to allow them to continue to pass the self off as Judges and cash-in by taking the Pulic's money u der false pretences?
Gill should be forced by the PPC to reveal the names of the criminals before he is sacked?
Transparency is synonymous with truth & justice.
ReplyDeleteSecrecy is synonymous with cheating and corruption.
Sums it up nicely
This is alarming especially as Lord Gill has already bullied the Judicial Complaints Reporter and has thrown out complaints against Scottish Judges, so that they have been whitewashed?
ReplyDeleteDo the Scottish People not deserve a trustworthy judiciary?
The Lord President thought he could just swat away the PPC like an irritating fly by telling them that he was citing the Scotland Act as proof that he could abrogate his responsibilities as Lord President?
ReplyDeleteBut he either thought that those Plebians on the PPC, who are beneath his contempt would not know any different as he was omnipotent and they would not have the intelligence to understand the clause in the Scotland Act or that as he was all powerful that they would just believe any toss he tried to spin to them?
Turns out the MSP's are a diligent bunch and know the law better than Scotland's Lord President?
I don't know which is worse, Scotland's Lord President believing he is God-like and untouchable or that he has not got a clue about the fundamental law which brought the Scottish Parliament into existence?
Over Paid and Over Bearing?
Yes agree with everyone this should be made law immediately it is such a good idea and anyone I always thought judges had to do this now I know different.Go for it!
ReplyDeleteI want to know more about the convicted criminals passing themselves off as Scottish judges?
ReplyDeletePresumably all of the Solicitor Advocates and QC's will know the identities of all of the Scottish Judges who are convicted criminals? (They would have to have been represented by Counsel)
ReplyDeleteThis means that every Scottish Judge who is a convicted criminal but who is still pretending to be a valid Judge will have this hanging over them and they have all compromised themselves, as any Solicitor Advocate or QC could threaten them or bully them into siding with their court case for threat of exposure because if exposed these Scottish convicted criminals passing themselves off as bona fide Judges would lose their job, fat-salary, fat-pension, status and reputation?
All of the creeps who have knowingly hidden the identities of these convicted criminals are also guilty of crime for allowing this to go on?
This should be raised at First Ministers Question time and MaCRaskill should have to give an explanation of whether or not he knew about this, why it was hidden and explain how this perverted situation could happen in Scotland?
After which, all of these crooks should be dealt with a double sanction as all of them knew what they were doing was unlawful but they did it anyway because they don't give a shit about being accountable to anyone and are only interested in their own vested criminal interests?
Having read your blog for some time now I have to admit I am not surprised the judge has refused to turn up at the Parliament to account for his and his colleagues interests and that people are linking this with fear and hiding the truth.
ReplyDeleteWhen you get a system as rotten as the Scottish justice system has become,it us usually corrupt from the top down.I think your petition and the judicial hostility to it proves my point and the points made by many others.
Having read your blog for some time now I have to admit I am not surprised the judge has refused to turn up at the Parliament to account for his and his colleagues interests and that people are linking this with fear and hiding the truth.
ReplyDeleteWhen you get a system as rotten as the Scottish justice system has become,it is usually corrupt from the top down.I think your petition and the judicial hostility to it proves my point and the points made by many others.
It is not enough for justice to be done IT MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE - and that applies equally to Lord Gill and the judiciary as it does to all others.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many back-slapping deals are being done behind closed doors in secret to make sure Mr Cherbi's Petition is ditched at the last minute?
ReplyDeleteWho is responsible for keeping the identities of the convicted criminals acting as judges a secret?
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish People deserve to know who the ones are who are happy to commit crimes against the State?
Is NONO not on the wrong side of this argument?
ReplyDeleteSurely if he was accountable and responsible to the Scottish People he would not dodge difficult questions, he would be only too happy to explain his position, he would be all for transparency and that he would not unlawfully protect his Convicted criminal pals and through a secret cabal allow them to pervert the Scottish Justice System in order that they can continue to grab Public cash?
Lord Gill seems to have out manoeuvred himself by clinging to his self interest past?
ReplyDeleteThis portrays Gill as an out of control, out of touch dinosaur who does not care about the Scottish Publc?
How can Lord Gill gat away with keeping the identities of the convicted criminal Judges a secret from the Scottish People?
ReplyDeleteWhy do the police not step up to the plate and investigate this crime?
Lord Gill's secret is out. He is harbouring criminals?
ReplyDeleteLord Gill has shown by his actions that he is totally ill equipped to be a proper Lord President?
ReplyDeleteHow many other skeletons are there in the cupboard?
Given that Lord Gill has been caught out telling porkie pie's to Scotland's Public Petition Committee, will the PPC even want Gill to appear before them in the future, as what guarantee would they have for Gill to tell the truth to them?
ReplyDeleteAfter all in Sotland it would seem that when they pull on their wig, Scottish Judges are completely infallible, have characters beyond reproach and are completely omnipotent?
However, are soon the wig is off their heed, they can break the law with gay abandon without it ever affecting their ability to be a judge?
Strange then that a QC lawyer in court was heard to say to a witness recently that they only have to lie once to be a lier, they only have to break the law once to be a criminal?
Poor poor Luigi the boatbuilder......'Just one sheep......Just one sheep.....'
Does Lord Gill know what damage he has done in trying to trick the PPC into believing that they could not require him to attend their evidence giving session?
ReplyDeleteNow that Lord Gill had abrogated his responsibility to account for his managerial performance and that he has hidden the identities of the convicted criminals and allowed them to continue to pass themselves off as Judges, when any normal thinking person knows intuitively that this is unlawful, then Lord Gill should not be allowed to resign and should be sacked forthwith?
I told a member of staff at one of Scotland's Sheriff Courts that the legal establishment were corrupt. His consternation was not shocking to me because I have found that those within the profession and those linked to it do not believe they are corrupt. They believe they do nothing wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs for Lord Gill it is not that a Register of Judicial interests is unworkable, he simply does not want it to be workable. Power seduces and the Judiciary are out of touch with the demands of the modern consumers who want to be sure they are not being taken to the cleaners as the Judiciary see fit each time they have to go into a law firms office.
I have a similar experience with a member of staff at a sheriff court who placed a bid for my house and after doing so all the other offers (six including three from families in different parts of England) were supposedly withdrawn according to my solicitor.I asked my solicitor for copies of the offers and their contact details only to be told he was not allowed to hand them over according to the law.What he did not bargain on was every single bidder contacted me and told me in writing how each had been given a different story ranging on our house being withdrawn from the market to repossession by a bank on a non existent mortgage.I have tried to complain but the Law Society are doing nothing and the court lot refuse to even look at it.Our house is probably unsellable now although that does not bother myself or my wife as we have decided to stay put.However if this has happened to someone else who wrote a comment and now myself after reading that comment I think this is probably widespread and people who work at the courts are using their positions to obtain cheap properties and other favours and this needs to be exposed in your petition evidence and a register of interests for everyone in the courts and legal system.
ReplyDeleteIf you do publish this comment thank you for allowing me to have my say in public.
# Anonymous @ 11 July 2013 18:03
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment and information provided.
If you would like to provide more details about what happened to us at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com the issues you raise may be helped by a media investigation.
I see Lord President Gill as master of a house who is reluctant to acknowledge the foundations are crumbling beneath him. Nothing built on unsteady foundations can be structurally sound indefinatly Lord President.
ReplyDeleteSomeone at the SCS seems to be unduly concerned you have left judge-petition story as your latest..
ReplyDeleteI think the hint is something along the lines of they are hoping you go on to nail someone else as quickly as possible to get this one off the front page!
Also your petition has been reported to me as causing a very public judge rage incident.Things are hotting up laddie!Keep up the good work!
Interesting debate and what has come out of it so far about these judges and their refusal to declare their interests.You certainly have a knack for hitting the right buttons!
ReplyDeleteThe MSP's seem to know exactly what is going on....?
ReplyDeleteThat Lord Gill is choosing to protect his and his fellow Scottish Judges personal vested interests before the Public Interest and that they are drawing the Scottish Public's interest to this so that we see what is being done behind closed doors?
If it is of any interest to you I have heard a judge got his son off criminal charges about comments on a social media website
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be good if we could swap our Judicial & Prosecutorial System with New Zealand's?
ReplyDeleteJust think how much better off we would be?
There again, it would be extremely unfair on New Zealand to oppress their people in such a sinister way?
Looks like we are stuck with the self-serving back-slapping lot we have now?
Given that the English Parliament Culture Committee have forced Lord Levison (A Judge) to appear before them to answer their questions, does this now mean that the Scottish MSP's will now do the right thing and order Lord Gill to answer their difficult questions?
ReplyDeleteCould Lord Gill be reprimanded or sacked over trying to claim that he could exempt himself from answering the Public Petitions Committee's searching questions by claiming Judicial Privilege under the Scotland Act?
ReplyDeleteAs Lord Gill knows the law in Scotland, it is impossible for him to make such an elementary mistake as if he did and it was a mistake then it would prove that he was utterly incompetent and could not continue to be a Scottish Judge, never mind Lord President?
Far more likely that he assumed that the MSP's on the PPC were sufficiently dim that they would just accept his every word as fact and that he would easily trick them into failing to call him to give evidence?
This hubris is common among Scottish Judges as they have convinced themselves that they are omnipotent and untouchable in Scotland and can do whatever they like and say whatever they want without being questioned and when they are questioned they take a his say fit?
It seems almost inevitable now that the PPC will order Lord Gill to appear before them so that they can question him regarding his bizarre views about transparency, self-interest and the rule of law?
The PPC now have an open-goal opportunity to question Lord Gill on Mr Cherbi's Petition and they could make a massive improvement in the Scottish Judicial System by agreeing to ratify this Petition for the good of the Scottish People?
ReplyDeletewill be interested to see what they get back from NZ given the shrieks of protest from vested interests appear to be as strong there as they are here in Scotland..
ReplyDeleteHe is a tin pot dictator if he can keep everything secret and clearly the power has gone to the mans head.
ReplyDeleteOnce these secret hidden criminals are tracked down and exposed to the Scottish People, am I right in saying that all of the salary that these scoundrels have collected whilst being an unfit convicted criminal judge will have to be paid back to the Public Purse under proceeds of crime legislation and that they should be sacked on the spot, without being allowed to retire in order to defeat justice and pick up a big fat pension which should be cancelled?
ReplyDeleteI wonder what Scotland would be like with an honest and legitimate Judicial System?
ReplyDeleteWhat other sneaky secrets is Lord Gill keeping from the Scottish Public?
ReplyDeleteWho do you report The Lord Advocate's conduct to?
ReplyDeleteIs it himself?
Is it MacRaskill?
Or, is it the police?
Well done to you whoever you are for raising this debate!
ReplyDeleteI think the judge will want to keep your politicians talking for as long as possible instead of legislating because there is something very dishonest in the background when a chief justice of a country falls flat on his face when asked questions about his interests.
So much for the respected Scottish justice system.With people in charge of it like your Lord Gill and the mindset who run Scotland your country really has no claim to upholding "transparency" at all.Hopefully this debate will go far and catch up with these judges and anyone else who has a vested interest in keeping judges away from openness.
When NONO is called before the PPC of the Scottish Parliament to have to give evidence regarding his desperate ploy to cling to the past and continue in a state of secrecy and self interest, will he tell the truth or will he appear with a battery of high fee charging lawyers (claimed as expenses to the Scottish Public of course) so that they can bat away valid difficult questions for Lord Gill to answer?
ReplyDeleteHe really has created a ridiculous position for himself, which certainly brings the Office of The Lord President into disrepute?
Will he answer truthfully to these difficult questions and capitulate to the ever increasing pressure which is opposed to the status quo of secrecy and deceit?
Or will he tuff it out by refusing to answer their valid questions?
Either way, the shakey peg has just lost another screw and the clock is ticking down to the inevitable?
Yet again, marvellous Public Service Journalism in action?
ReplyDeleteThe DOI Investigative Journalist Team are lifting the lid of corruption, self interest, secrecy and evil that persists in Scotland's Judicial & Prosecutorial Systems and informing the Scottish Public to the TRUTH of what is really going on behind closed doors and in secrecy?
Keep up the good work folks. You are doing an amazing job for the Scottish Public?
Self-Regulation in hospitals has been shown to be the latest example of corruption, deceit, lies and fraud against the Public, resulting in hidden deaths?
ReplyDeleteSome would say that this is the worst example of insider manipulation and false management practice against the Public, in order to preserve the jobs and fat salaries of the incompetent?
However, even though many unnecessary deaths are part of this scandal, the conduct of the Law Society of Scotland is infinitely worse because they concern themselves with torture and usurping the law of the land in order to protect known criminals and where they pursue the victims of crooked Scottish lawyers for having the temerity of reporting these crooks to the them?
Members of the Law Society of Scotland have been allowed to disregard the law in their pursuit of these victims and go to any lengths in order to let their criminal members off Scot-Free, whilst choosing to violate their victims by destroying their health and wealth in order to snuff them out by way of punishment?
There has not been a more subversive, corrupt and evil body than the Law Society of Scotland such is their recorded catalogue of devastated former clients that they have left in their wake, whereby they have gone far out of their way to crush, humiliate and damage?
C'mon the police.......Let's be 'avin' you?
Self regulation with regards to the NHS (and the 13,000 plus needless deaths in England & Wales) has remained the failure that it is principally because vested interests have an interest in keeping it that way and it is so difficult to get cases to court where invariably the judiciary with their vested, hidden interests can be relied upon to maintain the system as it stands.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what has happened in England & Wales, and the same is true in Scotland where the families of incapacitated or deceased victims of hospital negligence are treated to the usual pack of lies from NHS trust officials and doctors all backed up by the SPSO and those in the courts who expend every effort to cover up deaths.
Simply, if it were not so, the system would have changed years ago therefore is little to argue as to why self regulation is perceived as being so corrupt - simply because it is.
Is there any point in using the court system in Scotland such that it is?
ReplyDeleteThere is no guarantee that even if you have a prime facie case that you have a 50% chance of winning?
Even with a full-proof case your chances of success could easily be zero %?
A perfect example of this is the decisions reached by the Law Society of Scotland's Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal which regards itself as higher in standard than the Court of Session but lower than the High Court - where the Chairman's Report of 2010 (available from http://www.ssdt.org.uk/reports/resources/AnnualReport_Final%20Draft.pdf On page 7) where stealing from their Client's accounts was described as:-
'BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENT'
This is what we are up against!
I note your final comment DOI on the deaths in English and Welsh hospitals we learned from a litigation case in 2003 what the NHS, Law Society, lawyers and doctors complaints system is a protection racket so we are not surprised by the deaths of all these people. They are No No's who block people from information, cover up known crimes, and we would not be surprised if the knew about Shipman early on. Perhaps some people will think we are being over the top here but when their reputations are at stake they will do anything as the 13,000 plus deaths demonstrate. Look forward to your next report and keep on Lord No No.
ReplyDeleteSelf regulation is dominance, simple as that. Try getting a case against a lawyer or doctor into court and the doors slam in your face.
ReplyDeleteNo longer need to wonder why the bbc censors out any negative publicity or debate on the woes of the Scottish legal establishment
ReplyDeletewe need a Scottish broadcaster not in hoc to the legal mafia and their chums rather than one that sits down to tea and biscuits with judges and lawyers so they can keep getting stories put their way instead of about real people hit by injustice
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/bbc-scotland-gets-backing-from-less-than-half-of-scots.1373980990
BBC Scotland gets backing from less than half of Scots
Tuesday 16 July 2013
Less than half of all Scots believe the BBC is good at representing their life in its coverage of news and current affairs.
Just 48% of people in Scotland believe the corporation does well at this - the lowest proportion of any of the countries in the UK.
The figure, which compares to a total of 58% in England, was revealed in the BBC's annual report,.
The comment and question raised
ReplyDelete16th July 01.49 is very appropriate . but nobody seems to be able or willing to do anything. I personally contacted a Chief Constable regarding solicitors being involved in forging my signature " and there was an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove it" and still is. The reply I received from the CC was that "It is beyond my remit unless I hear from the Law Society" . Mr Phillip Yelland describe it as being "a very serious matter" and was asked to contact the police, for some unknown reason Mr Yelland up till now has made no contact with the police. !!!!!
Very impressed to hear some of the points raised in the video clip hope they translate into tough questions for Lord Gill and a speedy piece of legislation to make this register happen.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Lord Gill has humiliated himself by trying to get out of giving evidence to the Scottish Public Petitions Committee?
ReplyDeleteWhen that force him to appear the MSP's are not going to mess up their chance to bombard Lord Gill with lots of searching questions about his secrecy agenda and how this can be compatible with the law?
How many years have the secret convicted criminal Judges been hidden for?
ReplyDeleteThere are many comments made about calling in the police. My experience is that the police are not to keen in being involved. I had an overwhelming amount of evidence that solicitors were involved in the forging of my signature, and I notified the Chief Constable of Grampian , his reply to me that it was " beyond his remit " to investigate and that he could only do so if notified by the Law Society that there had been malpractice. Mr Phillip Yelland of the complaints department who had already described this in communication with me, as a "VERY SERIOUS MATTER" was informed of the CC's comments, another member of staff at the complaints department had already indicated that it was a matter for the police, but for some reason the police were never informed.!!!
ReplyDeleteAs a journalist based in New Zealand I am very interested in the way your media is reporting on the Scottish Parliament and your petition.
ReplyDeleteHowever I must correct misconceptions expressed by some comments on the state of play here in New Zealand regarding Dr Kennedy Graham's bill for a Register of Pecuniary interests of judges.
It is not the case New Zealand's judiciary is any different in terms of their activities and perceived role in society from what I have read of your own judiciary of Scotland.Swapping ours for yours will produce the same results perhaps worse.
Your Lord Justice General refused to appear before parliament. Our own judges have refused to appear before our parliament in New Zealand.
Lord Gill's opposition to your petition is along the same lines of opposition put forward by our own judiciary.
Here in New Zealand certain judges and some members of the legal fraternity opposed to Dr Graham's proposals have privately lobbied mps and the Government to water down the contents of the bill or even shelve it completely.If this is happening here it would not surprise me to learn the same is taking place in Scotland.
Supporters of transparency in the New Zealand judiciary are privately claiming they have been subject to hints their careers and livelihoods may end if they continue to call for a register of judges financial interests.Some of these supporters are from the legal profession itself.
I am sure you will not be unaware there has been contact between your Law Society of Scotland and vested interests opposed to Dr Graham's bill here in New Zealand. Both are opposed to your petition in Scotland and Dr Graham's bill.
Be in no doubt there is considerable pressure being put on the media in New Zealand not to report on the private finances andlives of our judiciary or Dr Graham's bill.Believe me we could do with your Sunday Mail headlines over here as the coverage and detail applies equally to our own judiciary.
The longer the media and public debate on judges interests goes on the greater chance of success both of you have in your aims for a register of interests.
@18 July 2013 13:33
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info.Would be interested to compare notes if you want to contact via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
So the vested interests in Scotland and New Zealand unite to kill off any idea of transparency in the judiciary.
ReplyDeleteWell this public debate must be ratcheted up a bit in the media (not the papers already bought off by the Law Society of course) and the parliament at Holyrood.
Keep up the good work all!
Similar tactics in New Zealand and Scotland and our Law Society doing its usual dirty tricks like the also have an office in Europe to lobby Members of the European Parliament.
ReplyDeleteLook forward to journalists in New Zealand and DOI doing a joint report. That will be interesting as we expect a lot of skulduggery deception and judicial corruption. That is the way their dirty self protection racket has been set up wherever they operate.
The whole of Scotland is watching the Public Petitions Committee to make sure they do the right thing by the Scottish People; that is to endorse Mr Cherbi's essential Petition as the first step to get Scotland back onto a moralistic footing and away from the self-serving back-slapping scourge who have hijacked Scotland?
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments from the journalist in New Zealand which may also explain why some of our own media seem to be on a boycott of this petition story.
ReplyDeleteWhy must the private finances and lives of judges remain secret anyway?These people are the pinnacle of power in this country and therefore should be subject to even more scrutiny and transparency than the rest of us.I say bring on Peter's register of interests now and stop wasting time.
You must be setting off some big questions about the judges Peter and its high time!
ReplyDelete"No longer need to wonder why the bbc censors out any negative publicity or debate on the woes of the Scottish legal establishment...."
ReplyDeleteOnly a fool would believe it would improve under independence and the SNP.
Lord Gill should be thoroughly ashamed of his cowardly behaviour and act as a Lord President should and appear before the PPC to answer their questions regarding whether or not a Register of Scottish Judges Interests should be instituted?
ReplyDeleteBy failing to appear when asked and then using a ridiculous excuse to try to justify his non attendance is downright embarrassing and is just one instance of a catalogue of errors in what seems to be a race towards the lowest possible morals in a Public position?
Oh, and I thought Scotland was a democracy where public servants fought tooth and nail for the people not to treat Scotland's People with utter contempt and loathing by only being interested in vested interests and self-protection?
The Police do a difficult job and a dangerous one in many cases but they will not investigate lawyer corruption and even if they did the legal profession in the form of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office decide who goes to court. Hardly surprising there was not enough admissible evidence to prosecute even one of the fourteen legal aid fraud lawyers.
ReplyDeleteAs Peter wrote in one of the DOI reports, they do not want to prosecute lawyers. Just like Lord No No does not want his colleagues and his own interests on a register. A Teflon profession who do not want any public scrutiny of their activities, beware.
There surely must be a change to the nepotism involved in appointing Lord Presidents and Lord Advocates, which seems to be done at present on an I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine basis?
ReplyDeleteSurely it would be far more preferable if those interested in putting their names forward for each job would do so setting out their CV, together with a vision statement telling the Scottish People what they promise to do and what ideals they promise to uphold. Thereby the People can make their choice of the best person for the job and if they are not doing what they said they would do than the People can remove them too.
After all, these Public Office positions are supposed to be independent of Government and independent from connection to associations and influence like the Law Society of Scotland?
Maybe the police should go to investigate what The Lord President wants to keep a secret?
ReplyDeletePossibly the NZ and Scottish Truth movement should share details to combat the under hand paranoid secrecy plotting being done behind the scenes to make sure that Judges free for all is preserved over Justice for normal members of the public?
ReplyDeleteWhere is MacAskill in this scandal?
ReplyDeleteHe should be reading the riot act against Lord Gill and getting him to get his finger out and to apologise in the most humble terms to the PPC, for first trying to avoid their valid questions and secondly for treating the Committee with the utmost contempt by saying he had a note from teacher to get him off Scot-Free?
Scotland is a laughing stock of incompetence, lies and deceit?
If Lord Gill still refuses to appear in front of the PPC to answer vital questions about Register of Scottish Judges Interests then why don't we just get another one in?
ReplyDeleteOut with the old in with the new?
Simples!
What else is Lord Gill hiding in his secret skeleton cupboard?
ReplyDeleteNot surprised to hear that Scottish Judges are cooking the books with their pals down under to make sure that both Registers of their Interests are binned in order to preserve their rich pickings?
ReplyDeleteActually you should be grateful a certain television broadcaster has not taken your petition and destroyed it as they typically do when they decide to spin their own point of view over a subject which should have a much wider public debate than currently stands.
ReplyDeleteHere is a word of warning for those who may think otherwise.
A colleague of mine used to work for a certain television broadcaster based in Glasgow.
He became critical of how particular news items were handled from what you might call the vested interests angle of finance and legal.
He raised concerns with senior management including allegations and evidence a well known journalist did little work, preferring to take cash kickbacks from law firms who put stories in his inbox for favourable publicity.
As a result of his complaint he was told to put in his papers and offered a settlement on condition he sign a gagging clause preventing him from talking about it.
As far as I know the journalist at the centre of the allegations who likes to be thought of as impartial and highly skilled is still taking cash for stories.
I would not be surprised if he is steering the broadcaster clear of your petition,on behalf of his friends in the legal profession.
The danger of the referendum on Scottish independence is that the question is "should Scotland be an independent country" it does not ask
ReplyDeleteshould Scotland be an independent country and how should it be governed if you vote yes. This latter question is a minefield opening up many other questions. Salmond and his nationalist dream is for him and the Lord Gill's of Scotland not the Scottish electorate.
How can The Lord President (Head of Judges) in Scotland keep SECRET the names of Judges who are convicted criminals and then allowed them to continue to be a judge, when he knew full well that they had ruled themselves out by their own behaviour?
ReplyDeleteThis secrecy is against the Public Interest and it only seems to serve the interests of The Lord President staying pals with these creeps and the convicted criminal judges who have continued to draw a fat-salary taken from the Scottish Tax Payer under false pretences?
How corrupt has Scotland become where the Judges (who are central to a morally proper functioning democracy) break the law and try to keep it a secret from the Public, polititions and the police so that they can continue to break the law?
This is a crazy situation?
As Lord Gill's attempted trick of saying to the PPC he was immune to questioning under the Scotland Act when he wasn't, will this lead the MSP's at the PPC to insist that Lord Gill resigns when they haul him in before them?
ReplyDeleteWho does Lord Gill, The Lord President report to and who monitors his performance?
ReplyDeleteDoes he have anyone assessing his judgment and if not why not?
Is he above the law?
Can he hide the identities of convicted criminal judges, who are continuing to pass themselves off as judges because there is no one to catch him out or question him about his conduct?
With responsibility SHOULD come accountability and if there is no accountability then it is unlawful?
Scotland is a broken, corrupt state run by crims for crims?
You better get writing again soon otherwise someone at the court service is going to end up having heart failure!I've had six calls from a certain person demanding to know why the silence and asking what you are up to!
ReplyDeleteKeep up the pressure!
Word on the street is that the MSP's on the Public Petitions Committee will summon The King of the Barbecue before them and then go through him like a dose of salts?
ReplyDeleteJust what was going through Lord Gill's mind as he sought to mislead the Public Petitions Committee into believing that Lord Gill was exempt from answering their questions?
ReplyDeleteWhat an outrageous and sneaky attempt to avoid the responsibilities of his job?
Under normal circumstances ones employer may view this as serious and reprehensible behaviour and an automatic sacking offence or at the very least a written warning?
Only in Scotland could this happen?
This extraordinary scandal could only happen in Scotland and with blanket Press secrecy too.
ReplyDeleteHow many more secrets are being hidden by Lord Gill in his desperation of secrecy?
ReplyDeleteHas Lord Gill resigned yet or is he hanging on to collect even more of the Public's hard earned money and his gilt edged pension under false pretences?
ReplyDeleteScotland is a sick fellow indeed?
Why hasn't Lord Gill been sacked for his secrecy and contempt for answering to his obligations and duties?
ReplyDeleteHeaven forbid, it is not as though he is asked to do much for his exorbitant fat salary?
It is unbelievable that Scottish Judges do not already comply with a Register of Interests in order to show that they are uncorruptible and are paragons of justice, which is what there role demands.
ReplyDeleteIt was a cheap scam by Lord Gill to try to avoid his responsibilities by wrongly claiming that he was exempt to appear before the PPC.
ReplyDeleteHow on Earth can Lord Gill get away with this conduct
ReplyDeleteScotland is being taken over by unelected crooks who are desperate to have power but are allergic to responsiblities who are obsessed with secrecy to keep their conduct from the awareness of the Scottish Public, for if they knew what was going on in their name behind closed doors we would have a return of stocks in the street outside the courts?
ReplyDeleteHow could this absurd situation be allowed to happen.
ReplyDeleteI am ashamed that Scotland thinks that it is acceptable to employ a Lord President who puts self interest, self preservation and secrecy before what is right for the People of Scotland?
ReplyDeleteHow far have we fallen as a People if we accept unqualified people to hold positions of power and responsibility, who are only there to pick up their salary and to treat MSP's and the Public with thinly disguised contempt?
Who employs these judges or do they employ themselves?
ReplyDeleteDo they set their own salary, their own terms, their own disciplinary rules?
Looks like it?
Only possible in crooked Scotland?
Secrecy should be condemned as it is a signature of corrupt practise and self servitism
ReplyDeleteWhy is this massive scandal at the centre of public Scotland not emblazoned all over the Scottish Press and on Newsnight Scotland etc?
ReplyDeleteHmmmmmmmmm!
Says a lot about how badly our Press is being controlled by those that would do us harm?
How can Lord Gill get away with this secrecy?
ReplyDeleteThis secrecy scandal cannot be allowed to continue where it is possible for Scotland's purse to be drained by crooks who are allowed to fill-their-boots in secrecy behind wood panelled doors
ReplyDeleteI think the PPC will report Lord Gill to the Justice Secretary and Lord Salmond resulting in Lord Gill falling on his sword
ReplyDelete