Scotland’s top judge declares he will not inform Judicial Investigator of complaints outcomes. SCOTLAND’S top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill has told Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) Moi Ali she is not to be informed of the outcomes of complaints against judges which are referred back to the Lord President by the JCR for further action.
Eager to keep questions & complaints regarding the conduct of judges in court hidden from public scrutiny, Lord Gill branded the office of JCR as a “third party” which data could not be shared with for reasons of confidentiality.
The latest development came to light in a submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee by JCR Moi Ali in response to Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
JCR told MSPs in letter the Lord President is treating her office as “third party” on complaints follow up information. Writing to MSP members of the Petitions Committee, Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali stated : The other matter that I wished to follow up on relates to the Lord President’s procedure for informing the Judicial Complaints Reviewer of outcomes following referrals.
When I gave my evidence I explained to the Committee that I had written to the Lord President asking for clarity on what information would be given to me. I have since received a reply, so I am now in a position to clarify the process.
The Lord President has confirmed: “You have a clear but limited remit. The nature of your work and the terms of your remit do not involve any follow-up.”
So the situation is that when I make a referral to the Lord President that the complaints Rules have been breached, I will be told what the Lord President proposes to do - for example, to reinvestigate the complaint – but thereafter I will be given no further information, such as whether the complaint was subsequently upheld, as this data cannot be shared with “third parties” for reasons of confidentiality.
I am surprised at this response for two reasons: I do not regard the JCR as a “third party” but as an integral part of the complaints process; and in England and Wales, the outcomes of investigations, when upheld, are published on the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office’s (JCIO) website.
The JCIO is the closest equivalent body to the Judicial Office for Scotland, in that it supports the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice (the equivalent of the Lord President, as head of the judiciary) in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. It seeks to ensure that all judicial disciplinary issues are dealt with consistently, fairly and efficiently. Like the Judicial Office, it can only address complaints about a judicial office-holder's personal conduct and cannot deal with complaints about judicial decisions or about case management.
Although the Office of Judicial Complaints Reviewer was created by an Act of the Scottish Parliament in 2008, principally highlighted in Section 30, S31 and S32 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, protests from Scotland’s judges over proposals in the 2008 legislation resulted in Justice Minister MacAskill creating the powerless Judicial Complaints Reviewer, who works for three days a month on an annual budget of £2000 and no staff.
Also contained in the JCR’s recent response to MSPs was a suggestion of a proposal put forward by a “member of the public” regarding the gathering of data on recusals, information which has not been made available to MSPs on the Public Petitions Committee even though MSPs have three times requested the data from the Lord President himself.
Moi Ali told MSPs in her letter : I was contacted by a member of the public with an understanding of the court system. They informed me that they thought it unlikely that the Lord President would hold information on recusals, as the judiciary deal with perceived conflicts of interest in different ways and there is a lack of clarity about how such matters should be handled. I am informed that sometimes concerns about potential conflict of interest are aired publicly in court; at other times it's done behind the scenes.
They made a suggestion that seems to be a sensible and pragmatic step in the right direction. Their idea was that rules could be produced by the Court placing an express duty on a judge to declare any potential conflict in open court. Parties’ views could be heard and a judicial decision made on any objections. Thus, with almost immediate effect (subject to the approach taken by the Scottish Civil Justice Council) there could be in place a more open and consistent system than the present practice.
I stress that although I do not think that such a suggestion does away with the need for a register of interests, it does take things a step closer to greater transparency and accountability, could be implemented fairly quickly, and it would provide a basis for the collection of data on the number of recusals.
While the proposal to collect data on recusals is welcome, it is more probably that worried judges who are concerned about public exposure of their undeclared vast wealth, secret financial earnings outside their judicial duties and undeclared links & relationships, even memberships or directorships of organisations, companies & other vested interests, would use it as an excuse to delay the implementation of a full register of interests.
Commenting on the idea, a legal insider said “If judges are able to convince politicians all that needs to be done is the collecting of data on recusals and that it should be left to run for a few years, this will be used by the same judges who opposed statutory powers for the JCR to kill off any idea of a register of interests.”
He continued : “There is clearly an expectation of transparency in all public life including transparency for those sitting on the bench. There is a clear benefit in the implementation of a register of judicial interests and the sooner the better.”
The Judicial Complaints Reviewer has given her support the terms of Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper and Diary of Injustice, HERE.
The Judicial Complaints Reviewer recently gave testimony to MSPs at Holyrood on the benefits of a register of judicial interests, reported along with video footage of the testimony, here : As Scotland’s top judge battles on against transparency, Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Mail newspaper, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
The arrogance of this judge is beyond belief!
ReplyDeleteIf someone has made a complaint about a judge and it is found to have been mishandled then why cant the final outcome be published?
I'll tell you why - because the judges prefer to sweep it all under the carpet and they wont want Moi Ali writing to msps telling them the truth!
but luke..he is your father!
ReplyDeleteThe Lord President has confirmed: “You have a clear but limited remit. The nature of your work and the terms of your remit do not involve any follow-up.”
ReplyDeleteAye keep digging Brian - the msps will just be loving your bugger off I am the boss attitude.
and what of MacAskill in this debate
ReplyDeleteHow about a contribution from he who is paying our money to the piper
Having followed this debate for some time I'd like to know who exactly is the member of the public who raised this idea about collecting information on recusals.
ReplyDeleteClearly there is no such recusal information around so why give LP a chance to delay scrutiny of their assets/interests like everyone else has to declare.Vested interests at work again?
Seems a bit iffy considering the way the LP has acted towards the PPC and what we have been through in the press and Holyrood in the past year.
#Anonymous @ 25 October 2013 16:07
ReplyDeleteThe likelihood is any complaint put back to the Lord President will be dismissed much like as has already been reported when a case was referred back for action ...
#Anonymous @ 25 October 2013 16:29
...Noooooooo!
#Anonymous @ 25 October 2013 17:43
It would have been far better if the Lord President had admitted to the Petitions Committee that no data on recusals was collected up to this point.
In any case, such a proposal should not be used to delay a register of judicial interests by any party in the debate when clearly a register is needed now instead of years later or not at all as the judiciary prefer.
I very much doubt the judges can be trusted to allow data on recusals to be collected after their performance at the parliament and in any case Moi Ali's letter says some of the issues are raised in private so who is to say any of this is ever going to be recorded - most likely not!
ReplyDeleteThe MSPs should get this into law now rather than allow the judges time to hide their ill gotten gains
ReplyDeleteSo the judge is consistently arrogant.Fine chap to have at the head of your not-so-great Scottish legal system!
ReplyDeletehaha so you have a sense of humor after all!
ReplyDeletebtw Lord Gill may not fit the height requirements for a Darth Vader costume
I am of the opinion that people bathed in power have a distorted sense of their own importance and omnipotence which is an affront to transparency. I am not at all surprised by his attitude, bearing in mind he has operated in professional secrecy for decades.
ReplyDeleteThe legal profession especially due to the pernicious doctrine of self regulation is simply a secret club. I would never as far as that is practicable have anything to do with lawyers, I learned that [like thousands of others] the hard way. Keep up the good work DOI.
Gill is only getting away with this attitude because he is a judge.
ReplyDeleteIf he were a politician with this kind of attitude against an elected assembly there would be calls all over the shop for him to resign and so he should.
Noticed coverage of your petition on stv http://news.stv.tv/scotland/239879-scotlands-top-judge-criticised-over-refusal-of-register-of-interests/
ReplyDeletenothing on the bbc so the Law Society's embargo must still be operating!
Scotland is a laughing stock?
ReplyDeleteIt is clear to all normal thinking people that the Scottish Judiciary are acting as if they are above the law and have been closing ranks to stop the Public from finding out what they are getting up to on a regular basis?
It is totally inconceivable that NO record of recusals is kept?
This is simply an admission that failure to recuse is rife and that Justice within the Scottish System is a dirty word that has long since been banished from their vocabulary?
All of the utterances by the Dark Lord are symptoms......Symptoms of an ancient, unaccountable system that has been so corrupted through time that they are no longer accountable and have long since deprogated their responsibility for their decisions and for their High Office?
There is so much dead wood (strangler vine) to be cut-away before the tree of Justice can be allowed to grow again?
All you asked is for a register of their interests and they come out all nasty about it.
ReplyDeleteSo there must be a lot to hide - and we all know it is the only reason people go all nasty when asked details about their circumstances whether it is a judge a politician or a criminal.
The NONO gives the Sith a bad name?
ReplyDeleteLord Gill's stubborn disdain gives new meaning to the term 'Closed Shop'.
ReplyDeleteThe sooner partial interests are got rid of and replaced with genuine Public Servants who have the Public's Interest as their first priority, the better?
ReplyDeleteThe NONO brigade are damaging Scotland with their cover-up ethos, causing the Public to have zero faith in their secret agenda?
While this debate continues is there not a danger the judges will simply liquidate any dodgy financial dealings and end some of their equally dodgy relationships or money spinners on the side?
ReplyDeleteWhat manner of power exists here when in 2013 Judges have never had to register their interests. Power is being abused because they designed the system that way. How dare you question me, that is the attitude. My reply, omnipotent power must be questioned for the sake of public. You are only a man Mr Gill.
ReplyDelete#Anonymous @ 25 October 2013 19:31
ReplyDeleteGood point ... and with solicitors and QCs admitting they are concerned for their careers if they are seen to question a judge's fitness to hear a case by raising questions over judicial interests there will have to be independent scrutiny of how any register of judicial interests is maintained and published.
#Anonymous @ 25 October 2013 17:43
If it is a serious proposal it should be made by the individual to the Scottish Parliament in writing, however such a proposal should not be used to delay the introduction of a register of judicial interests although some with vested interests will mostly likely attempt to ...
#Anonymous @ 26 October 2013 13:12
Yes ... especially with regard to the judiciary.
#Anonymous @ 27 October 2013 18:07
Yes there is and this is exactly what is going on with regards to some members of the judiciary .. however it is interesting to watch, document and record developments and the way in which positions regarding some interests are being altered ... almost in the same way judges have accused litigants in the past of attempting to hide assets from court proceedings ...
How members of the judiciary and those connected with them are currently dealing with their interests will make for some interesting headlines as the debate continues ...
#Anonymous @ 28 October 2013 10:58
As they say ... Power corrupts and absolute power ....
The comment at 13.12 is correct just stop using solicitors. It is already happening. A retired friend of mine lives opposite a lawyers office and in one week only two people were observed entering the office other than staff this may not be an accurate picture. One may have been the landlord chasing the rent!!!! It is the only way to react to what is going on JUST STOP USING SOLICITORS. the penny will eventually drop but if the "good ones" do nothing then the situation will not change.
ReplyDeleteInteresting what you said about how the judges "and those connected to them" are dealing with their interests.Does this refer to business,professional or family relationships?
ReplyDeleteNot that I am surprised as this could be called predictable behaviour of someone who believes their interests may compromise their position in public life.
Looking forward to hearing more on this.
I think the first comment sums up what most of us are thinking - the judges are as crooked as the rest of them!
ReplyDeleteIt is really astounding to me these judges were ever allowed to write themselves a law letting them out of declaring their interests in some kind of public register like others have had to do for years.
ReplyDeleteAnyway good luck with your petition and this debate is a fascinating insight into what is really going on in the courts and the same debate should be taking place in England too
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteNoticed coverage of your petition on stv http://news.stv.tv/scotland/239879-scotlands-top-judge-criticised-over-refusal-of-register-of-interests/
nothing on the bbc so the Law Society's embargo must still be operating!
26 October 2013 17:18
yes and kind of odd they managed to report it without mentioning the petitioner himself!
looks to me this legal profession with the judges at their head pull too many strings and have too much influence in wee parochial Scotland where it is almost verboten to speak ill of those in ermine who carry a chip on their shoulder against anyone who dare question what they get up to!
So the judges are going around trying to hide their ill gotten gains just like the sneaks and tax dodgers who appear in front of them and get a right royal judicial mouthwashing?
ReplyDeleteMight be cheaper paying the crooks not to commit crime if this is the way our justice system is run with crooks at the top of it and right down to the crooked clerks as I see you covered in another great report!
I hope to hear plenty condemnation from the msps on the committee about Lord Gill's treatment of the JCR because his arrogance is a disgrace to the whole justice system.
ReplyDeletethe judge will order a drone strike to silence the debate before we learn the truth of their criminality
ReplyDeleteRead this from New Zealand and see the similarities to what is happening with Lord Gill and your scottish judges are doing the same to your petition and the scottish parliament
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145848073&RefID=2141732957
The submissions of the Judiciary made to Parliament against the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill claims it "has the support of the judiciary and specifically the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief High Court Judge, Chief District Court Judge, Chief Employment Court Judge, Chief Maori Land Court Judge and Acting Principal Environment Court Judge."
The full force personal lobbying effort seems to confirm the Ministry of Justice website claim of a constitutional separation of powers doctrine to be merely a theory, if not a downright conspiracy of misinformation.
But it gets more disturbing when one reads the judges personal reasons for wanting the bill killed. The judges do not claim it constitutes bad law. They argue that while it is recognised internationally as good law it is unnecessary here because New Zealand judges are presumably more honest than everywhere else.
Supreme Court Judge John McGrath, (pictured) "Acting Chief Justice", penned the subs which give as its reasons for killing the bill "In its issues paper 'Towards a new Courts Act: A register of judges 'pecuniary interests?' the Law Commission identified the prevention of judicial corruption as one purpose of judicial disclosure regimes internationally. However, as the Commission went on to point out, there is simply no evidence of judicial corruption of this type in New Zealand, which presumably reflects factors such as the relatively small size of the New Zealand legal community and the nature of judicial appointment processes. Accordingly, prevention of corruption provides no justification for the establishment of a register of judges' pecuniary interests in New Zealand."
This is what the government funded Transparency International New Zealand have been telling us for years. We have no corruption-watch mechanisms in place because they are a waste of time. Hell, even lawyers do not know what "the nature of judicial appointment processes" are in New Zealand - but they must be better than the rest of the world because the judges appointed by these obscure processes say so.
The NZ judiciary have a long sordid history of secret dealings and even more secret financial relationships. We accepted when judges queued up to pervert the evidence in the Mt Erebus crash inquiry out of some misconceived sense they were nobly protecting the reputation of our national air carrier. Public apathy was less explicable three years ago when Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson was forced to resign over undisclosed debts to appearing counsel in a widespread cover up which NZ Bar President James Farmer QC secretly confided in an email to Sir Ted Thomas would likely result in bringing down Chief Justice Sian Elias if the matter were probed.
Perhaps Acting Chief Justice McGrath was in some Talaban cave with no radio during the 2010 Wilson conflict of interest saga which might have brought down the Chief Justice if probed.
the rest of the story from New Zealand
ReplyDeleteEven so, it is an open secret that when he was Solicitor General, John McGrath routinely used his executive powers to stay Police inquiries into judges and, in at least two cases, refused to provide evidence held by Crown Law of judicial misconduct to the Police. One such case concerned now-retired Judge Michael Lance who, unbeknownst to the police, had travelled down from his post in Northland to Rotorua in 1994 to preside in the fraud and blackmail trial of his son Simon's business partner. Despite audio-evidence of the blackmail, Lance threw the case out, in the process suppressing the court file and blasting the police for wasting the Court's time.
When police inspector John Dewar uncovered Lance's relationship with the defendant and his superiors sought to obtain the Justice Ministry's file on Lance for a possible prosecution, SG McGrath ordered the police investigation stopped, claiming it was a waste of time and not in the public interest.
In 2009, police eventually charged Judge Lance with vandalising cars in front of his Takapuna apartment after the third incident police responded to. The judge-alone trial let Lance off but his judging days were finally over. McGrath was personally responsible for extending this judge's criminal career.
While all this goes to prove His Honour Justice McGrath has committed a contempt of Parliament by claiming - despite his long personal history of covering it up - judicial corruption does not exist in order to kill a bill, no one expects him to be called out by the sheepish legal community. We apparently like our judges to tell ridiculously big lies and it is obvious from this example that a judge on our highest court has no shame in telling huge ones.
In any other country it would be a front page news scandal if the entire judicial community sought to disingenuously mislead the Legislature regarding judicial corruption in order to prevent legislation requiring disclosure of their business and financial interests. New Zealand judges may all be goose-stepping in unison to kill off legislation but to call it anything other than just a coincidence implies one of those ridiculous conspiracy theories we all despise.
Look at how the New Zealand Government are buckling under to the judges lobbying A TOTAL DISGRACE
ReplyDeletehttp://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/g/government-response-to-the-law-commissions-report-review-of-the-judicature-act-1908-towards-a-new-courts-act/judges
WE NEED THE SUNDAY MAIL IN NZ!
Ah I see the Brits exported judicial corruption to New Zealand along with a lot of other colonial garbage.
ReplyDeleteThis stuff from the kiwi website sounds just as bad as what I read on yours about the Scots judges!
You guys fighting this should get together but you really need to rise above all these hoods in stupid wigs and get yourselves into 2013 instead of taking orders from a bunch of fossils.
"
ReplyDeleteIn any other country it would be a front page news scandal if the entire judicial community sought to disingenuously mislead the Legislature regarding judicial corruption in order to prevent legislation requiring disclosure of their business and financial interests. New Zealand judges may all be goose-stepping in unison to kill off legislation but to call it anything other than just a coincidence implies one of those ridiculous conspiracy theories we all despise."
EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON IN SCOTLAND!AND OUR JUDGES HAVE EVEN THREATENED THE PARLIAMENT WITH THE SCOTLAND ACT!
I ask all readers of A Diary of Injustice please do not trust lawyers. Like Mr Cherbi, myself and thousands of others avoid law firms as much as possible. Only when their revenues suffer as a result of the truth becoming widely known will they change.
ReplyDeleteThere are no decent lawyers in my opinion. Not one Scottish lawyer has argued client suicides are wrong. Split your assets amicably because if you trust a lawyer you may get £000000000000000000. And if that happens, lawyer investigates lawyer, the reason A Diary of Injustice was born.
Never trust lawyers. They are all bad.
The Lord President has confirmed: “You have a clear but limited remit. The nature of your work and the terms of your remit do not involve any follow-up.”...............No follow up, so kill of the investigation, Lord Stealth he is so out of touch his actions speak louder than his words. From the paralegal to Lord President Stealth trust not one of them.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe comment at 13.12 is correct just stop using solicitors..........Yes indeed. We need to cut of what they desperately need, money. Then we need an e bay type feedback system so that clients who do use them can record their experiences for potential clients. And here is the imbalance of power, the lawyer can take the client to court if he defames him. The client cannot take the lawyer to court if he steals his assets [he won't get legal representation]. Forget the Law Society or SLCC cesspits of corruption. Hardly a balanced system my friend, they designed it to protect themselves so I am not surprised at the Lord Presidents attitude to the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. Lawyers do not want complaints, they want obedience.
Ask a lawyer to sue the lawyer who ruined you. There are no good solicitors.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be dead than trust any lawyer. They are an evil profession and people should heed the warnings from the people who have dealt with them and their protectionist complaints system. Never again, will I deal with these people.
ReplyDelete"The NZ judiciary have a long sordid history of secret dealings and even more secret financial relationships."
ReplyDeleteHere in Scotland just the same and I wouldnt be surprised if our judges are doing fiddles on the side with your New Zealand judges!
Complete dishonesty from the judges they are not to be trusted and head a rotten stinking legal system that benefits themselves so much they are too afraid to reveal it in a register
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe comment at 13.12 is correct just stop using solicitors. It is already happening. A retired friend of mine lives opposite a lawyers office and in one week only two people were observed entering the office other than staff this may not be an accurate picture. One may have been the landlord chasing the rent!!!! It is the only way to react to what is going on JUST STOP USING SOLICITORS. the penny will eventually drop but if the "good ones" do nothing then the situation will not change.
28 October 2013 12:25
Great news!I've been telling as many people to avoid lawyers and have printed out lots of pages from this blog to warn people of all the traps they face when dealing with a lawyer and had many come back to me and say it saved them a lot of trouble also had some say their lawyer dumped them when they started asking questions about why nothing was happening in their case and why they were continually made to sign legal aid forms just like you wrote about lawyers who rip off legal aid and get away with it!
Best ever blog on legal stuff and now you are having a go at the judges this is the icing on the cake because we all know a crooked system needs a willing head and that is what the judges are!
sort of surprised to read how bad things are with the judges in New Zealand but I suppose any outsider reading about our dirty Scottish judges will come to the same conclusion - its always where you least expect it!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI would rather be dead than trust any lawyer. They are an evil profession and people should heed the warnings from the people who have dealt with them and their protectionist complaints system. Never again, will I deal with these people.
29 October 2013 01:45
Looks like we better add judges and especially Lord Gill to our avoid list!
In reply to the comment of 28 October 2013 22:21
ReplyDeleteYou might wish to point out to your MP that 'self praise is no recommendation'.
I will be following the bill's progress.....from the other side of the world.
So where is Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill in all of this?
ReplyDeleteWhen the Cadder ruling and then Nat Fraser Supreme Court appeal came through they were up in arms accusing the judges of everything and now when Scotland's top judge tells OUR parliament to get stuffed not a peep!
Has Salmond and MacAskill been robbed of their balls or even neutered by Lord Gill's powerful swish of the ermine razor?Wow!
If the Judiciary can hold a parliament in a vice, those elected have no power. If they bend over for the Judiciary democracy is an illusion.
ReplyDeleteWhat if Lord Gill suddenly said in the middle of a case he decides to change the evidence and dismiss the case and them someone complains and they get nowhere because he dismisses the complaint and refuses to tell Moi Ali?These judges cannot be trusted when they hide their fiddles from us who pay their wages
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe comment at 13.12 is correct just stop using solicitors. It is already happening. A retired friend of mine lives opposite a lawyers office and in one week only two people were observed entering the office other than staff this may not be an accurate picture. One may have been the landlord chasing the rent!!!! It is the only way to react to what is going on JUST STOP USING SOLICITORS. the penny will eventually drop but if the "good ones" do nothing then the situation will not change.
28 October 2013 12:25
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I too have noticed this. At our garage we have the same Scottish lawyers coming in every year for their brand new Mercedes Benz with all the bells and whistles?
However, this year they are not ordering as many bells and whistles?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteInteresting what you said about how the judges "and those connected to them" are dealing with their interests.Does this refer to business,professional or family relationships?
Not that I am surprised as this could be called predictable behaviour of someone who believes their interests may compromise their position in public life.
Looking forward to hearing more on this.
28 October 2013 13:01
cvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcv
Why would Scottish Judges declare an Interest or recuse themselves, when they have an opportunity to rule in favour of their partial Interest or of those of their pals, safe in the knowledge that the secrecy of the present system and with Lord NONO watching their back, there is ZERO chance of them being caught out?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteRead this from New Zealand and see the similarities to what is happening with Lord Gill and your scottish judges are doing the same to your petition and the scottish parliament
http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145848073&RefID=2141732957
The submissions of the Judiciary made to Parliament against the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill claims it "has the support of the judiciary and specifically the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief High Court Judge, Chief District Court Judge, Chief Employment Court Judge, Chief Maori Land Court Judge and Acting Principal Environment Court Judge."
The full force personal lobbying effort seems to confirm the Ministry of Justice website claim of a constitutional separation of powers doctrine to be merely a theory, if not a downright conspiracy of misinformation.
But it gets more disturbing when one reads the judges personal reasons for wanting the bill killed. The judges do not claim it constitutes bad law. They argue that while it is recognised internationally as good law it is unnecessary here because New Zealand judges are presumably more honest than everywhere else.
Supreme Court Judge John McGrath, (pictured) "Acting Chief Justice", penned the subs which give as its reasons for killing the bill "In its issues paper 'Towards a new Courts Act: A register of judges 'pecuniary interests?' the Law Commission identified the prevention of judicial corruption as one purpose of judicial disclosure regimes internationally. However, as the Commission went on to point out, there is simply no evidence of judicial corruption of this type in New Zealand, which presumably reflects factors such as the relatively small size of the New Zealand legal community and the nature of judicial appointment processes. Accordingly, prevention of corruption provides no justification for the establishment of a register of judges' pecuniary interests in New Zealand."
This is what the government funded Transparency International New Zealand have been telling us for years. We have no corruption-watch mechanisms in place because they are a waste of time. Hell, even lawyers do not know what "the nature of judicial appointment processes" are in New Zealand - but they must be better than the rest of the world because the judges appointed by these obscure processes say so.
The NZ judiciary have a long sordid history of secret dealings and even more secret financial relationships. We accepted when judges queued up to pervert the evidence in the Mt Erebus crash inquiry out of some misconceived sense they were nobly protecting the reputation of our national air carrier. Public apathy was less explicable three years ago when Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson was forced to resign over undisclosed debts to appearing counsel in a widespread cover up which NZ Bar President James Farmer QC secretly confided in an email to Sir Ted Thomas would likely result in bringing down Chief Justice Sian Elias if the matter were probed.
Perhaps Acting Chief Justice McGrath was in some Talaban cave with no radio during the 2010 Wilson conflict of interest saga which might have brought down the Chief Justice if probed.
28 October 2013 22:21
---------------------------------
The only question to be asked by NZ & Scottish People is this?
Would a bona fide, progressive, modern, fit for purpose, impartial, trustworthy and transparent Judicial Body really try to defeat this Petition and say that it is for some other Jurisdiction but not their own Or IS THIS PRECISELY WHAT A BUNCH OF CROOKS WOULD SAY WHEN THEIR SELF SERVING, SELF INTEREST WAYS HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED AND ARE AT RISK OF HAVING THEIR SECRECY EXPOSED AND WHERE THEY ARE BEING FORCED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteRead this from New Zealand and see the similarities to what is happening with Lord Gill and your scottish judges are doing the same to your petition and the scottish parliament
http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145848073&RefID=2141732957
XxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX
Towards the end of one of the televised Scottish Parliament, Petitions Committee Hearings, the Convener was overheard 'letting the cat-out-of-the-proverbial-bag, where he reveals that the NZ Parliament have already ruled out their Petition?'
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"
In any other country it would be a front page news scandal if the entire judicial community sought to disingenuously mislead the Legislature regarding judicial corruption in order to prevent legislation requiring disclosure of their business and financial interests. New Zealand judges may all be goose-stepping in unison to kill off legislation but to call it anything other than just a coincidence implies one of those ridiculous conspiracy theories we all despise."
EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON IN SCOTLAND!AND OUR JUDGES HAVE EVEN THREATENED THE PARLIAMENT WITH THE SCOTLAND ACT!
28 October 2013 23:54
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Precisely what happens when the Judiciary believe they are above ALL laws and that the laws of the land do not apply to them, where power has corrupted absolutely?
The Lord President has confirmed: “You have a clear but limited remit. The nature of your work and the terms of your remit do not involve any follow-up.”
ReplyDeleteJust as he has said to the Scottish Parliament as in telling them to get stuffed!
Are you not concerned with all this government hacking going on they will have a go at you and try to wipe your info or even do something against you?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIf the Judiciary can hold a parliament in a vice, those elected have no power. If they bend over for the Judiciary democracy is an illusion.
30 October 2013 00:15
())())()()()()())())()()()()()()()()()
Telly tubby and MacRoadkill are NONO's bitches?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhat if Lord Gill suddenly said in the middle of a case he decides to change the evidence and dismiss the case and them someone complains and they get nowhere because he dismisses the complaint and refuses to tell Moi Ali?These judges cannot be trusted when they hide their fiddles from us who pay their wages
30 October 2013 00:32
_____________________
Zero accountability?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe Lord President has confirmed: “You have a clear but limited remit. The nature of your work and the terms of your remit do not involve any follow-up.”
Just as he has said to the Scottish Parliament as in telling them to get stuffed!
30 October 2013 15:50
///////::;;://:;;;://:;;::/:;;;://:;;::/
THEY'VE BEEN TAKING US FOR FOOLS FOR TOO LONG?
Are we expected to believe that the reason they did not allow Ms Moi Ali oversight function of the Judicial Complaints Process (like they have in England) was because of some peculiarity of Scottish Law?
Turns out, if it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a Duck?
That is, the reason Ms Moi AIi was not allowed oversight function to allow her to do a thorough job is that the Scottish Judges wanted to keep their dark dealings a secret from the Scottish Public, so that they could act as Judge & Jury without fear of someone finding out about their corrupt practises?
In reply to the comment of 30 October 2013 09:56;
ReplyDeletePerhaps MSPs should be ren=minded that 'two wrongs do NOT make a right'.
Did anyone bother to watch that blood draining experience of the cameras in the Court of Appeal?
ReplyDeleteA 70 second delay in the live broadcast as well just in case the judge's wig falls off or he struggles to explain a point of law.
Well if they can have the cameras they can have the register too so we know exactly who these people are and remember they are just people like the rest of us and prone to the same greed and criminality like the rest of the legal fraternity!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIf the Judiciary can hold a parliament in a vice, those elected have no power. If they bend over for the Judiciary democracy is an illusion.
30 October 2013 00:15
Yes exactly what seems to be happening in Scotland today.Why do we have the parliament when the judicial dictatorship runs the country?
ReplyDeleteIf the Judiciary can hold a parliament in a vice, those elected have no power. If they bend over for the Judiciary democracy is an illusion.
30 October 2013 00:15
Yes exactly what seems to be happening in Scotland today.Why do we have the parliament when the judicial dictatorship runs the country?
=================================
They cannot tell the public Lord No No is the Kind of Scotland, in legal terms he is and he is unelected. Put it this way fill a parliament with people who think like McAskill and Salmond and voting will never diminish Lord Gill's powers of secrecy, as I said democracy is an illusion. An oligarch pulls the strings behind his puppets, Punch and Judy.
Perhaps he does not wish to disclose any interests that coincide with those of Jabba the Hut
ReplyDelete