Friday, November 01, 2013

Vested Interests : Protests of Scotland’s anti-transparency top judge questioned as Courts Chief tells MSPs register of interests cause no problems for court staff

Courts Chief admission to Holyrood contradicts anti-transparency protests of top judge. CLAIMS made by Scotland’s top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill that forcing judges to disclose their hidden wealth, secret earnings, business & personal relationships, directorships, offshore finances, gifts & hospitality in a published register of interests may cause undue harm & harassment and made it difficult to recruit for the judiciary, have been dealt a blow by the Chief Executive of the Scottish Court Service (SCS) who has been forced to admit to MSPs that no problems have been caused to all other court workers who are required to declare their interests & hospitality.

Responding to queries from MSPs on the subject of Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, Mr Eric McQueen, Chief Executive of the SCS, who recently gave testimony to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee Parliament along with Lord Gill regarding court closures across Scotland, told the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee in a letter last week the SCS implementation of a register of interests & hospitality for its own employees “has not posed any difficulties and staff register their interests as appropriate.”

Court Chief tells MSPs in letter : No harm has come to staff who declare interests. Thank you for your letter of 25 September 2013 in which you seek the Scottish Court Service,s views on what the petition is seeking. You also asked whether there have been any issues for the SCS in operation a register of interests for the people within the SCS.

The Committee will be aware that the Scottish Courts Service is a body corporate established by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. The statutory function of the SCS is to provide the resources and support to the courts of Scotland and the judiciary in those courts. It also provides support to the Lord President and other members of the judiciary who have leadership functions.

The subject matter of the petition is not a matter which has been discussed by the Scottish Court Service Board. It is not a matter within the statutory responsibility of the SCS and as such it is not appropriate that the SCS expresses any view on the subject matter of the petition.

The Scottish Court Service has maintained a register of interests for staff for many years in line with standard practice across the civil service. It has not posed any difficulties and staff register interests, as appropriate.

The admission from the Chief Executive of Scotland’s courts that staff work within a register of their own interests without causing personal harm, raises serious questions over outlandish claims presented by Lord Gill in earlier written submissions to MSPs that bringing similar transparency to the judiciary and requiring judges to comply with a register of interests may have “unintended consequences” and somehow damage the judiciary.

Writing to MSPs earlier this year in February, Lord Gill – who opposes greater transparency of judges interests, said he feared judges could be harassed by the media and their privacy ruined. Diary of Injustice reported on Lord Gill’s attack against transparency calls, here : A MATTER OF TRUST : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill attacks Scottish Parliament petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scots Judiciary

Top judge tells MSPs forcing judiciary to be honest about their interests may have unintended consequences. Lord Gill protested : “The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused. These are significant concerns.

Lord Gill continued : “If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. It also raises the question whether such a measure would have an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of the Judiciary.”

In two further letters to MSPs, the Lord President went on to refuse to attend the Scottish Parliament to answer questions on his opposition to Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and even went so far as to inform MSPs they could not insist he attend an evidence session because of loopholes in the Scotland Act.

However, MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee have already heard from Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) Moi Ali – who supports a register of judicial interests, that increased transparency of the judiciary can only increase public confidence in the justice system. Moi Ali told MSPs in a letter : “Better transparency would enhance the standing of that judiciary and bring judicial office holders into line with other holders of important roles in public life.”

Further reporting on JCR Moi Ali’s submission to the Petitions Committee was featured here : ‘Better Transparency would enhance Judiciary’ as Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer issues support for Register of interests for judges

Video footage of testimony given by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has been previously reported 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

Given the admission of the Chief Executive of the SCS, who’s job it is to keep the courts working, Lord Gill’s arguments that more transparency in the form of a register of interests could cause harm to the judiciary are now seriously in doubt, given the fact registers of interest are common in public life and that there is no honest reason why the judiciary should be exempt from declaring their interests.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations of the judiciary 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

46 comments:

  1. Heh Peter have to hand it to you - you really know how to wipe the floor with the legal clowns and that includes Gill!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Scottish Court Service has maintained a register of interests for staff for many years in line with standard practice across the civil service. It has not posed any difficulties and staff register interests, as appropriate.

    So if its good enough for them then the judges must also have one and it has to be published so we can all see what they are up to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just in time to spoil his weekend again..

    People must be beginning to wonder how dirty these judges are with all these headlines and Lord NONO's arrogance.

    Surely its got way past the point where someone might say it is about a principle rather than admitting to being tax dodgers and fiddlers of the highest order!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why is this debate even continuing when everyone with an ounce of honesty wants a register of interests for these judges

    Parliament LEGISLATE NOW

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr McQueen will be getting a good spanking from Lord Gill for speaking out of turn.Perish the thought anyone from within the courts has declared their interests without all the media harassment Mr Gill warned about in his letter to the parliament.The comment saying parliament should legislate now is what should happen because the judges appear to be too corrupt and set in their ways to do it themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. double standards?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any excuse Lord President, we don't trust you, is the penny dropping?

    Trust no lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants.
    ============================
    A license to use secrecy as a means of protecting a cartel of vested interests. Now why would anyone be hostile towards the judiciary?

    ReplyDelete
  9. To the person who commented to my comment on this report, "LORD EVADER : Battle over Register of Interests sees Scotland’s top judge refuse to reveal information to Judicial Complaints Reviewer, brands JCR as “third party” in effort to shield judges from scrutiny"
    =============================
    Yes exactly what seems to be happening in Scotland today. Why do we have the parliament when the judicial dictatorship runs the country?
    31 October 2013 21:42
    ==================================
    I agree. Democracy is an illusion, I would go as far as to say in contemporary terms it is Plutocracy, a small faction of the unelected have political power, put it this way try and get a lawyer to sue a lawyer never mind getting a lawyer to sue a high court judge. Democracy means we are all meant to be equal before the law? In fact the judiciary have a monopoly on who does and does not have access to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's okay Lord President, we don't trust the judiciary.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It seems the longer this goes on the more clear it becomes that literally the only people in favour of the status quo are those who can hide behind it - namely the Judges.

    ReplyDelete
  12. After reading the other post on the court staff and their interests little wonder the judges want to keep their own dirty secrets hidden from us!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lord Gill is a court worker, albeit an omnipotent one. He therefore has no excuse to reject calls for transparency. Clearly there are shady links and he wants to keep the public in the dark.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Parliament LEGISLATE NOW.............Yes indeed, who has the power, the people of Scotland or the Lord President and his colleagues? We shall see. Is it a democracy or oligarchy?

    ReplyDelete
  15. A Judge who rejects a Register of Interests is failing society, just like he has done nothing about his Civil Courts Review, the man is clearly not to be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A monopoly on secrecy, that is what he has.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If the people of Scotland vote for independence Lord President Gill will be the clandestine unelected head of the country with his puppet Salmond dancing [as always] to his tune. That is the case now, it will get worse with Independence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lord Gill continued : “If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. It also raises the question whether such a measure would have an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of the Judiciary.”

    So is this guy trying to kid?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lord President 'It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused'.............It is possible you have much to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There must be a lot of money and professional reputations at stake. DOI have got the Lord President into a dilemma of his own making.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Transparency for everyone else, except us?

    ReplyDelete
  22. A register of Scottish Judges Interests is in their opinion 'Not in the Public Interest'?

    This is because if the Scottish Public found out what they were up to, there would be an almighty scandal which would be a car-crash for the Scottish Judicial System and therefore the Public must be kept ignorant?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Doubtless the argument here will be you cannot compare a judge to a mere mortal who keeps the courts functioning and has to whisper in m'lud's ear to keep him awake during hearings (which often happens these days if anyone has bothered to take note)

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Lord President by threatening the Scottish Parliament is actually by default threatening the Scottish people, the electorate. We voted for a parliament to represent our interests not the interests of the Lord President. If he can control Scotland's MSP's he is not only in charge of the Legal System, he is in charge of the country and he is unelected.

    This means Parliament is an empty shell where political power resides the hands of the legal profession. This is an affront to democratic values and leaves a public servant with executive power. Why, because MSP's have to vote to change the law to enact a Register of Judicial Interests. It is totally unacceptable and shameful. And the answer to this problem lies with out MSP's they have to do the right thing for the people who elected them. Lawyers have a monopoly on who has access to the courts, so it is not surprising they ruin so many lives. My advice from bitter experience stay away from them. I would rather be dead than trust them and I really mean that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lord Gill continued : “If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician.
    =========================================
    Lord Gill this is a weak argument because a politician can be removed through the ballot box, you cannot, you are a public servant who makes decision affecting us. Justice and secrecy are mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  26. He can have a multitude of excuses but he is a catalyst for increasing public mistrust further and he is far too concerned with protecting his own faction that he is looking weak and foolish. Refusing to appear in Parliament is a refusal to indirectly appear before the Scottish people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I dont go for the argument about judges being higher up the ladder and thus should be exempt from a register which the court employees are required to maintain.If anything the judges should be subject to even more scrutiny because of their position and remember they are paid an even larger amount from the public purse like the Scottish Court Service employees.

    Judges should not be allowed to write their own rules on what they need to disclose.That is not transparency at all and now we have this debate the parliament should take action just as others have said and bring this register into force to bring the judges into line with everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As a victim of the system, where the sheriff concealed from the court a ten-year relationship with a cited witness, it is clear that those Lord Gill is trying to protect are likely to have much to hide.

    There can be no justice worthy of the name whilst certain individuals are allowed to withhold personal information likely to have an impact on their ability to make impartial sentencing and judicial decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Suddenly Lord Gill's argument he and his colleagues will be harassed by everyone just because their secrets are revealed seem a little ... dishonest?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous said...
    To the person who commented to my comment on this report, "LORD EVADER : Battle over Register of Interests sees Scotland’s top judge refuse to reveal information to Judicial Complaints Reviewer, brands JCR as “third party” in effort to shield judges from scrutiny"
    =============================
    Yes exactly what seems to be happening in Scotland today. Why do we have the parliament when the judicial dictatorship runs the country?
    31 October 2013 21:42
    ==================================
    I agree. Democracy is an illusion, I would go as far as to say in contemporary terms it is Plutocracy, a small faction of the unelected have political power, put it this way try and get a lawyer to sue a lawyer never mind getting a lawyer to sue a high court judge. Democracy means we are all meant to be equal before the law? In fact the judiciary have a monopoly on who does and does not have access to justice.

    2 November 2013 01:55
    [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

    Plutocracy yes and getting more and more each day like the Roman Empire with Caeser Salmon laying back dropping grapes into his big gub? Where we are the Plebs?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous said...
    Lord Gill is a court worker, albeit an omnipotent one. He therefore has no excuse to reject calls for transparency. Clearly there are shady links and he wants to keep the public in the dark.

    2 November 2013 20:07
    -----------------------------------

    Like a Legal Mafia?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous said...
    Doubtless the argument here will be you cannot compare a judge to a mere mortal who keeps the courts functioning and has to whisper in m'lud's ear to keep him awake during hearings (which often happens these days if anyone has bothered to take note)

    3 November 2013 20:54
    :;(;):(;(;):):(;(;(;):):):(;(;(;(:):):

    One of the reasons camera's are not allowed in court because if you were to show a judge's head bobbing down, it would not be in the Public Interest to show this as it would cause the Public to lose their confidence in Scottish Judges?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Has Scotland fallen so far as to deserve Lord NONO?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I heard a rumour the judges are threatening to start finding against the govt in cases if they are made to register their interests..is this true?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lord Gill continued : “If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. It also raises the question whether such a measure would have an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of the Judiciary.”

    So does Lord Gill believe he is recruiting saints to be members of the judiciary?

    Those on the bench are anything but and some have led shocking careers as solicitors long before they even made it to being an advocate.Gill and the rest of his cadre are living in a fairy tale world devoid of reality and accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486789/Natasha-16-complained-headaches-She-died-13-doctors-failed-diagnose-brain-tumour.html

    not very much the topic I know however I bet these judges get top notch health care and never need to worry about 21 doctors ignoring them

    Not just Scotland,Britain is getting more disgusting by the day

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous said...

    I heard a rumour the judges are threatening to start finding against the govt in cases if they are made to register their interests..is this true?

    4 November 2013 20:04

    Wouldnt be surprised to hear if this is true although dont think we will ever find out for sure because all these people meet behind closed doors and come up with amnesia when asked about what was said at the meeting.

    Also wouldnt be surprised if someone from the judicial vested interests club has made similar veiled threats to the msps just in case someone actually decides to put your register into law over the wishes of the judges

    ReplyDelete
  38. So does Lord Gill believe he is recruiting saints to be members of the judiciary?

    Those on the bench are anything but and some have led shocking careers as solicitors long before they even made it to being an advocate.Gill and the rest of his cadre are living in a fairy tale world devoid of reality and accountability.

    4 November 2013 21:19

    Yes you are correct and not just the judges themselves look at what some of their families get up to and always seem to avoid criminal charges for their actions!

    ReplyDelete
  39. 'The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary'

    NONO has managed this all by himself?

    ReplyDelete
  40. SO the judges must declare their interests if they want our trust if not they should get lost and be replaced by people who are transparent and dont argue against the public good just to protect their secret sleaze

    ReplyDelete
  41. Lord Hardy had no difficulty providing a register in interests when he went to the House of Lords, so if it is good enough for Westminster it is good enough for Edinburgh.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Invite Mr McQueen to testify at the parliament and get this all out in the open about the clerks and their register

    ReplyDelete
  43. ‘Changing the way you see lawyers’.................Seen the advert, they won't change the way I see lawyers in a million years. Trust no lawyer, that is the safest way.

    The press are changing the way we see Lord No No, and he is making the mistrust worse.

    ReplyDelete
  44. NONO's jacket peg gets ever more shooglie?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Why has this Petition not been enacted into law yet?

    C'mon polititions, you've had long enough?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The Lord President and his judicial colleagues are not only Plutocrats, they are Plutocrats who want to hide their financial dealings. They run Scotland like the International Bankers run the economies worldwide. Politicians are puppets for the secretive rich, there is no democracy in this. What does voting do when these omnipotent actors hold the levers of political power through their elected puppets in Hollyrood and Westminster?

    The critical question is how power is used to protect the rich minority at the expense of the voting majority.

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.