Annual report of Judicial Investigator calls for Scottish Govt action, raises concerns of judicial transparency. MOI ALI, Scotland’s first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) has today published a damning report on how the judiciary deal with complaints made by members of the public against Scottish judges. In her second annual report, Moi Ali details case histories, problems with confusing rules, and raises a series of significant concerns over the lack of scrutiny & transparency in the judiciary.
Ms Ali has spoken in the media at length regarding her annual report, calling on the Scottish Government to raise the level of scrutiny of the judiciary and give the JCR extra powers which already exist in England & Wales.
JCR admits office lacks much needed powers – Report. The Judicial Complaints Reviewer’s 2012-2013 annual report is published today on the JCR’s website, available here or can be viewed online via DOI here. Among many issues of concern raised in the JCR’s annual report are instances where the Judicial Office has refused to share files and paperwork in relation to complaints made against judges and how were handled.
The report also makes reference to refusals by Lord President Lord Brian Gill to hand over information to the JCR, claiming Moi Ali’s office is a "Third Party" and that data cannot be shared with her office for reasons of confidentiality. while in England & Wales, the same information is published online.
It also emerged that even though a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the JCR & Judicial Office earlier this year on respective roles, responsibilities and agreed undertakings, the situation regarding the contents of files has not been resolved to Ms Ali’s satisfaction.
JCR publishes consultation on rules. Additionally, and of equal importance, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has also published a highly critical and detailed consultation response to the Lord President on proposals to revise rules on complaints against the judiciary. The consultation document can be viewed online via DOI here : Judicial Complaints Reviewer Responses re Rules consultation public document. Moi Ali has recommended significant changes to rules on judicial complaints, clarity of procedures and also the amending of rules to allow complaints to be made about the Lord President, something which currently cannot be done.
The Sunday Mail newspaper reported this weekend on issues raised in the JCR’s second annual report, including calls from Moi Ali for the Scottish Government to act over the lack of scrutiny and transparency in Scotland’s judiciary.
We, Scotland's judges, stand accused of making the process of complaining about us impossibly difficult. You, our toothless watchdog, have been deliberating. So, have you reached a verdict? YOU'RE GUILTY, M'LUDS
MOI ALI, the country's first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer, says she is currently powerless to do more to help the public understand the complex legal complaints system.
News Special : By Russell Findlay Sunday Mail 15 Dec 2013
KENNY MacASKILL has been urged to get tough with Scotland’s judges after a watchdog warned they are stifling complaints and dodging scrutiny.
Moi Ali was appointed by the SNP’s Justice Secretary as the country’s first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer but, before delivering her second annual report tomorrow, she voiced fears that her role is mere “window dressing” and needs more teeth if it is to hold judges to account.
Ali says people find it virtually impossible to understand confusing rules about how to complain about judges, sheriffs and JPs. She said: “They are legal rules, written by lawyers for other lawyers to use. To me, the perspective is completely wrong. You write the rules for the public, not for lawyers.”
She believes that former solicitor MacAskill must bring in new laws to end judicial self-regulation.
Ali, who also sits on the Scottish Police Authority board said: “I think fundamentally the problem is the legislation. “The way it’s created, it’s about self- regulation so you have judges judging judges’ conduct. There isn’t really an independent element.“I’m presented as the independent element but, without the powers, I can’t be independent. We have the appearance of independent oversight but not the reality.”
Ali’s post was created by the Scottish Government in the face of fierce opposition from judges. With a ￡2000 annual budget, no staff and no office, she has been forced to work for free in addition to the three days per month for which she is paid.
She said: “There was a genuine recognition that something needed to be done. “But I think with any professional group, whether it’s the judiciary or any other powerful group of people, it’s quite difficult to take them on. “And I think that appearing to do something when actually, perhaps, doing the bare minimum is an easier way of addressing it. It’s a bit like being in a straitjacket.”
Ali has caused consternation in government and judicial circles by publicly admitting she is powerless. All she can do is review how complaints are handled by the Judicial Office for Scotland, which is headed by top judge Lord President Lord Gill.
She said: “I’m sorry to say that I do think there was an element of window dressing. “The system is about investigating complaints about the judiciary but that whole system is run by the judiciary. “Without any proper, external, genuinely independent oversight, you’re not going to have public faith and confidence. “I know people will be very unhappy with me using the term window dressing but I think there is an element of that.”
Scotland’s system trails behind England and Wales, who have an Office for Judicial Complaints.
In addition, there is a powerful independent ombudsman who can overturn decisions, order reinvestigations and compensate victims.
Ali said: “England and Wales started doing this, and a whole lot more, in 2006. “We’re not even where they were at when they started so we’ve got an awful lot of catching up to do. “The fact we have a JCR and not an ombudsman, to me, says it all.”
Some senior figures within the judicial system privately dismiss Ali as an “outsider” and unqualified to comment.
She has also angered judges by backing a Holyrood petition by legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi calling for a register of interests for judges.
Lord Gill sparked cross-party anger by twice rejecting a plea by Holyrood to give evidence to the committee. He said the Scotland Act allowed him to avoid parliamentary scrutiny as it ensures judicial independence from political meddling.
But critics said that the Act is to protect judges from being quizzed over courtroom decisions not administration issues.
Ali said: “I think it’s a confusion between independence and accountability. I really do think it’s as basic as that. The dividing line is completely clear.”
Ali has led by example by voluntarily publishing her own register of interests, even though it took six months to get it on the JCR website. Her annual report details 20 alleged breaches of the complaints rules by the Judicial Office.
She has also scored two victories for the public since taking the three-year post.
One is that Lord Gill has now agreed to supply people with some details about the outcome of
their complaint. And he has also agreed to inform the JCR about the outcome of cases which she refers to him.
She said: “I’ve made some small differences but it’s progress. “But really it’s difficult to make an impact within the constraints that I’m in at the moment.”
MacAskill has already dismissed calls to tackle the powerful judiciary with new laws but Ali wants him to think again.
She said: “In the past few years in Scotland, there have been some really good things being done in all sorts of different sectors. “I don’t understand why this appears to be the one sector that is really behind. “I don’t think there’s an appetite for looking at the legislation again. “I think it will have to be looked at again at some point because, at the moment, Scots citizens have a lot less protection than they do in England and Wales. “If I was asked to create something to deal fairly, effectively, efficiently and transparently with complaints about the judiciary, I would not invent this.”
The Judicial Office for Scotland: “The review of the existing complaints rules ends tomorrow. “The responses will then be considered in full by the Lord President.”
JUDGES IN DOCK
Probed after bawling out a dog walker
A judge was accused of a "tyrannical rant" at a woman walking her dog.
The dog walker was left "shaking with nerves" and felt "very intimidated" by the unnamed judge, who told her to put her pet on a lead.
Her complaint was dismissed as being "without substance" by the Judicial Office for Scotland because he was not acting as a judge at the time.
But the Judicial Office's own guidelines state that complaints can be made about judges' conduct inside and outside court.
The dog walker said ; "The point is that he is a judge and. as such, may be expected to adhere to a certain standard of personal conduct and behaviour to all members of the public."
Ali agreed and upheld the complaint that the Judicial Office had breached their own rules.
Accused of insensitivity over disability.
A disabled woman complained about a judge who, she claimed, ignored her medical condition.
The woman said that the judge did not consider her "mental and physical disabilities and current aggressive medical treatment".
The Judicial Office kicked out the complaint because it was "primarily about judicial decisions".
But Ali found that the Judicial Office rules were breached because the complaint also related to the judge's conduct so should have been investigated.
She also said that "further investigation" would be needed to establish if the judge had been insensitive.
However, Lord Gill disagreed with Ali's opinion.
IF I AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS LEGALESE MEANS
Watchdog Moi Ali slates the legal jargon which is used to deter ordinary Scots from complaining about judges.
She fears the complex Judicial Office for Scotland rules are not fit for purpose.
She said ; "If you have a set of rules that you can pick up and not understand, then they can't be fit for purpose.
And the public don't understand. They are not written in any understandable way.
I don't understand the purpose of some of the rules and some of them are cross-referenced with Acts of Parliament."
Ali has submitted a damning 25 page report to Scotland's top judge, Lord President Lord Gill, who is reviewing the rules.
In it, she says : "One of my principal concerns relates to the style and tone of the rules and the way in which they have been constructed, giving an impression that they are devised to deter people from complaining, to find reasons to reject a complaint at the earliest opportunity and to over-protect the judiciary."
She cites numerous examples of archaic language which many people would struggle to understand.
For example, Section 5.4.b states : "If sent by electronic means indicated to be acceptable a document is to be treated as valid only if it is capable of being used for subsequent reference."
Ali has urged Lord Gill to bring in new rules which will be "fair, proportionate, transparent and easy to understand."
Scottish judges are out of control no doubt about it now
ReplyDeleteSo these £200K a year plus fat pension judges are just going around telling people to keep their dogs on a lead and then when someone takes issue they cover it up?On the strength of this just imagine what corruption they are covering up in the courts and what goes on behind the courts doors when not in sitting.
ReplyDeleteWhat a joke for a justice system.Doing justice in Scotland is as dangerous as smoking and should carry the same health warnings!
Judges write their own rules on how to complain about them and it turns out the rules are bent..
ReplyDeleteNot a surprise BUT it is good to see someone actually telling the truth and hats off to Moi Ali for all she has done!
Some senior figures within the judicial system privately dismiss Ali as an “outsider” and unqualified to comment.
ReplyDeleteI can imagine this to be the case given what these judges are hiding.They must be up to a lot of no good to be so afraid of your register of interests.
MacAskill always creates structures because he always wants to create the illusion of more investigative powers against his former profession. Look at the SLCC and the Judicial Complaints reviewer. Toothless and in the former case stuffed full of lawyers and their sympathizers. This is the government that wants an Independent Scotland and the ruthless legal profession and their omnipotence is one of the reasons I am voting no. In Scotland when it suits the lawyers, people in desperate need of legal help are denied it because lawyers are the law.
ReplyDeleteMr MacAskill is going a great job for the No No's of Scotland, he was sincere when he said 2Scotland owes a great debt to the legal profession2 a Law Society lackey elected to a Law Society controlled Parliament.
ReplyDeleteCan you really expect anything different from these judges re complaints?
ReplyDeleteAfter all they are really just a bunch of jumped up lawyers who took to wearing ermine and continued dipping their hands in the taxpayers till.
Oh but now they have been asked to declare it all by Cherbi and another honest person (Moi Ali) comes along and exposes the truth at last from within.
Great to see such a debate in Scotland long overdue and hope people pay more attention to this.
Good work all round and Sunday Mail is just fantastic!
Perhaps this is MacAskill's way of trying to attract cases to the Scottish courts as in "Criminals,Corrupt and Vested Interests come to Scotland and do your legal business without fear because our Scottish judges are corrupt,can be easily bribed and dont need to declare it and will rule in your favour"
ReplyDeleteInteresting the great pyramid of self engineered respect for the judiciary has collapsed like a matchstick house just because you started asking questions about their interests..
ReplyDeleteAs in the past it is the little things in life that eventually bring down dictatorships and all kinds of crooks..
Re the disabled woman in the Sunday Mail article;
ReplyDeleteJudges overruling the professional expert opinions of consultants and doctors, and endangering a person's already fragile health - even when there is no contrary expert opinion - are disgracefully commonplace.
Just one more example of the opinion of the ignorant being preferred to that of the educated.
That 'discretion' must be abloished and NOW.
A disabled woman complained about a judge who, she claimed, ignored her medical condition.
ReplyDeleteThe woman said that the judge did not consider her "mental and physical disabilities and current aggressive medical treatment".
The Judicial Office kicked out the complaint because it was "primarily about judicial decisions".
But Ali found that the Judicial Office rules were breached because the complaint also related to the judge's conduct so should have been investigated.
I placed before the court a letter from my doctor detailing my treatment for cancer and the judge said "I cannot be bothered with this" and heard my case without giving me a chance to say a word and dismissed me so there is prejudice against unwell people by these judges I wish had known about Moi Ali but when I asked the court staff what could be done they said nothing and the judge was final so also they are liars
There is no part of the justice system honest any more and a good example of this was last night on Reporting Scotland where Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland was sweating away in front of the camera bleating about Libya (a country which hardly now exists as a country) appointing prosecutors to look at Lockerbie - an announcement to paper over coverage in the weekend press about a new report telling us all what we already know - that the Lockerbie case was a fit up and the judges sat on it as happy as larry.I wonder what kind of favors were given to the judges for their service at the Camp Zeist puppet court?
ReplyDeleteIn response to several unpublished comments naming judges and specific cases,if readers would like to submit details via email there is a likelihood media coverage could be of assistance.
ReplyDeleteregarding the judge who bawled out the dog owner - she could have complained to the Police she was placed in a state of fear and alarm by the judge and his conduct towards her in public however no prizes for guessing which way the Crown Office would swing.
ReplyDeleteSomething like "no charge m'lud and give my incompetent PF a favourable ruling on a criminal case where we screwed up again!"
What interests me is that time is important in terms of information communication technologies. The internet is creating the boomerang effect against structures of power and in a democracy they cannot silence people. I also find it quite remarkable that a man like Lord Gill, clearly intelligent but his obstruction of a register of Judicial Interests is fueling further distrust and those drowning in their own self importance will be the last to see it.
ReplyDeleteMr MacAskill the day will come when no one trusts lawyers and personally and I mean this I would rather be dead than trust one of your colleagues in the legal profession again. Clients are your pecuniary lifeline, stop abusing them for your collective reputations.
What is happening here demonstrates the hidden power in a so called democracy. What I mean is that voting will not change what is happening here. MacAskill is a stooge as are the others. Keep up the pressure DOI and the Sunday Mail, I always like to check in for the latest news.
ReplyDeleteJudges overruling the professional expert opinions of consultants and doctors, In other words Who Judges the Judges. No one above them as far as investigation is concerned.
ReplyDeleteI bet English lawyers and the London courts are laughing at this lot - more business for them and more reasons to avoid doing any litigation in Scotland!
ReplyDeleteCant find any references on the Judiciary of Scotland website to those complaint cases in the JCR annual report and really they should be all published and the judges NAMED so everyone knows who is doing what because a lot of these complaints go to show the way these judges operate in and out of court and we all have a right to know this.
ReplyDeleteCorruption exposed that is what DOI are about, and MacAskill the rascal, well we have had apples from his cart before. We expect you to side with the legal profession Kenneth, you are a traitor to the people who voted you into office. Scoundrel, I heard he was a lousy lawyer, well they are all the same.
ReplyDeleteLawyers taught me that there is no law, it is impossible to sue any lawyer. One of the worst but also valuable lessons of my life because I will never deal with lawyer trash again.
Thanks for putting this online because until now I have been trying to complain to the Law Society about a judge in the court of session because my solicitor told me I must go to the Law Society first now I see it was all a hoax and I have to go to this judicial office and then the judicial complaints reviewer.
ReplyDeleteI want the whole thing made public and will send you on all the letters and the complaint.
@ 18 December 2013 13:19
ReplyDeleteClearly your solicitor has given you bad advice as the Law Society of Scotland cannot investigate a serving judge. However, it is certain they would put any information you gave them to good use in their own interests.
Given what has emerged with regards to the Scottish judiciary this year and their attitude towards scrutiny and transparency, anyone with a complaint about a judge should contact the Judiciary of Scotland and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, and also consider approaching the media or email Diary of Injustice with full details : scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Doubt the judges will be happy about all their complaints in the open but you are correct - anyone who is complaining about a judge should go to the press because otherwise nothing will happen and odds are the judge is bent anyway so public have a right to know as you might say!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting this online because until now I have been trying to complain to the Law Society about a judge in the court of session because my solicitor told me I must go to the Law Society first now I see it was all a hoax and I have to go to this judicial office and then the judicial complaints reviewer.
I want the whole thing made public and will send you on all the letters and the complaint.
18 December 2013 13:19
Sounds like your lawyer gave you the run around.
Maybe he/she is best buddies with the judge and so sent you to the shark infested waters of the Law Society to bury the complaint
Impressive coverage the Sunday Mail really hit them on the head again hope more people come forward about complaints involving judges and see to it everything is published!
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting this online because until now I have been trying to complain to the Law Society about a judge
ReplyDelete====================================
There is no complaints system, as you have found out. DOI's advice is the best.
I disagree the complaints system is not complex, it does not exist. A process exists but it never works in any clients interests. It is a pillar to post system with the objective being protecting lawyers and Judges. You complain they sit on it.
ReplyDeleteThere is a potential here for blackmail or influencing decisions in court if the Law Society have been pretending to look at complaints about a judges.I think this needs to be looked at asap and reported.
ReplyDeleteAs I see you have already said in your response the chances are they have used what they found out to influence any affected judges and this is exactly why all complaints about judges and their identities must be published.
@ 18 December 2013 21:34
ReplyDeleteGood points made in your comment and further reasons why the complaints process involving the judiciary must be fully transparent and published, and similarly that a a full register of judicial interests backed up by oversight must also be published ...
I like the debate and you sure know your details about these judges!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo these £200K a year plus fat pension judges are just going around telling people to keep their dogs on a lead and then when someone takes issue they cover it up?On the strength of this just imagine what corruption they are covering up in the courts and what goes on behind the courts doors when not in sitting.
What a joke for a justice system.Doing justice in Scotland is as dangerous as smoking and should carry the same health warnings!
16 December 2013 22:45
I suspect these judges are up to a lot worse but everything is buried and we never get to find out.
Publish the lot!
If MacAskill does not act after this he should be sacked and he should be sacked anyway for all his other disasters in justice
ReplyDeleteThe rules were obviously written to deter complaints and probably intimidate people who want to make a complaint about a judge.
ReplyDeleteJudges are intimidating and they know it and use it sort of like a weapon against the rest of us.About your petition at the Parliament I think the judges have used their position a bit like a weapon against the Scottish parliament to deter anyone forcing them to appear
McRaskill's a law society stooge, he'll do nothing....and all with Salmond and Swinney's backing.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMacAskill always creates structures because he always wants to create the illusion of more investigative powers against his former profession. Look at the SLCC and the Judicial Complaints reviewer. Toothless and in the former case stuffed full of lawyers and their sympathizers. This is the government that wants an Independent Scotland and the ruthless legal profession and their omnipotence is one of the reasons I am voting no. In Scotland when it suits the lawyers, people in desperate need of legal help are denied it because lawyers are the law.
17 December 2013 09:31
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
This is exactly why my friends and family are also voting NO in the Referendum
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThere is no part of the justice system honest any more and a good example of this was last night on Reporting Scotland where Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland was sweating away in front of the camera bleating about Libya (a country which hardly now exists as a country) appointing prosecutors to look at Lockerbie - an announcement to paper over coverage in the weekend press about a new report telling us all what we already know - that the Lockerbie case was a fit up and the judges sat on it as happy as larry.I wonder what kind of favors were given to the judges for their service at the Camp Zeist puppet court?
17 December 2013 15:33
@@@@@@@@@@@@
The amazing thing is that these crims seem to think that the Scottish Public will not have the intellect to notice the propaganda of the Crown Office spouting out the same tired old mantra about Lockerbie/Megrahi and the bogus 'new investigation into others from Lybia', to coincide with the release of a new book on the 'REAL' bomber and the anniversary of Lockerbie disaster?
It is such a blatant and pitiful attempt to cling on to the belief that what happened at Camp Zeist was not a complete sham, with all that means for the Scottish Judiciary and the Scottish Justice System?
Each time the same old guff is regurgitated, the more galling and stupid it becomes?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhat interests me is that time is important in terms of information communication technologies. The internet is creating the boomerang effect against structures of power and in a democracy they cannot silence people. I also find it quite remarkable that a man like Lord Gill, clearly intelligent but his obstruction of a register of Judicial Interests is fueling further distrust and those drowning in their own self importance will be the last to see it.
Mr MacAskill the day will come when no one trusts lawyers and personally and I mean this I would rather be dead than trust one of your colleagues in the legal profession again. Clients are your pecuniary lifeline, stop abusing them for your collective reputations.
17 December 2013 20:00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't know anyone anymore who would trust a Scottish lawyer?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
Judges overruling the professional expert opinions of consultants and doctors, In other words Who Judges the Judges. No one above them as far as investigation is concerned.
17 December 2013 20:11
________________________
On the hundreds of incidences where a Judge or Sheriff completely disregards a doctor or Consultant's diagnosis about their patient, shows where Judges & Sheriff's have it in for that person to the degree that they will even disregard a solemn professional diagnosis in order to get the decision they want?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting this online because until now I have been trying to complain to the Law Society about a judge in the court of session because my solicitor told me I must go to the Law Society first now I see it was all a hoax and I have to go to this judicial office and then the judicial complaints reviewer.
I want the whole thing made public and will send you on all the letters and the complaint.
18 December 2013 13:19
------------------------------------
Any complaint sent to the Law Society of Scotland is 'dead-in-the-water' as they routinely snuff-out valid complaints?
Watch out too for their bogus, 'and our decision to throw out your complaint was supported by our Sifting Panel' which is just a method to try to add a sense of believability to their unlawful decisions to suppress the truth?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting this online because until now I have been trying to complain to the Law Society about a judge in the court of session because my solicitor told me I must go to the Law Society first now I see it was all a hoax and I have to go to this judicial office and then the judicial complaints reviewer.
I want the whole thing made public and will send you on all the letters and the complaint.
18 December 2013 13:19
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
I was told that it was not fair for me to report the Judge in my case because he had a good reputation?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThere is a potential here for blackmail or influencing decisions in court if the Law Society have been pretending to look at complaints about a judges.I think this needs to be looked at asap and reported.
As I see you have already said in your response the chances are they have used what they found out to influence any affected judges and this is exactly why all complaints about judges and their identities must be published.
18 December 2013 21:34
-----------------------------------
This is precisely why Scottish lawyers are bullied by the Law Society of Scotland, with the threat of withdrawing their practising solicitor, into dishing the dirt on others in the Judicial System, so that those eeeejits at the Law Society can ingather dirt on people of influence so that this can be used against them in the future when the opportunity for blackmail/collusion arises?
20 December 2013 06:43
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why my friends and family are also voting NO in the Referendum
===================================
Yes indeed, the problem is when a parliament is full of Law Society stooges voting won't affect Mr Gill and his colleagues, their unelected power in fact controls a so called democracy. One of the principles of a democratic country is legal equality, clearly when these people refuse to represent their colleagues victims the latter become right-less. And when rights are removed action in the courts at least is not possible. The reason a Diary of Injustice was born. In truth there is no complaints system.
Mr Salmond tells us we would be better off divorced from the rest of the UK. He also wants 16 to 18 year old's voting because most are not politically astute. The Law Society of Scotland is the real government of Scotland, unelected omnipotent and ruthless hiding behind the MSP's who claim they represent the people who voted from them. An utter lie. This legal tyranny has a face, fronted by the man who rants on endlessly about looking after our own interests by being independent. Go visit a Taxidermist Alex, I will be voting NO too.
The Law Society don't do complaints processing, they do coverups. The name itself means corruption.
ReplyDeleteThe Law Society and the Judges cover all the bases. The politicians help them. That is why they are still so omnipotent?
ReplyDeleteTalking about lawyers they don't just treat clients as enemies. States do too. Globalization under the North American Free Trade Agreement because Mexico needed investment and part of the intestor's conditions of investment was that they could bypass the Mexican Government so that they sucessfully sued Mexican taxpayers when they rejected a plant that studies showed would contaminate their water supply. Parilament's have become hollowed out shells where those who vote are bypassed by corporate giants. Just like in a smaller scale where the Law Society and Judges are protected by our parliament. Some are lackies for businesses, others like the Mexican Government agreed because they had no choice. It is all about who has power.
ReplyDeleteMy mother's birthday 18th September, she passed away sadly for us in 2010 but in 2014 if she were here she would vote NO. So will we. May my fellow countrymen and women deny Alex his crown, he is the most loyal of the Law Society frontmen. Keep up the pressure DOI.
ReplyDeleteI was told that it was not fair for me to report the Judge in my case because he had a good reputation?
ReplyDelete=================================
They all have good reputations an inevitable result of self regulation.
This must be an uncomfortable debate for your Scots judges who now look like a bunch of hoods.
ReplyDeleteTheir arrogance towards any reform of their ways appears to run deep.
The only sensible conclusion one could draw from this is that the Scottish Government hate the People of Scotland and treat them with the utmost contempt?
ReplyDeleteIn my newspaper it is pushing NO NO's product and it clearly states if you are not happy with NO NO then you will get the money paid back?
ReplyDeleteMaybe NO NO should begin paying back the people of Scotland now?
Is it the case that the United States Administration are finally going to allow the detainees at Guantanamo Bay access to legal representation?
ReplyDeleteThey are going to fly-in a group of Scottish lawyers?
It turns out that water boarding and torture is not working, so they are being subjected to the worst thing known to man - A Scottish lawyer?
How could the Americans stoop so low?
This is the ultimate crime against humanity?
If the regulatory history of all lawyers and Judges were known to the public I doubt any would be fit to work in a justice system. Their complaints system is an illusion to recycle them squeaky clean.
ReplyDeleteLaw Society and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, there to do nothing for you. Don't ever believe the bull on their web sites.
ReplyDeleteAnti transparency simply means rules or laws don't apply to us.
ReplyDeleteHow many Scottish Judges and Sheriffs would be for the chop if the process of investigation and control were fit for purpose?
ReplyDeleteThis self-centred self-protectionism has nothing at all to do with judicial independence but more to do with protecting judges from scrutiny and protecting them from the consequences of their actions?
This corrupt system has nothing to do with what is right or moral and has simply become a self-regulated-job-for-the-boys and a protection racket for those who wish to act in a manner conducive to lower standards and where corruption becomes not just possible but is accepted as a regular occurrence which cannot be prevented?
Ms Moi Ali points to the elephant in the room and is biting her lip, lest she really spills the beans and points out the known traitors from within?
The Scottish Judicial System, the Scottish Prosecutorial System and the Law Society of Scotland are all defunct institutions who have long since been found out by the average Scot in the know. If the bold Alex continues to swim in opposition to the current of Public Opinion on this fact, not only will he fail in his dream of Scotland becoming an Independent Country but he is condemning Scotland's People to put up with less than adequate as the standard to aspire to?
Scotland deserves better?
It is now obvious that these lawyers have designed a self protectionism system, so that they can look after there own and to HELL with the rights of the Scottish Public?
ReplyDeleteThis echoes the whole intention behind the design of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission?
To make the Public believe that finally real change for the better was to take place, whilst in reality things were to stay exactly the same, with the Law Society of Scotland in control of the process of regulating Scottish lawyers, so that ultimately they ensured that the crooked Scottish lawyers were allowed to be above the law and their victims (their clients) were to be damaged and humiliated as much as possible?
Lockerbie, the truth will come out.
ReplyDeleteHow many crooked Scottish Judges & Sheriffs have been let off Scot Free as a consequence of having the self-serving protectionist complaints system?
ReplyDeleteIf regulation is not transparent, then the PTB cannot claim to have a system that is fit for purpose?
Happy Christmas to all at the DOI Team, and thanks for making 2013 a memorable - and revealing - year.
ReplyDeleteThank you to all of the DOI staff for your courageous, Public Service journalism.
ReplyDeleteGod knows, we need you now more than ever.
I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
I wonder, given that the DOI is so successful at exposing wanton criminality and debased morals by those is the Judicial System, the Prosecutorial System as well as the crooked Law Society of Scotland and given that Kenny MacKAskill allows this to flourish under his watch, should he be forced to change his Ministerial Designation to 'Injustice Minister'?
I think that Ms Moi Ali should be named as Complaints Ambassador for complaints made against Judges, Sheriffs and lawyers?
ReplyDeleteThat way the victims will be more inclined to complain because they will be treated fairly and with respect, which is directly opposite of the current wicked and non transparent regime?
If this was the case, I am sure that the numbers of complaints would increase by 1000% with massive numbers of victims getting justice and reparation?
We would also end up with a more honest, transparent and accountable Judiciary and Lawyers?
This is so easy to achieve but we first need a Justice Minister who gives a shit and is prepared to protect the Public, instead of pandering to the self-protectionist Scottish legal mafia?
Should we really complain about Scottish Judges?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, they are a product of the system inveigled by the crooked Law Society of Scotland over many years, where they have practiced 'BOOMERANG REGULATION' whereby known crooked Scottish lawyers keep getting let off Scot-Free so that they can continue their careers of theft, lying, cheating, double-billing Clients for work they don't even do and robbing the SLAB dry and then they are fed back through this deliberately weak system over and over again with the same outcome?
As I say, can we really expect someone to change just because one day someone makes them a Judge or Sheriff?
And what incentive do they have to change when they have colluded to invent a system, whereby they are unaccountable for their decisions and do not fear the consequences of their decisions?
We urgently need to fix this system short term until the whole system governing Scottish lawyers interaction with the Scottish Public is overhauled and started over?
It may be best for the major Scottish Universities to set up a brand new Law Faculty to educate and train legal students the morals and standards ofPublic Service specifically for being a Judge/Sheriff?
By removing them from under the Law Society of Scotland's insidious hold, they would remain untarnished and true to the values they serve and fit to be able to be a career Judge or Sheriff?
This would also have the immediate effect of stunting the Law Society of Scotland's evil grip on power and influence in Scotland and would mean that at last Scotland would have what she deserves - an Independent Judiciary?