Friday, January 31, 2014

PRIVATE PARLY: Questions raised of what really took place in private meeting between Scotland’s top judge & two MSPs over judicial interests transparency register petition

More questions than answers emerge from private meeting between politicians & top judge. A PRIVATE MEETING between Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill and two MSP members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee over a PUBLIC PETITION calling for judges to declare their full interests in court  has raised serious questions over how far the judiciary are willing to go to avoid declaring secret wealth, hitherto unrevealed business links & family connections within the legal sector, allegations of offshore interests and even criminal convictions for benefits cheating.

The unprecedented private meeting between Lord Gill, Convener David Stewart and Deputy Convener Chic Brodie MSP and the Clerk to the PPC in attendance, became the subject of heated debate at this week’s Petitions Committee meeting on Tuesday.

The private meeting with the Lord President, held away from deliberations of the full Petitions Committee, came as a compromise solution because Lord Gill refused several invitations to appear before the Petitions Committee during 2013 to face questions on, and account for his vociferous opposition to a call for transparency over how judges recuse themselves in court and how judicial interests are not being properly declared.

Petitions Committee Meeting 28 January 2014 (Click to view video footage)

During the meeting, an account was given by the Convener & Deputy Convener of what had been said at the private meeting with Lord Gill. However, no written notes of the meeting had been handed to members of the Committee in advance of Tuesday’s Public Petitions Committee meeting, which caused some members to raise questions of the whole issue of Lord Gill refusing to appear before the Scottish Parliament on this issue.

Raising the issue of minutes of the private meeting with Lord Gill, John Wilson MSP asked the Convener if any notes of what was discussed at the private meeting were going to be placed on the official record of the Committee. Jackson Carlaw MSP also pointed out that had it not been for tenacity of this committee so far, there would be no letter forthcoming from the Lord President.

The day before the Public Petitions Committee met, it was reported on Diary of Injustice that limited declarations of interest by Scotland’s top judge and only six other members of Scotland’s vast, sprawling ranks of a multi million pound well salaried & well pensioned judiciary were published in the 2012-2013 Annual Report of the Scottish Court Service, a fact which Lord Gill omitted to tell MSPs in three ‘stonewalling’ letters of protest against the petition which the Lord President sent to msps last year.

The full article reporting on Lord Gill’s limited declarations, is available here: M’Lud’s Interests: What Scotland’s top judge did not tell Holyrood MSPs when he refused to give evidence on register of judicial interests

From the Petitions Committee’s own records, it transpires MSPs were informed of Lord Gill’s limited declaration in the SCS annual report during November 2013 by the petitioner, and a submission was published by the Scottish Parliament’s own website at that time, available here: PE1458/T: Petitioner Letter of 14 November 2013 (9KB pdf)

However, during Tuesday’s meeting earlier this week, an account given by the Deputy Convener to Committee members appeared to suggest the declarations by Lord Gill had come as a revelation from the Lord President himself during the private meeting which occurred only two weeks ago, leading some to feel Lord Gill is choosing a divide and conquer approach to how he responds to questions asked in private meetings, compared to questions raised by the Petitions Committee in published letters.

It was also reported to the Committee that Lord Gill had told both MSPs during the private meeting he would tinker with his apparently complicated computer systems to ensure data on judicial recusals was easier to come by for members of the public, albeit missing the point about publishing details of declarations of interest – called for by the petition itself.

However, the Lord President’s IT suggestion was today branded “laughable” by court sources who themselves have frequently said they find it difficult to even publish complete transcripts or verbatim final opinions delivered by judges in Scotland’s highest court, the Court of Session

The limited declarations, required for the positions on the Scottish Court Service Board, appear to fly in the face of a series of excuses, complaints, accusations and veiled threats made by the Lord President in writing against the idea of creating a publicly available register of judicial interests, and raise questions over how Lord Gill has handed the judiciary’s battle against what is a simple call for transparency, itself supported by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR).

Moi Ali, Scotland’s first 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

Any publicly available register of judicial interests which could be created from the aims of the petition, would take in the entire judiciary and have to show criminal convictions,professional & other relationships, undeclared earnings and business links to law firms, investments, property and memberships of organisations and other information which commonly appears on registers of interest throughout the public sector.

It has also come to light some of Scotland’s judges have not declared their interests or recused themselves in court in cases where persons have been wrongfully convicted of a criminal offence.

Victims of miscarriage of injustice have then have gone on to suffer even greater injustice when it was revealed the same judges who prosecuted them while serving as Prosecutors for the Crown Office, had then gone on to hear the wrongfully convicted person’s appeal without recusing themselves from hearing the case, and had then dismissed the appeal.

A report on how the failure of judges to recuse themselves or declare their interests in cases which have led to miscarriages of justice features here: Failure to Recuse : Evidence handed to MSPs in judicial register of interests proposal reveals judges who blocked injustice appeal failed to declare interests in court

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

Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary is due to be heard again at the Scottish Parliament in some weeks time after a letter has been received from the Lord President, who is apparently still refusing to attend the Scottish Parliament and face open questions from all Committee members regarding judges hidden undeclared interests.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a shameful disgrace?

The PPC Convenor David Stewart's solicitous, legally-clipped and pre-prepared account of the secret meeting with Gill was yet another car-crash moment for Justice in Scotland?

This secret meeting, with no minutes taken, is a subversion of Justice and is inconsistent with the Petitioners request for the basic minimum of standards of honesty, transparency and accountability required by all Public Servants?

The BASIC standards required?

The Gill secret meeting has resulted in the PPC Committee itself being in contempt?

Gill must be laughing at how he has managed to so easily manipulate the Democratic Safeguard of a Parliamentary Committee to accommodate his Will , so that Judges are allowed to continue to keep important things a secret from the Scottish Public, in order to prevent the Scottish Public having some sort of faith that the Scottish Judiciary are acting within the law, as opposed to what is being exposed is going on by the Saints-of-Scotland, the Diary of Injustice Team?

This Parliamentary Process is now tainted with the Judges self-serving, self-interest, undemocratic and unaccountable way and the whole sorry mess is now very smelly indeed?

Anonymous said...

Did the two Committee members have to kneel and kiss the ring of the righteous one?

Anonymous said...

Talk about getting your wings clipped!

Anonymous said...

These boys have been totally owned by Lord Gill.

They have been totally played so that he gets his own way.

Finally we get to see who wields the power in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

The judge has no credibility left and should do the decent thing and resign.

I think we need a full scale public inquiry into judicial interests and how judges have avoided declaring them all these years.

As public inquiries are usually headed by judges this cannot happen in this case therefore I nominate you Mr Cherbi to do the decent thing and chair it so we really get to the truth instead of more flannel from the wigs.

Anonymous said...

wtf did I just watch and how is this judge allowed to get away with it?

Anonymous said...

Was there minutes taken of this Secret-behind-closed-doors-meeting with the Great Lord?

No?

My telling you today what happened is putting it on the record?



Oh, dear...........Frying-pan-into-fire?

Anonymous said...

Before either of you gentlemen speak, let me tell you this....what ever you ask Me to do you will get the answer.....Go Fish?

Anonymous said...

So errr what was said by way of an account of what happened at this private meeting is contrary to the record of your petition because I checked up on the petition website at parliament and it shows your letters vs the stuff from Gill and no mention in any of his about these interests you published on Monday.

This is really turning bad for the judge and the parliament as well because they should have him in whether he wants it or not and how can a judge refuse anyway are they not supposed to uphold the law as well as living by it?

Anonymous said...

The two men enter into the private quarters to find a humid atmosphere with sickly sweet smelling aromatics in the air. They walk past the jester and past writhing dancing girls and past vast vats of thick gravy and through the condensation filled room as it cleared they are confronted with a ominous sight...The Great Lord in all his majesty with a eunuch on one side, cooling him with wafts from a large palm frond leaf, whilst on his other side a young lady drops grapes from a bunch into his lordship gub?


This is an exerpt of my new novel that will be out in shops soon. I have called it the Emperor and the Plebs. It is a period piece examining the abuse of power and the lack of moral behaviour of those who are unaccountable to the People. Look out for it in the shops soon?

Anonymous said...

Where was this meeting held?
Gill's private office or mid flight during one of his diplomatic (haha,right) missions to the far east?

Anonymous said...

Lord Leveson had to appear at Westminster about the hacking inquiry so why is this Lord Gill exempt from the Scottish Parliament??

Anonymous said...

Instead of Private Parly it might well have been a Private Party.....with nibbles, generous quantities of Chateau Lafite followed by board games (Trivial Pursuit - see what I did there?) and Karaoke?

Diary of Injustice said...

It may well be MSPs attending the private meeting were given the impression they were being handed information which was not overly obvious to them at the time ...

Nevertheless there are now issues to be resolved regarding the notes,references to the limited declarations in the SCS 12-13 annual report which the Committee were already aware of, and just exactly what has been gained from this private meeting with the country's most senior judge in his own office ... the same top judge who selects which Holyrood Committees he attends and then refuses to show up when asked a simple question about transparency and judicial interests ...

Anonymous said...

Only in Scotland!

Anonymous said...

With all respect Peter I believe you are being unduly generous to the msps.

The msps should have taken along someone with a legal background and an expert on the subject of declarations and registers of interest to give impartial advice on what questions to ask the Lord President.

Now as things stand the msps appear to fallen into Lord Gill's trap and have given a not very credible account of their trip up the High Street to visit Gill in his own chambers.

And really this is just not on at all.

Why Chic Brodie and David Stewart agreed to this private meeting outside the premises of the Scottish Parliament I will never understand as it was always going to end this way with the best legal mind pitted against msps with no legal background.

Perhaps they should have taken you along although I doubt Gill would have agreed to it.

Anonymous said...

wow the beeb really missed out on this one but they did manage to have a missing cat on Reporting Scotland tonight.

The powers that be must be so upset about the beeb's Lawyers behaving badly episode they have now banned any talk of Judges behaving badly!!!

Diary of Injustice said...

@31 January 2014 19:15

Valid points .. however the petition itself is not really about creating some new never heard of before transparency procedure ... registers of interest are common and both MSPs attending the private meeting with the Lord President are themselves versed with the requirements of registers of interest declarations given msps are subject to registers of interest themselves.

It is doubtful any legal expert from the Scottish end of things would have been of much use in a private meeting with the Lord President who is the head of Scotland's justice system and the courts.

The fawning and slobbering puppy approach of any Scots based member of the Law Society dueling with Lord Gill would have surely been too embarrassing even for the MSPs to watch ...

Anonymous said...

Dear leader of the Scottish transparency revolution please be careful one of these loony judges dont have you sent off to GITMO!

Anonymous said...

Well if the msps were duped with info they should have stopped talking after the first sentence because the rest of their explanation about the meeting sounds, well,do I have to say it?

I think others in the committee kinda feel the same as I do after watching that clip.

Anyway if this private meeting was so good why were these notes not prepared and handed out for the others to read up on and raise questions rather than just sit there and listen to what the two other msps said?

Breathtakingly poor organisation at the parliament.No wonder the judge is able to run rings around them.

You are also spot on about Lord Gill doing the divide and conquer thing.His private meeting has the committee having a go at themselves while they should be having a go at Gill in public.

Anonymous said...

Not much good as a judge if he wont declare his interests.

What happens if someone accused of murder shows up in court and says he/she refuses to declare his/her plea and then all the witnesses refuse to declare their statements or if they are related to the accused etc?

Gill wouldnt put with any of that so why do we put up with him saying no no no no all the time when asked about his interests.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps they should have taken you along although I doubt Gill would have agreed to it.

31 January 2014 19:15

Doubt it.From what I hear even the Petitions Committee have not let him speak.One of the SP staff say he can ruin careers in a sentence so cant see him being allowed to interrogate Gill.

Reputation much?

PS Dont worry Peter we admire you for it really!

Anonymous said...

Soooooo if the point of this meeting was to get answers from Gill about your petition and he tells them he declares his interest then they come back and tell the Committee he said it yet you told them months ago (I hope I have all that correct) then what was the point of the meeting in the first place and if I have this right what will be in this forthcoming letter that we dont already know from you?

The msps walked into this one without thinking!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

wow the beeb really missed out on this one but they did manage to have a missing cat on Reporting Scotland tonight.

The powers that be must be so upset about the beeb's Lawyers behaving badly episode they have now banned any talk of Judges behaving badly!!!

31 January 2014 19:29

Yes a bit odd this one.Surely top judge beats pants off msps in private meeting is news so why no look in from the BBC?

Anonymous said...

they came back from this meeting very tamed compared to what said in the earlier video clips!

Anonymous said...

Difficult to believe this happened in a state legislature but there it is on film.If one of our judges tried to make a fool of Congress or the Senate in the same way he'd have tv news camped on his door headlines and be expected to hand in his resignation letter or retire same day.

I guess it proves you were right all along.Your judiciary are hiding interests so great it is worth the risk to treat politicians and your country with no respect at all.

God you Scots really are in a mess with judges and attorneys.

Anonymous said...

Interesting you printed all those religious interests of the judges the other day and now it turns out from what the msp said this was supposed to be fresh news from the judge in the private meeting.

A really disgraceful attempt to change events around just really to try and stop your petition in its tracks because you can tell from the way the two who met him were talking the main task was full steam backwards.

Thanks to John Wilson and Mr Carlaw I do not think that will happen now and maybe they will call in the judge again and go ahead with your petition and this is the right thing to do not scuttle around in secret meetings with a judge who has too much at stake and willing to do anything to stop it getting out.

Anonymous said...

Gill is on a mission to discredit the entire parliamentary process and the msps fell for it.They should not have had this private meeting at all and stuck to their guns of hauling him in for questions.

Gill goes to other committees when he choses so they should have all got together and told him to show up rather than this very cheap grubby private party and all they came away with was nothing new.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Not much good as a judge if he wont declare his interests.

What happens if someone accused of murder shows up in court and says he/she refuses to declare his/her plea and then all the witnesses refuse to declare their statements or if they are related to the accused etc?

Gill wouldnt put with any of that so why do we put up with him saying no no no no all the time when asked about his interests.

31 January 2014 21:00
------------------------------

If I was Justice Minister, Gill would be sacked on the spot for bringing his Office into disrepute.

This is conduct unbecoming of any Judge never mind the top Judge.

Anonymous said...

This Precedent now means that we have a Two Stage Public Petitions Committee, were a person who refuses to appear in Public, saying that they are above the Public and instead subverts the democratic process by drawing a faction of the Parliamentary Committee into the secret fold of unaccountability and lack of transparency, to the effect that these two gentlemen have abandoned their democratic principles and have driven a wedge right through the middle of the Public Petitions Committee and have sided against the best interests of the People of Scotland?

They have allowed themselves to be manipulated and coerced into undemocratic conduct, for which they should have the decency to resign forthwith?

Anonymous said...

Just to let you know this is all over the Sunday newspapers and the judges look like real con merchants.

Well done!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Difficult to believe this happened in a state legislature but there it is on film. If one of our judges tried to make a fool of Congress or the Senate in the same way he'd have tv news camped on his door [YES INDEED AND RIGHTLY SO] headlines and be expected to hand in his resignation letter or retire same day. [THE SCOTTISH SYSTEM MAKES A MOCKERY OF DEMOCRACY, POWER RESIDES IN THE JUDICIARY].

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Parliament's quiet acceptance of Lord Gill's breathtaking arrogance explains his open contempt for the Scottish Public's democratically elected representatives.

The same politicians might wish to consider, in their more private moments of self indulgence, the words of Aeschylus; "who respects justice if he fears no-one".

Anonymous said...

This was real cringeworthy car-crash TV. I feel sorry for the two Committee men, they looked extremely embarrassed and contrite before the Committee, as if it was just donning on them that they allowed the good-will of the Committee to be taken advantage of and that they had themselves been hoodwinked into becoming anti-transparent themselves and that this was precisely the behaviour that the Petitioner is stating should not exist in a democratic and accountable State?

However, it exemplifies the urgent need for the Petition to be supported as the Gill has demonstrated yet again that he is undemocratic and anti-transparency and believes he is not accountable to anyone, an attitude that is unbefitting of a Public Servant?

Anonymous said...

How the F##K can the Convenor say, 'Clearly the numbers of Judges involved is few'?

This is the reason WHY transparency is a non negotiable because none of us know which Judges and how many are acting properly?

All we have had is Lord Gill's 'WORD', which according to the evasive way he has conducted himself to a Parliamentary Committee and Moi Ali, only serves to undermine his own authority and trust?

That is until the Convenor & Deputy Convenor are now reduced to selling a compromise deal on behalf of Lord Gill to the rest of the Committee that is against transparency and is more to do with secrecy and unaccountability and is definitely contrary to natural Justice?