Tuesday, February 04, 2014

CLOSED ENCOUNTER OF THE JUDICIAL KIND: Private meeting with msps, top judge over judicial interests petition raises fears judiciary are dodging official remit of Holyrood committee

Petitions Committee issue latest report on judicial interests petition as top judge circles Holyrood. THE OFFICIAL REPORT from the Scottish Parliament on last week’s debate regarding Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary has now been published, including the verbal account of the private meeting between the Lord President Lord Brian Gill and Petitions Committee Convener David Stewart MSP & Deputy Convener Chic Brodie MSP.

In the verbal account of the private meeting to the remainder of the Petitions Committee, now published along with video footage of the debate, there is curiously no mention or any reference whatsoever as to the location of, or under what circumstances or conditions the private meeting between the judge and the msps took place.

However, it has now been revealed by clerks to the Petitions Committee that the private meeting between Lord Gill and the Convener & Deputy did in fact take place in a room ‘somewhere’ inside the Scottish Parliament. This information was not made public prior to the meeting taking place, nor was it referred to during last week’s briefing at the full Petitions Committee.

As this unidentified room was obviously not subject to the normal rules governing how those in attendance would be expected to reply to questions from an official Committee of the Scottish Parliament, there is now a debate about what actually transpired at the meeting, what was noted, what has been gained, if anything.

As no written notes of the private meeting with the judge were circulated to the remaining members of the Committee in advance of last Tuesday’s Public Petitions Committee meeting, the Convener & Deputy Convener gave a verbal account of what was said between Lord Gill and the two msps.

After listening to the Convener & Deputy Convener, John Wilson MSP then asked the Convener if any notes of what was discussed were going to be placed on the official record of the Committee. Replying to Mr Wilson, the Convener, David Stewart said there were notes taken but that “It was not an official meeting of the committee so we do not have an  Official Report.” The Convener went on to inform Mr Wilson a record of the private meeting would be provided.

Mr Wilson went on to raise issues regarding Lord Gill’s refusal to face the full Petitions Committee in session and give evidence, insisting there be something put on the official record saying “We can then satisfy future petitioners that we will not be in a position to hold private discussions with individuals when we ask for evidence from them that could basically lead to them avoiding putting something in the  Official Report.”

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.

Since last week’s Petition Committee deliberations, Clerks to the Petitions Committee have now confirmed some notes of the private meeting between Lord Gill and the MSPs were taken during the meeting, and these notes are to be published at a later date, along with being added to the Committee’s official record.

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

Official on Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scottish Judges (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

The Convener (David Stewart):  The fourth current petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk.

Members will recall that it was decided that the petition should be considered again once Chic Brodie and I had met the Lord President. We had a useful meeting with Lord Gill last week and we discussed what the petition is calling for and the current procedure for members of the judiciary to recuse themselves. Lord Gill confirmed that a recusal in a case is noted in the minute of court proceedings, which is part of the formal court process, but no central aggregate records of individual recusals are kept. That means that  it would be virtually impossible for an ordinary member of the public to detect how many recusals there have been across Scotland at any particular time or whether any individual sheriff or judge has recused him or herself.

Lord Gill explained in more detail why he feels that a register of judicial interests would not be workable. The principal reason is that a judge cannot predict what might arise in each and every court case that might come before them. In any event, the petition seeks a register of pecuniary interests, and such a register would not address some of the concerns raised by the petitioner such as the concern about undeclared family relationships.

However, following a suggestion from me and Chic Brodie, Lord Gill has undertaken to check with the courts administration to see whether the information technology systems can be adapted to provide aggregate information about recusals, and he has undertaken to write to me on that in the next couple of weeks. Clearly, we are still awaiting that response. However, if it is possible to organise that information as suggested, it will mean that ordinary individuals with an interest will be able to find out how many recusals there have been across Scotland and by which sheriffs or judges.

My personal view is  that, although that step does not include accepting the petition, it is practical and it moves things in the right direction. I am merely reporting that to the committee. Chic Brodie may wish to add some comments.

Chic Brodie: It was a reasonable meeting.  The Lord President also drew to our attention the fact that members of the board of administration of the Scottish Court Service have to register their interests. Therefore, unbeknown to us, their interests were already in the public domain. I think that  the letter will include a wider understanding of that and that he will talk to his colleagues about expanding that.

The Convener:  That is true. Just so that members are totally in the loop, I add that only a small number of judges are involved in this, but the procedure that Lord Gill is going to look at has some merit.

My suggestion to the committee is that we wait until we get the full letter from the Lord President, which—to pick up on Jackson Carlaw’s point—will not be forever; it will be in the next couple of weeks. We will then be able to look at the issue in full. I have just summarised my account of the meeting, but I would like to see the Lord President’s view.

Jackson Carlaw: I only observe that, but for the belligerence of the committee in pursuing the issue, no letter would be forthcoming and there would be no investigation, explanation or other actions arising from it. That rather vindicates the tenacity with which we have pursued the matter.

John Wilson: Convener, was any kind of record kept of  the meeting that took place between Lord Gill, you and the deputy convener? Were minutes taken?

The Convener: The clerk was present and took notes in the meeting. It was not an official meeting of the committee so we do not have an  Official Report  of it, but if you want an account of the meeting we can certainly provide it.

John Wilson: It is just that one issue that arose was that Lord Gill refused to come to the committee and give evidence, and the compromise position was that the convener and the deputy  convener would meet him. In the interests of natural justice, I want us to have something, as a committee, that we can put on the record to declare what took place at that meeting.

We can then satisfy future petitioners that we will not be in a position to hold private discussions with individuals when we ask for evidence from them that could basically lead to them avoiding putting something in the  Official Report. That has been my position all along on this debate with Lord Gill—that we required something  to be put in the Official Report.

I welcome the fact that Lord Gill is going to write to the committee with a fuller, more detailed explanation of what actually happens in the judiciary in terms of recusals and the declarations of interest. We have moved forward slightly, but there is still an issue about Lord Gill’s refusal to come to give evidence to the committee.

The Convener:  There is no difficulty about providing an account of the meeting. I informed Lord Gill at the start of the meeting that we would be making a summary of the key points. I wanted him to be clear before he said anything that that was the nature of the meeting.

As committee members know, Chic Brodie and I met Lord Gill with the committee’s agreement. We did not meet him in a secret way. I do not want to reopen the debate at this stage, but members will also be aware of the issue that Chic Brodie raised—that, under the Scotland Act 1998, we do not have the power to summon a judge or a sheriff to appear before us. Members will note from the Justice Committee that, if a judge, a sheriff or indeed the Lord President wishes to attend a committee voluntarily, he or she is able to do that.

Chic Brodie was very thorough in pursuing that point with the Lord President. I will make sure that that note is contained in the papers for the next meeting. In a sense, we are putting on the record what happened.

Chic Brodie:  I was going to make that point. Under section 23(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, judges and leaders of tribunals—funnily enough—are not compelled to appear before committees or to provide documents. I find that wholly unsatisfactory and I believe that it is a flaw in the act. I have looked at the evidence and the parliamentary report that was produced in—I think—1998, and the argument for that seems to have disappeared in the mists of legal jargon. In fact, there was hardly any debate on the issue. Prior to the creation of the Supreme Court, judges were required to register their interests, but all of a sudden it transpired that they were not required to do that, and that happened without much debate.

We need to ask what happened and why that decision was made. However, that is an on-going issue and not one for the committee to pursue at this stage. All in all, the meeting with the Lord President was fairly favourable, and I thank the committee for allowing me to participate in it.

The Convener:  Do members agree that we should await the Lord President’s letter and discuss what course of action to take once we have it in front of us? Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:  I thank members for their contributions, and I thank Chic Brodie for coming with me to the meeting with 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.

From the Petitions Committee’s own records, it transpires MSPs were actually 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. The different take on events has lead 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.

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.

18 comments:

  1. One has to wonder why they call this the Public Petitions Committee as they seem to do most of their work in private!
    How low they have sunk since John McAllion's day.
    Shame on them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congrats on your steep learning curve re headline!

    Apart from the judge making a complete mockery of the parliamentary process I am now forced to ask..where did Gill park his UFO when he was transported down the Royal Mile and why all the secrecy/no mention of where the meeting occurred in the official report?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This private meeting was a bad idea from the start.Now look what has happened and not a very consistent story of what was said etc

    I think we need the judge in now rather than all this shifting about in wee back rooms to escape the real questions on who declares what.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I always felt there was something unidentified about these judges - thanks for confirmation!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why keep the location of the meeting secret or was this done on purpose so nothing appears in the official record?

    This just gets worse and the petition is about transparency!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chic Brodie: It was a reasonable meeting. The Lord President also drew to our attention the fact that members of the board of administration of the Scottish Court Service have to register their interests. Therefore, unbeknown to us, their interests were already in the public domain. I think that the letter will include a wider understanding of that and that he will talk to his colleagues about expanding that.

    The Convener: That is true. Just so that members are totally in the loop, I add that only a small number of judges are involved in this, but the procedure that Lord Gill is going to look at has some merit.

    How come?

    You say down the page you told them about this last November and its all on the petition website so what gives?

    Surely they must now call in Gill if he wants to or not and anyway why are no other judges speaking out about this?

    They should call in Carloway who is often eager to punt the line on getting rid of corroboration to suit MacAskill's own agenda so get to it msps and quit allowing this judge to dictate what is said at our parliament!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Once again the serious point, like the elephant in the corner of the room, is avoided?

    The truth of the matter is that Lord Gill has deliberately and Willfully acted in an obfuscatary fashion and has refused to be questioned by a Democratic Parliamentary Committee?

    This is the Head of the Scottish Judges?

    A man who stands and is judged by his own judgement, which is supposed to be balanced, fair and must not be seen as being prejudicial in any way?

    Similarly, he has acted in an obfuscatory fashion towards the heroic Moi Ali, which again betrays that this man has a desperation for secrecy (which was exemplified by a secret side-meeting) and has been caught out blocking any calls for transparency and accountability?

    Is this acceptable conduct?

    Is this conduct becoming of a learned Judge or a sharp operator who values secrecy above accountability?

    This is a very easy proposal for the Committee to consider?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You must be loving this debate because everyone is now backed into a corner and we will have to see this register idea of yours one way or another and soon!

    ReplyDelete
  9. So now we have the committee being told one thing and something else happening in the background.

    What is going on?This is about transparency as someone else already said so why private meetings and why is the judge basically allowed to escape public questions on interests of judges??

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why not just legislate and create this register now before these judges make a bigger fool of themselves than they have already.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous said...

    Chic Brodie: It was a reasonable meeting. The Lord President also drew to our attention the fact that members of the board of administration of the Scottish Court Service have to register their interests. Therefore, unbeknown to us, their interests were already in the public domain. I think that the letter will include a wider understanding of that and that he will talk to his colleagues about expanding that.

    The Convener: That is true. Just so that members are totally in the loop, I add that only a small number of judges are involved in this, but the procedure that Lord Gill is going to look at has some merit.

    How come?

    You say down the page you told them about this last November and its all on the petition website so what gives?

    Surely they must now call in Gill if he wants to or not and anyway why are no other judges speaking out about this?

    They should call in Carloway who is often eager to punt the line on getting rid of corroboration to suit MacAskill's own agenda so get to it msps and quit allowing this judge to dictate what is said at our parliament!

    4 February 2014 15:51

    Noticed that too and also Carloway was on the front pages shouting about corroboration yet Gill says judges cant speak out if they are criticised and then there's Carloway being criticised everywhere and still speaking out.

    So back to what the msps are saying happened and didn't happen and then we find out different?

    What a mess and just because you asked for their interests must be lots to hide!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I see a lot of problems the judge is trying to create against your register idea so just keep pushing because you are in the right and he is in the wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How long are they going to allow Lord Gill to circle the airport/parliament before they bring him in for questioning?

    Really this is just making the judges look like a bunch of thugs and crooks.Register now!

    ReplyDelete
  14. This looks VERY BAD.

    Not only does Mr. Brodie mislead the committee about Lord Gill's supposed 'release' of information regarding judges interests already in the public domain, it now appears that he and the Convener had not one but two meetings with the Lord President, one of which received absolutely no mention by them at the latest committee hearing.

    How can the other Committee members trust anything the Convener and Deputy Convener tell them now, and since when do meetings behind closed doors with an minority of committee members amount to a 'democratic process'?

    I am also still waiting for Lord Gill to challenge Mr Wilson's understanding of the Scotland Act which does allow for Judges to be called before a Committee to answer questions on matters which do not relate to judicial decisions in previous court cases.

    If the Committee does not now demand Lord Gill appear and answer questions in public and on the record it will be seen to be nothing more that a sham.

    Hopefully the majority of the Committee members will prove me wrong, time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shady side-meetings to discuss transparency.

    Is this not an oxymoron?


    Lord Gill is making a mockery of the Parliamentary Process?

    Lord Gill's Judicial Decisions are not being criticised or complained about and a Register of Judges Interests can in no way lead to a criticism of a Judge's Decision, that is unless the Judge is in the wrong and/or has failed to recuse?

    The desperation with which this Petition is being blocked, without good reason, should send alarm bells ringing?

    Why does he protest too much?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous said...

    This private meeting was a bad idea from the start.Now look what has happened and not a very consistent story of what was said etc

    I think we need the judge in now rather than all this shifting about in wee back rooms to escape the real questions on who declares what.

    4 February 2014 15:15

    Absolutely agree

    ReplyDelete
  17. So really the official report shows up a lot of mistakes instead of learning anything new from Gill at this private encounter.

    Are they going to admit to the mistakes or use this as a method of changing events to suit the judge?It has been done before

    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.