Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Judicial Transparency is “not workable” claims Scotland’s top judge Brian Gill in private meeting with Holyrood msps on register of judicial interests petition

Top judge set on fighting msps over judicial transparency register proposal. NOTES of a private meeting between Lord Gill and two msps from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee have now been published,  leaving little doubt Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill is set on fighting any move by Holyrood to bring in a major reform in transparency for Scotland’s judges by creating a register of judicial interests as called for Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

The notes of points made by Lord Gill, taken by Anne Peat, Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, reveal the top judge continues to insist there is no need for a register of interests for the judiciary. Lord Gill claimed that judges are exempt from transparency because they are bound by oaths written by themselves, that judges do recuse themselves and notes are recorded of this, and that if the public wanted to find out about recusals, they could use Freedom of Information legislation.

At the private meeting, the clerk’s notes indicate Lord Gill went on to claim a register of interest is “not workable” as judges have so many interests it would not be possible for them to identify what should be declared or be withheld from public gaze. However, the “unworkable” myth spun by the top judge at the private meeting has apparently not prevented thousands of other registers of interest operating smoothly in public life both at home and abroad.

The top judge also claimed “Much work” went into a letter of February 2013 in which the Lord President set out his position on the transparency reforms. However, in this same letter, Lord Gill accused the media of being “aggressive”, branded litigants & court users as “hostile”, claimed judges privacy would be breached if their interests became a matter of public debate and warned that such an application of transparency may make it more difficult to recruit judges in the future.

PE1458 Register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary Clerk’s notes from informal meeting with Lord Gill Tuesday 21 January 2014, Q1.03 Holyrood

In attendance: David Stewart (convener) Chic Brodie (deputy convener), Lord Gill, Anne Peat (clerk) Stephen Humphreys (Executive Director, Judicial Office for Scotland) Points made by Lord Gill:

If a judge recuses him or herself it is recorded in the minute of court proceedings, part of the formal court process. No tally is kept of figures.  Lord Gill had recused himself twice. Any interested person could make an FOI request with respect to a particular judicial office holder to seek information on that person’s recusal record.

No need for a register of interests as there are currently 3 safeguards in place which are deemed sufficient as set out in the letter of February 2013. Lord Gill has confidence in the integrity of judges and sheriffs. Much work went in to the letter of Feb and it was felt by Lord Gill that this was the best help and explanation for his stance that could be provided.

A Register of Interests would not be workable as it could not be predicted what might arise in a court case and it could not be anticipated what might need to be recorded. Not practical to try to think of every situation that might arise.

The petition seeks a register of pecuniary interests. This would not address the concerns, for example about undeclared family relationships, and would not achieve the purpose sought as problems cited would not be caught by such a register.

The legislation being proposed in New Zealand was in response to a particular issue that would not have been revealed by having a register of pecuniary interests.

If it was practicable and helpful the courts admin could be asked to investigate whether its software could be adapted to provide aggregated information on recusals.

Recusal does not cover monetary considerations but relationships.

3 judges sit on the Board of SCS. The SCS annual report notes the offices and interests held by the Board members.

The notes, as published above appear to have added little to the debate about a judicial interests register taking place at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee, where it is hoped to hear the petition again sometime in the coming weeks.

Also, it was revealed earlier last week by the Judicial Office and prior to the parliament’s publication of the meeting notes, that Stephen Humphreys, the Executive Director of the Judiciary of Scotland attended what was supposedly a private informal meeting in an official role to support the Lord President.

However, no mention whatsoever of Mr Humphreys presence at the meeting was made during discussions with msps attending the last session of the Public Petitions Committee, nor does any reference to Mr Humphreys attendance appear in the official record of the meeting, published here: 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

Speaking for the Judicial Office, Elizabeth Cutting said of Mr Humphreys presence along with Lord Gill: “He was there in his capacity as Director of the Judicial Office for Scotland.That office was established to provide support to the Lord President under his various roles as set out In the Judiciary and Courts Scotland Act.”

In response to further questions Ms Cutting stated: “The Lord President met the Convenor and Deputy Convenor and the Clerk to the Committee in the Scottish Parliament Building at Holyrood. Steve Humphreys, Director of the Judicial Office attended with him. No prior agreement was reached between the parties on what was to be discussed, referred to or excluded from the discussion.The Lord President saw no need to require an independent record of the meeting.”

“Much Work”: Lord President’s letter made accusations over transparency register proposal:

Lord Gill’s letter of Feb 2013 to MSPs voiced vociferous opposition to transparency. In Lord Gill’s opening letter to MSPs on the call for a register of judicial interests, the judge claimed “In practical terms it would be impossible for all judicial office holders to identify all the interests that could conceivably arise in any future case. The terms of the Judicial Oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics ensure that such a difficulty does not arise and that the onus is on the judicial office holder to declare any interest at the outset.”

In what was surely a hint of the sheer hostility felt by the judiciary against a call to bring transparency to judges interests, Lord Gill went onto accuse the media, press, litigants, court users and just about everyone else with an interest in transparency of being potentially hostile and aggressive, simply because someone may wish to raise questions of judges interests similar to the same kinds of questions which are raised of interests in other public officials and those in public life, politics & government.

Clearly angered by the call for transparency, Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs stated: “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. 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.”

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

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is obviously a big problem with these judges and their interests because you are able to point out too many inconsistencies in what your "top judge"? says against this petition.

Anonymous said...

Why no mention of Mr Humphreys in the Committee video?

Given his role why did we not hear about this other person before now?

Anonymous said...

"not workable"

laughable.

Imagine someone in court telling Lord Gill it is "not workable" to answer questions from counsel or from Gill himself.

So why should we stand for a judge saying the same at some private meeting with elected politicians discussing judges interests?

Gill knows how hollow his arguments against your petition sound and this is the reason he is refusing to show up to face the full committee in public.

Anonymous said...

That judge is coming out with more dough than the pizza dough wheelie bin in Edinburgh currently doing the rounds on twitter

Anonymous said...

"No need for a register of interests as there are currently 3 safeguards in place which are deemed sufficient as set out in the letter of February 2013. Lord Gill has confidence in the integrity of judges and sheriffs. Much work went in to the letter of Feb and it was felt by Lord Gill that this was the best help and explanation for his stance that could be provided."

Because the judge says so and these are his orders to the msps!

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute

These notes only seem to refer to points made by Lord Gill.

So where are the points made by the msps?

They must have said something so why are there no references in the notes to what the msps said to the judge and his aide.

Anonymous said...

If the notes existed why not handed out to the msps before the committee looked at them in the parliament?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 11 February 2014 16:06

Good point ...

@ 11 February 2014 16:56

The video footage of the committee tells its own story ...

Anonymous said...

I was just about to comment when the previous comments were published.

Have to agree with the comment earlier asking where the points made by the msps are in these notes.

Given what the two msps say to the committee in your video clip why was none of what they said referred to in the notes?

Someone at the meeting must have challenged Lord Gill on what he was saying.

What about this Stephen Humphreys?Was he silent the whole time and said nothing?

I hope the msps raise all this at the next committee because there are some answers needed on all of this.

Anonymous said...

not very detailed notes then

Anonymous said...

Judicial transparency not workable claims Lord Gill because what the judges have hidden they want to keep hidden.

What a great attitude for a judge no wonder the courts are rotten to the core along with most of the lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Looking at the notes most of the meeting must have disappeared or been held off the record as the judge is probably well used to in all these private meetings of his.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute

These notes only seem to refer to points made by Lord Gill.

So where are the points made by the msps?

They must have said something so why are there no references in the notes to what the msps said to the judge and his aide.

11 February 2014 16:06

Your answer is right there in the report from the Judicial Office person saying 'The Lord President saw no need to require an independent record of the meeting'

Anonymous said...

Your answer is right there in the report from the Judicial Office person saying 'The Lord President saw no need to require an independent record of the meeting'

11 February 2014 18:12

or any kind of record by the looks of it!

Anonymous said...

and you can count the beeb out now from any future coverage due to a Law Society tweeter telling his friends the beeb have been warned of no more access to legal experts based in Scotland if they follow on from Lawyers behaving badly or anything liable to portray the profession in a bad light.As the Law Society oppose your petition expect more of the silent treatment.

Anonymous said...

"...the clerk’s notes indicate Lord Gill went on to claim a register of interest is “not workable” as judges have so many interests it would not be possible for them to identify what should be declared or be withheld from public gaze."

The answer is simple, let the judges be seen to be open, honest and accountable for ALL their interests.

Anonymous said...

and just why did this meeting have to be in private if all that came out of it were these notes?

really stupid idea and now makes the parliament look nearly as bad as the judge (maybe this was the idea all along)

Anonymous said...

The 'notes' look little more than quotes from Lord Gill's letter.

Anonymous said...

This is precisely why a Register of Scottish Judges & Sheriff's Interests and links are published in full?

The reason: if you leave them to their own devices, all you get is half truths, obfuscation and down right deviousness?

Note that these are not 'notes' of any worth as they are totally one-sided.....Lord Gill says this and Lord Gill says that?

And what of Stephen Humphries presence as monitor, so that difficult questions were snuffed-out?

And not to the the Convenor and Deputy Convenor were influenced to mislead their fellow Committee members as to the true nature of the meeting and to the parties present?

This exemplifies why Transparency and Accountability are a non-negotiable necessity if we are to have Justice?


Note too that not one example is given by LG that Tansparency & Accountability is unworkable but Mr Cherbi has shown us that there are numerous documented cases, which Lord Gill conveniently avoids talking about, where we have a Judiciary who are out of control, have lost the plot and are drunk on power?

Make no mistake, this is all about on one hand opening up the system and shining the light of Transparency and Accountability inside; whilst on the other hand it is all about the preservation of unrelenting power to control?

The choice is between Democracy and Justice or ill- begotten theft of and misuse of power?

Anonymous said...

How can it be not workable if politicians and plenty others already have their own registers of interests?

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill went on to claim a register of interest is “not workable” as judges have so many interests it would not be possible for them to identify what should be declared or be withheld from public gaze.
===============================================
If they are unable to make this distinction they surely cannot be fit to oversee complex trials where someone may or may not be found guilty of allegations, and may or may not lose their liberty. John Stewart Mill said the first law of civilization is that of obedience those with power want to oversee others and are reluctant to have the public knowing what they are doing. Talking about so many interests the reality is that their greatest interest is keeping everything secret and this is the strongest revelation of all why transparency is critically important.

Anonymous said...

This top judge of yours has one serious power complex.Your legislature should call his bluff and do what they are supposed to do - legislate and require judges to declare like everyone else.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 11 February 2014 21:26

... a good idea!

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 11 February 2014 19:58

Good points.It seems to be the judiciary have forgotten they too are part of the community which they are supposed to serve, rather than the other way around.

The Lord President's pick & mix approach to transparency is not doing the reputation of the justice system any good.

However we are learning a lot from the debate itself in terms of what the judiciary think of the rest of us and how they view their own obligations to laws and expectations of transparency which apply to everyone else.

Anonymous said...

All that this shows is how NOT to carry out your business.

Anonymous said...

The Precedent set to allow 'secret side-meetings' have undermined Democracy and made it difficult for Parliament to say it acts in an equitable above board manner?

Anonymous said...

The rest of the Public Petitions Committee must be asking themselves why the Convenor and Deputy Convenor were less than transparent about the presence of Stephen Humphries and that they excluded any record from him being in any of their notes?

Anonymous said...

There is something about Lord Gill's bunker mentality reasoning that is counter-intuitive?

Lord Gill is dogmatic that Transparency for Scottish Judges is unworkable precisely because Scottish Judges have so many other 'interests'?

Surely then if it is all of these extra-curricular-Interests that make Transparency for Scottish Judges impossible, then should Scottish Judges not ditch enough of these 'extra' pastimes, so that Transparency IS workable?

If Lord Gill was genuine about a credible Scottish Judicial System that was Transparent and Accountable, should he not be championing this as a solution?

Or does the negativity and lack of cooperation betray the real secret agenda which is to be able to have cake and eat it at the same time, to have unlimited power and the fawning links to all sorts of organisations to massage their inflated egos and to exert their influence?

Remember, Judges are employed as Public Servants to Judge court Cases?

Scottish Judges, somewhere along the line, seem to have added in a level of self-superiority-thinking, celebrity and Society demi-god persona's?

If my boss came up to me and said, 'Jim, I see that you have failed to meet your targets 10 months in a row now and you have written a note to me here to say that you cannot be expected to fulfil all of your responsibilities to your client base because of all of your other Interests'

His next sentence would be, 'gonnae get yer jacket and just fuck-off ya chancer'?

Anonymous said...

"Points made by Lord Gill" and no points made by anyone else.You couldnt make this up.

Anonymous said...

The msps have made a mess of this because now there is a precedent set for a private meeting to give evidence and anyone can now ask for same or if refused take it to a judge and what is the judge going to say when his boss Lord Gill held one of these same private meetings to get his points across?

They should have insisted he go to the parliament and face the full committee on camera.The judges must be very happy the damage being caused to democracy just to protect whatever they are hiding.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

This top judge of yours has one serious power complex.Your legislature should call his bluff and do what they are supposed to do - legislate and require judges to declare like everyone else.

11 February 2014 21:26

I wholeheartedly agree!

Anonymous said...


Reading the notes it almost sounds like Gill held a session of his court in the parliament itself and no one else was allowed to make any points

Anonymous said...

What an absurd argument for a judge to present against transparency

Anonymous said...

If a judge recuses him or herself it is recorded in the minute of court proceedings, part of the formal court process. No tally is kept of figures. Lord Gill had recused himself twice. Any interested person could make an FOI request with respect to a particular judicial office holder to seek information on that person’s recusal record.

Utter garbage from Gill and if it is so easy to come up with these excuses in a private meeting why is he not appearing in the parliament to say it out loud in front of the cameras?

Maybe because he will be laughed out the room?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

This top judge of yours has one serious power complex.Your legislature should call his bluff and do what they are supposed to do - legislate and require judges to declare like everyone else.

11 February 2014 21:26

I wholeheartedly agree!

12 February 2014 12:00
==================

Me too.

Enough of this interminable delay.

Just get on with it and get these Scottish Judges back into line?

Scottish Judges cannot be allowed to be above the law?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The msps have made a mess of this because now there is a precedent set for a private meeting to give evidence and anyone can now ask for same or if refused take it to a judge and what is the judge going to say when his boss Lord Gill held one of these same private meetings to get his points across?

They should have insisted he go to the parliament and face the full committee on camera.The judges must be very happy the damage being caused to democracy just to protect whatever they are hiding.

12 February 2014 11:36
-----------------------------

Is this not circumventing and undermining the democracy and the law?

Hardly consistent with the responsibilities and duties of a Lord President or were these basic principles thrown away years ago for no other reason than they could get away with it?

Anonymous said...

The MSP's who went to the side-meeting and who were evasive when reporting back to the Public Petitions Committee have added their coats to the cloakroom where Lord Gill keeps his Jacket?

The Shaky-Peg cloakroom?

Anonymous said...

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 11 February 2014 19:58

Good points.It seems to be the judiciary have forgotten they too are part of the community which they are supposed to serve, rather than the other way around.

The Lord President's pick & mix approach to transparency is not doing the reputation of the justice system any good.

However we are learning a lot from the debate itself in terms of what the judiciary think of the rest of us and how they view their own obligations to laws and expectations of transparency which apply to everyone else.

11 February 2014 22:26

No doubt about it Peter you win hands down against Gill and his cronies who scuttle around in back rooms trying to shut everybody up over this question of the judges interests.

Good one as always keep it up mate!

Anonymous said...

"The Lord President saw no need to require an independent record of the meeting.”

This seems to be the only certainty of this private meeting.

Anonymous said...

Scotland is going down the tubes into the sewer

Anonymous said...

Far too much deference to these judges in Scotland and no reason to do so now your debate has revealed just what they think of us and the very laws and expectations on transparency they insist on in their own courts.

Note please I said "their courts" because that is what has happened here.Our courts have become their courts their little empires and nothing gets past them not even your elected Scottish politicians.

Anonymous said...

I dont trust any judge now I have read this

Anonymous said...

Once again, another phoney-bone-of-contention?

The Petition is unconcerned in incidences where a Judge/Sheriff has recused himself/herself and noted it on the court papers?

What ithe Petition is trying to determine is how many incidences occur in Scottish Courts where Scottish Judges/Sheriffs wilfully and deliberately fail to recuse themselves in order to find favouritism toward one of the parties and by so doing commit the offence of defeating the ends of justice?

Lord Gill says, take my 'Word' for it that this doesn't happen, therefore nobody needs to go poking their nose into my business'?

All the Petitioner is saying is, 'OK, I believe you but in order to be seen to be transparent and accountable you need to prove to the Scottish Public that this is not going on and is not commonplace in Scottish Courts'

Given Gill's delaying tactics, obfuscation and undermining of the Parliamentary Process, it is becoming apparent that it is not a case of Lord Gill not being able to prove his stated legal position but that he is refusing to prove his stated legal position, which is putting his Office of Lord President into disrepute as the Scottish Public cannot trust a Judge who insists on secrecy and does not give-a-jot about accountability and the Scottish Public can smell-a-rat over Lord Gill's refusal to come clean about the conduct of Judges/Sheriffs, to the degree that he cannot put himself in the legally vulnerable position of stating to the Public Petitions Committee on-record that such conduct is not common place?

The catch-22 (or 32) here is that it has already been sensationally revealed by Diary of Injustice Journalists that there HAVE been instances of inpropriety, a matter which seems to be backed up by Moi Ai's findings, where she gave the heavy-weight Gill a few swift punches to the solar plexus, if not a knockout punch, not to mention glaring examples of miscarriages of justice where Scottish Judges fail to recuse themselves where there is a clear conflict of interest?

Lord Gill is caught between a rock and a hard place of his own making and the only way for him to get out of this pickle is to throw in the towel?

Anonymous said...

It is no surprise that the Scottish Justice System is a laughing-stock in Scotland and right around the World, when a simple Petition turns into an unholy circus?

Anonymous said...

A lot of these judges and lawyers will be sweating today at the news Scotland wont get to keep the pound,Just imagine the damage it will do to their ill gotten assets and all the money they take from clients!

Anonymous said...

Delays and secrecy, sums up Scotland's lawyers and Judges perfectly. Delays and secrecy mean maximum profitability, bunch of crooks.

Anonymous said...

These notes read more like orders from the judge.Little wonder the msps who met him sound a bit off key in the video clip of the meeting.