No declarations as judicial colleagues of top judge escape prosecution EVEN while Scotland’s top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill was telling msps during a private meeting relating to judicial interests that he had full confidence in his judicial colleagues, an investigation has now uncovered two more Scottish judges have escaped prosecution for serious criminal charges.
However, the two cases involving judges who were charged by Police in connection with serious motoring offences were dropped after a secretive consideration of the cases by ‘independent’ Crown Counsel prosecutors - who claimed there was a ‘lack of evidence’ to prosecute both members of the judiciary.
The latest records of criminal charges involving members of the judiciary were revealed in response to a Freedom of Information response from Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
These new revelations on the interests and lack of disclosures relating to Scotland’s judiciary come amid increased debate on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary in the Scottish Parliament and the secrecy surrounding the undeclared interests of Scotland’s judiciary’s sizeable financial wealth, hidden family & business connections within the legal profession, criminal records, directorships, secret earnings from law firms & big business and offshore ‘tax efficient’ trusts and investments.
However, as no register of interests for judges currently exists, and with the lack of answers from Scotland’s top judge to serious questions put to the Lord President by MSPs over the current system of recusals & judicial oaths, there appears to be little to prevent these same judges sitting on cases involving similar criminal offences with no one else in court including accused persons being aware of it.
More Scottish judges beat criminal prosecutions – Crown Office disclosure. In response to a Freedom of Information request, Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) disclosed that since 25 November 2011 COPFS have received two reports from the police in relation to members of the Judiciary. Both of these cases were referred to Crown Counsel to consider.Crown Counsel are the senior, independent lawyers who act on behalf of the Lord Advocate.
One of the reports received from the police related to an allegation in terms of section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, Crown Counsel decided that the evidence, in law, did not amount to an offence under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1998.
Crown Counsel also concluded that, based on the available evidence, it was not in the public interest to prosecute the individual involved for an offence under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The other report received from the police relating to a member of the Judiciary was in relation to two charges in terms of sections 170(2) and (4) and sections 170(3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Having considered the available evidence, Crown Counsel decided to take no action as there was insufficient evidence to prove either charge.
The Crown Office refused to disclose the judges’ identities or whether they are judges, sheriffs or justices of the peace, meaning they could even be close colleagues of Lord Gill sitting in Scotland’s highest court itself.
In the two latest cases, independent Crown Counsel dismissed both without going to prosecution. However legal insiders have raised doubts of the ability & impartiality of the ‘independent’ Crown Counsel system to look at such cases, particularly in the light of revelations where the same independent Crown Counsel system was used to drop criminal prosecutions against fourteen members of the legal profession who stood accused of millions of pounds worth of legal aid fraud.
A legal insider told Diary of Injustice today: “It is likely the same prosecutors or close colleagues have been in front of the same judges involved in the two cases of criminal charges. I imagine most people will view this as the justice system once again looking after their own.”
The latest revelations of judges escaping criminal charges come after a recent scandal in 2012 where another member of the judiciary faced charges for cheating the benefits system while his colleagues were found guilty of other offences including motoring offences.
• 3 contraventions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 89 – all pled guilty – sentences of £120 and 4 penalty points; £400 and 6 penalty points and £140 and 3 penalty points.
• 1 contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 143 with an alternative charge of a contravention of section 165 of that Act – pled guilty to the alternative charge – sentence of £100
• 1 contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 5(1)(a) – pled guilty – sentence of £650 and disqualification from driving for 2 years
• 1 contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 3 – pled guilty – sentence of £200 and 4 penalty points
• 1 contravention of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, section 111A(1)(a) – plea of not guilty has been entered and the case is presently ongoing
The full information disclosed by the Crown Office in 2011 can be viewed online here : Crown Office : Criminal Charges against Scottish Judges. However, the Crown Office REFUSED at the time to release any further information on the cases, citing fears the public may be able to speculate on the nature & seriousness of the allegations & criminal charges made against the judges who Scotland’s prosecutors are increasingly relying on to hand down verdicts in cases where the Crown Office fails to present accurate or substantive evidence against those accused of wrongdoing.
Speaking for the Crown Office in late 2011, Mr McGeechan said: “The courts have indicated that the most important safeguard in that regard is an absolute guarantee against publication. In particular, I consider that the details of charges contained within a report to the Procurator Fiscal from the police or other reporting agency are not necessarily a reflection of any charges which the Procurator Fiscal may bring or deem appropriate and to release these to the public could cause speculation over an allegation without it having been tested in open court. Having considered the circumstances of this particular case, I have come to the conclusion that the public interest falls overwhelmingly in maintaining the exemptions in this instance.”
Mr McGeechan also admitted in one of the cases where ANOTHER judge had been charged with committing a criminal offence, there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution. The Crown Office claimed: “The one case that was not prosecuted, having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case, Crown Counsel gave an independent instruction that there was insufficient admissible evidence to justify criminal proceedings.”
Asked for a statement on the information regarding the two judges released by the Crown Office in the FOI response, a spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland told Diary of Injustice: “The Judicial Office for Scotland declined to comment”.
The Sunday Mail newspaper reported on the latest developments in the debate on the register of interests at the Scottish Parliament and on the information disclosed by the Crown Office in relation to charges against judges:
Minister quiz on judges’ interests
Sunday Mail Date 09/03/2014
A parliamentary debate has been demanded to discuss a bid to force Scotland’s judges to come clean over their interests. MSPs on Holyrood’s public petitions committee want Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to be quizzed in the main chamber.
The committee’s call marks an escalation in the clash between cross-party MSPs and the judiciary, headed by Lord President Lord Gill. Scotland’s most senior judge twice refused to attend the committee to discuss Peter Cherbi’s call for a judicial register of interests.
Lord Gill agreed to meet two committee members behind closed doors. He has now agreed to publish details of when judges recuse themselves - stand down - due to conflicts of interest.
Judicial complaints reviewer Moi Ali said it was “a step in the right direction towards greater transparency”. But she added: “It doesn’t go far enough.”
A register could disclose hospitality, gifts, property plus personal or financial links to outside bodies.
SNP MSP John Wilson called for judges to be accountable to the public. He said: “Without a register of interests, how would anyone dealing with a court understand or realise when a judge would have to recuse themselves?”
Lawmen on raps
Sunday Mail Date 09/03/2014
Two judges were charged with serious motoring offences in the last three years - but their cases were dropped by prosecutors.
One was accused of dangerous driving but Crown Office lawyers ditched the case.
Another was reported for allegedly failing to stop or provide details. This incident also did not proceed to trial, a freedom of information request revealed.
The Crown Office refused to disclose the judges’ identities or whether they are judges, sheriffs or justices of the peace.
38 comments:
I am sure a few unexpected guilty verdicts on the great unwashed will be extracted for this favor..
Have confidence in one's colleagues as in confidence to cover it all up and no one gets to know more like!
Be interesting to hear what kind of cases these judges sit on and what kind of judgments come out of them.Are they all pro the Crown Office or lenient or has all this changed after the charges were dropped?
Did Gill ever admit any of this to the msps?I doubt it.
Proves again we need this register of yours.
No wonder they are so against your register of judges interests because half the judges must be involved in crime themselves!
How the hell can a judge get away with being a benefits cheat and some of them are getting about 1/4 million a year for sitting in a chair a few days a week.
Bloody disgusting really and good thing you took this whole subject of secrecy and their backgrounds/interests to the parliament.
Keep up the good work!
They probably discussed the cases with the judges themselves over tea and biscuits!
Corrupt and rotten to the core as usual.
You sank the Crown Office spin bullshit about independent Crown Counsel with that link to the 14 thieving robbing bastard lawyers who stole legal aid money and got away with it via a decision from their chums.
As well as reforming the judiciary that rotten power hungry Crown Office needs broken up and something else put in its place just like all the dinosaurs on the bench.
errm apologies if the comment is a bit strong and hope you publish as it is the truth!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2
[F12 Dangerous driving.
A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.]
Seems not.If you are a judge you can get away with it according to Frank Mulholland's Crown office.
"Crown Counsel also concluded that, based on the available evidence, it was not in the public interest to prosecute the individual involved for an offence under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988."
What's that?Not in the public interest to prosecute someone because they are a judge?
Sounds to me like this must be one important judge then and not some run of the mill drunk out of his skull jp or a certain well known wife beating daughter abusing Edinburgh based sheriff out on a Saturday night.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.
(2)The driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
Obviously the judges are exempt from this law says the Lord Advocate's independent stooges the Crown Counsel with the insufficient evidence puke excuse.
Wonder how the arresting officers feel about these cases.Unhappy with pending threats against their careers I assume.
Who abides by the law if they fear no-one?
What exactly is the argument these judges make for not declaring their interests or criminal lives?
If someone is judging the rest of us it does not make sense and is not fair they keep all this a secret.What if these judges hear cases involving the same motoring offences and dont declare they also were charged with the same and got off?
Really corrupt dont you think?
I dont doubt for one minute there are judges who have been charged with criminal offenses or some who have been prosecuted.The thing is there is no way of finding this out or identifying the judge and this is wrong because all of this is clearly relevant to what is going on in a court of law and must therefore be declared.
As for the top judge using the diversion of a private meeting to whisper in the ear of two of your politicians about his confidence in his colleagues that just sets an awful scene for this whole episode of corruption inside the Scots judiciary.
I have the creepiest feeling these judges involved in these cases are probably reading your blog right now!
Never mind chaps it will only be a matter of time before someone spills the beans and we all know who you are.
You just cant keep any thing secret in this world today even a judge!
Both cases were dropped after a secretive consideration of the cases by ‘independent’ Crown Counsel prosecutors who claimed there was a ‘lack of evidence’ to prosecute.
==================================
A lack of will to prosecute more like. Why am I not surprised? I have dealt with lawyers before, the biggest crooks in Scotland.
Here is their rational:-
No Scottish Judge or Sheriff can be found guilty of offences they commit because by finding them guilty would mean that the Scottish Public would lose confidence in them and a revolte would be on our hands and Scotland's Justice System would become untenable, as Crown Prosecutors would find it impossible to get a prosecution with a defective Judge presiding?
Similarly, any defence lawyer worth their salt would defend his client on the basis that their client's human rights were being infringed under Article 6 of the European Court Of Human Rights Legislation?
Thereby, in Scotland all Judges & Sheriffs are above the law?
They cannot be prosecuted as this would be like shitting in their own carefully organised self serving nest?
It cannot be allowed for Scottish Judges and Sheriffs to be criminals presiding over and finding others they find as criminal?
The Crown Office is corrupt and because they too are above the law in Scotland, they are so arrogant that they would happily defeat the course of Justice and let these crooks off knowing that by doing so, they are creating a situation where there is no Justice in Scotland anymore, no morals and no trust?
Instead, they are responsible for reducing Scotland's Judicial System into a private members club of elite crooks, who serve each other, who are lording it over the Scottish People and are in fact imposters because as soon as they chose to be criminals by breaking the law, they automatically disqualified themselves from being a Judge or Sheriff?
When you hear the phrase, "not in the Public Interest" you know what they are really saying is that vested interests are being protected and they are laughing at us for accepting the lie, hook, line and sinker?
Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's Justice Minister apparently has no problem with the law being subverted in order to keep Scottish Judges and Sheriffs who are known criminals and who are acting under false pretences continuing to draw their large salaries and pensions?
Does this make Kenny MacAskill an accessory to crime himself?
But the Crown Office would argue...No, there is nothing for you to see here. The fact that every single Scottish lawyer, Judge and Sheriff are saved from prosecution is entirely a statistical possibility?
Aye, so is winning the Lottery Jackpot every single week?
Scotland is a defunct State?
Insufficient evidence, borrowing without consent, self regulation, lawyers deciding if members of their profession are to face court, a stinking corrupt system designed by them for them.
What they are saying is break the law because we are our own police force, like the fourteen legal aid fraud lawyers insufficient evidence. No wonder Scotland has the highest legal aid bill in Europe, it is simply a subsidy for the legal profession. White collar crime is not regarded as crime.
In light of this latest you are going to have to add criminal charges and prosecutions to the petition calling for the register of judicial interests.
These are serious matters and have to be disclosed and in all the cases you have uncovered so far there has to be an independent investigation to ascertain if anyone has had their right to a fair trial or a fair hearing breached (I think this must be the case with the number of judges involved in all the information you recovered from the Crown office)
Anonymous said...
In light of this latest you are going to have to add criminal charges and prosecutions to the petition calling for the register of judicial interests.
These are serious matters and have to be disclosed and in all the cases you have uncovered so far there has to be an independent investigation to ascertain if anyone has had their right to a fair trial or a fair hearing breached (I think this must be the case with the number of judges involved in all the information you recovered from the Crown office)
15 March 2014 12:13
vwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvwvsvsvsv
The reason why letting these crooked Scottish Sheriffs and Judges off is perverting the course of justice is this:-
These crooked Scottish Sheriffs and Judges, who should have been found guilty, if the system was not so corrupt, would have been sacked from their jobs because they had demonstrated that their judgement is twisted and that they chose to break the law?
They chose to break the law because they are morally corrupt and such a person cannot continue to preside over another member of the Public in a Democratic, law abiding country?
To be allowed to do so, would be perverse in the extreme?
But you see, when nobody is monitoring their behaviour apart from their lawyer colleagues at the Crown Office (who have obviously got their back) there is no incentive to abide by the law any more and this is the farcical situation we have reached at the moment?
Of course, this vested interest, self-protection, is protecting these crooks from the sack and thereby allowing them to continue to get paid a very large salary with dream pension, contrary to the law?
Because, they have swept all of this under the carpet, thinking that the Scottish Public would never find out, now means that every decision these Scottish Sheriffs and Judges have made since is now UNSAFE in law and potentially all of these cases will now need to be unwound, creating the downfall of the Scottish Justice System?
This is the consequence of criminals riding roughshod over Scotland's Justice System, without giving a jot about the repercussions of their actions?
The other thing to remember is this....if they are committing criminal offences and getting let-off Scot-Free, then what else dodgy are they involving themselves in?
Investing in off-shore accounts to avoid paying tax?
Failing to recuse themselves so that they can unlawfully harm a case?
Who knows?
I am just waiting now for Kenny MacAskill (King of the Borrowing Without Consenters) to make a patronising speech down to the Scottish People to say that there are different kinds of criminal offences and criminal offences committed by Scotland's Sheriffs and Judges were no really bad ones and we should all just let them off and just forget this ever was exposed?
Even the Banana Republic's are now protesting at being likened to Scotland?
Will these crooked Scottish Sheriffs and Judges now have to repay all of their salary and expenses, erroneously taken under false pretences, back into the Public Purse?
didnt think for a minute a judge may have a criminal record you have really opened my eyes about this
It has reached the stage in Scotland that if you find yourself in Court, it is necessary to ask the Judge if they are a criminal or not?
We've had it revealed that the Law Society allow dishonesty by their members, now we have dishonest judges and dishonest Crown Office, where is this all going to end?
I would be interested to know if these Judges who were let off employed lawyers to try to get them off?
If so, this shows that they have malice of forethought in that they were trying to save their skins when they knew they were guilty and trying to cheat the system, so that they could continue to draw their inflated salary and ensure they retained their gold gilded pension?
If we have criminals as Judges or even the risk of criminals as Judges, then those borrowers without consenters are winning in their battle to bring Scotland down to her knees?
This is a serious development.
We cannot have judges with criminal records sitting on the bench and these cases where charges have been dropped by the Crown Office the judges concerned must declare their positions otherwise persons in court accused of similar offences in cases being heard by the same judge are potentially up for appeal.
Has the criminal convictions subject been discussed at the parliament on your petition ?
If not it has to come up as the criminal records subject is just as important as secret directorships and whatever else you have uncovered.
Anonymous said...
How the hell can a judge get away with being a benefits cheat and some of them are getting about 1/4 million a year for sitting in a chair a few days a week.
Bloody disgusting really and good thing you took this whole subject of secrecy and their backgrounds/interests to the parliament.
Keep up the good work!
14 March 2014 18:50
Well the point is he didn't although we only know about this because of Peter Cherbi and the Sunday Mail.Clearly time for a register of interests and any crooks on the judiciary kicked out.
Lawmen on raps
Sunday Mail Date 09/03/2014
Two judges were charged with serious motoring offences in the last three years - but their cases were dropped by prosecutors.
One was accused of dangerous driving but Crown Office lawyers ditched the case.
Another was reported for allegedly failing to stop or provide details. This incident also did not proceed to trial, a freedom of information request revealed.
The Crown Office refused to disclose the judges’ identities or whether they are judges, sheriffs or justices of the peace.
ANOTHER CROWN OFFICE COVER UP
Yes the system looks after its own criminals no matter who they are and these judges are just another example of it.
Wear a wig and an ermine gown and you get off anything.It's a wonder the benefits cheating judge was ever brought to trial I wonder how that one slipped out if there is one at it there are more keep digging!
Doubtless Lord Gill has not volunteered this information to anyone on the petitions committee.
How can a top judge have confidence in his colleagues who escape prosecution on so blatantly self serving grounds of not in the public interest to prosecute.
Who is personally responsible for letting these judges off?
Is it The Lord Advocate or is it Kenny MacAskill who allowed this to happen and then has swept it under the carpet?
Of course, I would imagine that Alex Salmond is ultimately liable as he must have known this had happened and the massive damage it would cause to Justice if it ever got out?
Let's face it Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill have a history of a lack of transparency and keeping secrets from the Scottish Public?
Anonymous said...
didnt think for a minute a judge may have a criminal record you have really opened my eyes about this
16 March 2014 00:38
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Given the secrecy and lack of transparency and accountability, the reality is that this information was only released under protest. What else are they keeping back that is potentially too damaging to vested interests to reveal?
When did Scotland dispose of the Rule of Law?
The crooks who have inveigled themselves into positions of power in Scotland expect us to believe that they are telling the truth about letting all of these Scottish crooked lawyers, Sheriffs & Judges off with their crimes, that it is just a coincidence that there just happens to be insufficient corroborating evidence?
This is a bold lie?
This is what happens when these crooks give themselves unimpeachable power so that they can break the law with impunity and grant favours to those who have committed crime but were let off, knowing that they owe a favour or two to these crooks or else their details could be leaked to the Press and they would lose their fat salary and fat pension?
These are matters the Police should be investigating and putting a stop to and if necessary arresting those criminals responsible at the Crown Office?
That is if we didn't already have a Police State, where the police are instructed which crimes to investigate and which to let slide?
Scotland - A sham country
The dangerous driver is bad enough- probably has the same bad attitude in court and the one where the judge failed to stop after an accident- surely he/she must resign from the judiciary immediately.
Not very transparent this independent Crown counsel lark is it.
The odds are independent Crown counsel are on the lookout to be elevated to the bench at some point in their careers.
Dismissing criminal charges against existing members of the judiciary will doubtless speed up this process.
Shocking!
Wonder how many other judges have done this we dont know about.Any more on these criminals?
@ 19 March 2014 22:06
It seems to have already paid off for some ...
Anonymous said...
I have the creepiest feeling these judges involved in these cases are probably reading your blog right now!
Never mind chaps it will only be a matter of time before someone spills the beans and we all know who you are.
You just cant keep any thing secret in this world today even a judge!
14 March 2014 23:32
cvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvcvc
They are nothing other than imposters?
Anonymous said...
Lawmen on raps
Sunday Mail Date 09/03/2014
Two judges were charged with serious motoring offences in the last three years - but their cases were dropped by prosecutors.
One was accused of dangerous driving but Crown Office lawyers ditched the case.
Another was reported for allegedly failing to stop or provide details. This incident also did not proceed to trial, a freedom of information request revealed.
The Crown Office refused to disclose the judges’ identities or whether they are judges, sheriffs or justices of the peace.
ANOTHER CROWN OFFICE COVER UP
17 March 2014 14:34
-----------------------------------
We can see that this independent Crown Counsel rubbish is just a dirty smelly lie?
Where the hell are the police?
They should be arresting this fraudulent independent Crown Counsel in order to protect justice?
Anonymous said...
Doubtless Lord Gill has not volunteered this information to anyone on the petitions committee.
How can a top judge have confidence in his colleagues who escape prosecution on so blatantly self serving grounds of not in the public interest to prosecute.
18 March 2014 17:33
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The fact that Lord Gill kept the criminal judges a secret from the Public Petitions Committee shows that he will do anything to maintain the secrecy and go to any lengths to keep these fallen judges in a job, despite that he knows that they have invalidated themselves from being judges and should be sacked on the spot?
To keep all this from the Parliament shows that Lord Gill's judgement and the difference between right and wrong is warped?
No doubt he will argue that it is OK, all of these judges are 'Borrowers Without Consenters' and as such they can be let off Judge Free?
Post a Comment