Lord President Lord Brian Gill reckons its easier to drop wigs than declare full interests in public register. LET’S face it, appearing in front of a group of ageing, yet influential, wealthy, secretive, and at times argumentative individuals who wear lengthy grey wigs, are draped ever so self indulgently in red & white ermine robes covered in red crosses, carry what appear to be a variety of implements, and on many occasions appear to have difficulty in operating a laptop, difficulty recalling the names of expert witnesses or referring back to evidence from previous hearings, is an intimidating experience. It certainly is an intimidating experience for many in Scotland.
Even more intimidating if you consider that these same individuals all live more or less in the same affluent areas, move in the same circles, go to the same clubs, have offshore investments, own swathes of property while avoiding their name appearing on it, refuse to declare their interests or directorships openly, occasionally threaten the Scottish Parliament when it suits, have numerous & serious criminal convictions no one gets to know of, and, not forgetting that some are closely related to each other and switch their names around so you don't know if you have been before one of their parents or siblings in an earlier hearing.
This is not what you really expect to find in a court is it. Not in Scotland, in 2014. Surely not.
However, as we have seen from well over a year of media investigations and headlines of the secrets of Scotland’s judiciary, together with a full year of debate at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee - this is the true state of fact of Scotland’s courts and the judiciary today, and sadly has been for some time. Whether it is a criminal prosecution, or a civil damages case, these are the lives and the undeclared interests of the judges who hear you out.
The judiciary's personal, undeclared wealth including extensive family and business links throughout the legal profession, offshore ‘tax efficient’ trusts, ownership of numerous and high value properties through a variety of interesting arrangements, investments, directorships and shareholdings, collectively generate millions of pounds in earnings for the judges and their families each year – yet no one gets to know about it, because the judges have written their own rules exempting themselves from the same requirements of transparency they enforce against the rest of us.
So, when Scotland’s top judge decides it is time to make an attempt to make judges appear more “human” to the public, (but not more transparent or accountable) it is obviously an exercise in newsworthiness.
To this end, Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill earlier this week declared in an official statement that “From Tuesday 22 April 2014 Senators of the College of Justice sitting in the Inner House will no longer wear formal robes and wigs when hearing civil appeals.”
Following a proposal by the Lord President the judges sitting in the Inner House have endorsed this change. However, judges will continue to wear formal robes and wigs when hearing criminal appeals.
Eleven judges currently sit in the Inner House, which is the appellate section of the Court of Session. The Inner House acts as a court of appeal for cases from the Outer House (Court of Session first instance courts) and for appeals in civil cases from the Sheriff Courts, the Court of the Lord Lyon, Scottish Land Court, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and other tribunals.
The Lord President has issued a Practice Note that counsel may appear without wig and gown and that solicitors with rights of audience may appear without gowns.
PRACTICE NOTE
No. 1 of 2014 Sittings of the Inner House
1. This Practice Note has effect from 22 April 2014
2. From the abovementioned date, Judges sitting in the Inner House will, ordinarily, no longer wear wigs and judicial robes. Where this is the case the court will not insist that counsel should appear with wig and gown or that solicitors with rights of audience should appear with gowns
3. Where the court intends to wear wigs and judicial robes, for example at ceremonial sittings of the court, practitioners will be informed accordingly.
4. This Practice Note does not affect existing custom and practice in the Outer House or in the High Court of Justiciary.
Brian Gill Lord President Edinburgh 16 April 2014
Lord Gill said of the changes: “In deciding to sit in civil appeals without robes or wigs the judges of the Inner House are in line with the practice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court. It makes sense in this day and age.”
Yet, it appears that while it is a simple matter for Scotland’s top judge to approve the removal of the judges much coveted symbols of judicial power and vested interests in this day and age, it is not so simple an act nor is it in the judiciary’s best interests to fall into line with the rest of the world in terms of transparency and declare their very much undeclared interests to the Scottish Parliament in connection with calls to create a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
TOP JUDGE DROPS WIGS, CONTINUES PROTESTS AGAINST TRANSPARENCY REGISTER:
Lord Gill’s first letter to MSPs declared judicial 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.”
Top judge Lord Gill refused to go to Holyrood, by letter. In a second reply to the Convener of the PPC, dated 2 April 2013, Lord Gill refused an invitation to attend the Scottish Parliament and face questions from Committee members on issues raised in the petition and to explain his own opposition to the transparency proposal.
Notably, Gill’s second reply did not contain any answers to questions put to him in writing by the Petitions Committee, nor did the judge provide any statistical or analytical evidence on the numbers of recusals which have been undertaken by judges in Scotland’s courts. However, seeking once again to lobby MSPs against any call for transparency of judges interests, the Lord President again referred to the content of an EU report, itself written by judges, who claimed there was no need for a register of judicial interests.
A further invitation was sent to Lord Gill by the Convener of the Public Petitions Committee, asking for answers to questions and again inviting the Lord President to addend the Scottish Parliament to give evidence on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary
Third letter from top judge refused Holyrood invitation, used Scotland Act loophole. Having received the third letter containing a second invitation to attend Holyrood, Lord Gill wrote back to the Convener of the Public Petitions Committee on the 28 May 2013, again refusing to appear before MSPs to face questions on judges interests and his own opposition to the petition.
However, this time the top judge added a hint that judicial cooperation with Committees of the Scottish Parliament may suffer and must be limited.
In what appears to have been little short of a veiled threat to refuse further judicial cooperation with, and future Committee appearances at the Scottish Parliament, Gill stated: “Judges have from time to time given evidence to committees of the Scottish Parliament on matters that affect the administration of justice in Scotland. I hope that that has been helpful in the legislative process. Judicial participation in the work of the committees must however be kept within prudent limits.”
And, shockingly, Lord Gill then sought to use deficiencies in the Scotland Act to justify his refusal to attend the Public Petitions Committee and answer question from msps.
Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media. Writing in his third letter, Lord Gill said: “Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act provides inter alia that the Parliament may not require a judge to attend its proceedings for the purposes of giving evidence. This is not a loophole. It is a necessary part of the constitutional settlement by which the Parliament is established. Its purpose is to protect the independence of the judiciary, a vital constitutional principle that is declared in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008”
The judge continued: “When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”
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 deliberations on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Good one.Gill dropping wigs and gowns in court is small and cosmetic change compared to how he feels about judges interests.
ReplyDeleteThese judges have too much to hide and we can all see it now I suppose thanks to your efforts!
The judge does not get it does he.Taking off his wig is not recompense for how he has treated the parliament and dodged your petition.
ReplyDeleteYour register of interests for judges must now go forward to law we all get it even if the judge does not.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/no-room-for-pomposity.23979492
ReplyDeleteNo room for pomposity
Herald View
Friday 18 April 2014
WHEN it comes to court dress, Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, had the right idea, though we would not necessarily agree with his choice of words.
"For Heaven's sake," he said, "discard the monstrous wig which makes the English judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum."
Now senior Scottish judges - who resemble rats in no way, shape or form - are to take his advice to heart, at least in civil cases at the Court of Session, by dispensing with wigs and robes. The 11 who sit in the Inner House will take this radical leap into the 21st century next week.
In making the announcement, Lord Gill, the Lord President, said that by sitting in civil appeals without robes or wigs the judges of the Inner House will be in line with the practice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, adding: "It makes sense in this day and age."
In that he is correct. Wigs connote authority, but they do not define it. Horsehair and silk may have served a purpose in the 17th century, but now the time is surely ripe for change. Pomp can be uncomfortably close to pomposity, and there is no case for either in a modern judicial system.
How can these judges defy something everyone else is expected to declare?
ReplyDeleteThe msps should just go over Gill's head and put through your register of interests now and also you and the newspapers who back this register should all share in some kind of recognition or award for doing all the work to bring us the debate!
Money Money Money and no end to it for the judges.
ReplyDeleteThis top judge of yours will never live down those letters to the Scottish Parliament.He can swan around the world all over the place but people will be wondering behind his back what he is really all about and if he can really be trusted when he treats his own legislature as he did.
Anyone with half a brain will agree with this.
All this just shows the absurdity of Scotland's courts.Totally absurd place to go as there is no justice just a pack of hyenas waiting to pick your bones and steal all your money.
ReplyDeleteYet, it appears that while it is a simple matter for Scotland’s top judge to approve the removal of the judges much coveted symbols of judicial power and vested interests in this day and age, it is not so simple an act nor is it in the judiciary’s best interests to fall into line with the rest of the world in terms of transparency and declare their very much undeclared interests to the Scottish Parliament in connection with calls to create a register of judicial interests.
ReplyDeleteLord NO NO will have to do better than just dropping his wig and robe at the first sign of trouble!
"So, when Scotland’s top judge decides it is time to make an attempt to make judges appear more “human” to the public, (but not more transparent or accountable) it is obviously an exercise in newsworthiness."
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY - just another exercise in window dressing......and long after it has been enacted elsewhere.
This so called profession have utter contempt for the public. I saw that plonker Gill on BBC news going on about wigs not being worn in civil cases. Talk about trivia, who cares what they wear, the fact is that what is going on would be very damaging to them hence their pathological resistance to transparency. F**k off you mendacious crooks.
ReplyDeleteLord President Lord Brian Gill reckons its easier to drop wigs than declare full interests in public register.
ReplyDelete===================================
Was this proposal in his Civil Courts review? Of course it is sarcasm, the only thing Gill wants is obedience. Clearly transparency of judicial interests are in the public interest but not the judiciaries interest. These people are so drunk on power they are totally out of touch and unfit to be in their positions of power and opulence. How many thousands of people have been robbed of damages because the payments would hurt judges financially. Utter bastards.
Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media. Writing in his third letter, Lord Gill said: “Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act provides inter alia that the Parliament may not require a judge to attend its proceedings for the purposes of giving evidence.
ReplyDelete===================================
Section 23(7) utter bullshit any excuse to say we Jugdes are and will be above the law. We Judges are the guiding hand behind controlling an elected parliament. This is not democracy it is stinking gross abuse of power. Who gave Gill and his cronies total power to do what they want and remain secret. This is corruption, these people are cannot prove and would not want to anyway that they are not criminals. In my opinion they are exactly that. They have power like the ancient church, utterly shocking how an organized minority can control a parliament. What is the parliament for? Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media but is not the reality. Gill is using the Scotland Act against the Scottish people by default because they vote for MSP's and get an unelected dictator we know little about controlling everything. May as well be Henry VIII.
If the judge can so easily write a practice note to dispense with wigs he can write another one to declare all their interests.
ReplyDelete+1 from anyone else who agrees Gill is doing this because of the headlines about the judges?
ReplyDeleteLord Gill, the spin doctor. He is against anyone challenging his and the judiciaries vested interests. Who gave him the power to do this. That system and its designers are utterly corrupt.
ReplyDeleteWith or without the wigs and robes we see that he rejects transparency. But make no mistake Lord Gill we see through you legal actors who are simply a law unto yourselves. Scotland's justice system is therefore dictatorial, selective in who it allows into court and utterly false. The civil courts are simply dens of iniquity controlled by the rich for the rich, and how can we be sure the criminal courts are any different especially when we don't know if Judges have criminal records.
Before you try litigation ask yourself which insurance company will be paying your damages. The chances are the legal profession have financial interests in all insurance companies. And the professions who may be involved will have the same financial interests as the lawyers.
ReplyDeleteI urge people not to trust these people because you can be sure they rob people of damages they deserve because the system is designed to reward the lawyers who are meant to represent you. Your lawyer and the defenders lawyer are part of the same team. And the cherry on the rotten cake is this. All lawyers know self regulation means there is no complaints system. They will use you for fees and dump you prior to the false court date you are given because you are fees to them nothing more. They don't care if you die. And no lawyer reading this blog will challenge me because they know I am correct.
Rumour in the press has it the son of a Scottish judge offered a reward to an undercover Police officer for your head.No investigation according to sources.Care to comment?
ReplyDeleteThis is just a diversion from the judge to try and delay your main aim to pursue the register of interests petition
ReplyDeleteBig deal no more wigs!
ReplyDeleteLets hear more about what the judges are hiding and all this other stuff they dont declare!
The Faculty of Advocates wanted the judges to keep the wigs presumably because they charge their clients more for appearing in front of unaccountable judges dressed for the 18th Century.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scots-judges-to-ditch-their-wigs-and-robes-in-historic-move.23995913
Scots judges to ditch their wigs and robes in historic move
stuart macdonald
Friday 18 April 2014
JUDGES at Scotland's highest court are to end a 250-year-old tradition by ditching their wigs and robes when hearing civil appeal cases.
Law chiefs at the Court of Session in Edinburgh have decided to dispense with the formal clothing in some cases in an effort to modernise their image.
It follows a similar move in England after research showed the public was in favour of judges "dressing down" to help dispel their stuffy reputation.
The new dress code will apply to civil and family appeal cases heard in the court's Inner House.
Lawyers appearing in the cases will also have the option not to wear wigs and gowns.
However, judges and lawyers working on cases in criminal courts will keep their traditional wigs and gowns.
The move, which will come into effect next week, follows a proposal by the Lord President, Lord Gill, which was backed by judges. Lord Gill, the head of the judiciary in Scotland, said the move "makes sense in this day and age".
He said: "From April 22 judges sitting in the Inner House will, ordinarily, no longer wear wigs and judicial robes. Where this is the case the court will not insist that counsel should appear with wig and gown or that solicitors with rights of audience should appear with gowns.
"In deciding to sit in civil appeals without robes or wigs the judges of the Inner House are in line with the practice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court."
The Court of Session is Scotland's highest civil court and is divided into the Inner House and the Outer House, which hears cases which have not previously been to court.
Eleven judges sit in the Inner House, which is the appellate section of the Court of Session. The Inner House acts as a court of appeal for cases from the Outer House and for appeals in civil cases from the sheriff courts, the Court of the Lord Lyon, Scottish Land Court, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and other tribunals.
The former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd previously called for judges and wigs and gowns to be ditched in civil courts.
He said: "I think the criminal courts are slightly different. But really, is that the way we want to be dressed? I think not."
In 2002, the Faculty of Advocates decided to keep wigs as part of their formal dress code after a QC appeared in a civil court without one.
Colin McEachran, QC, had taken to appearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh bareheaded. He described the wearing of wigs as old-fashioned and said it was time for the profession to change.
The move caused a split among his colleagues between those who want to uphold the tradition and others who believed it is time for a change.
However, in a consultation by the Faculty of Advocates, 80% of members said they wanted to keep the formal attire, claiming that the wigs were a symbol of professional identity.
@ 20 April 2014 14:29
ReplyDeleteNo idea.If it happened and the press already have details put it in print and DOI will cover it ...
@ 19 April 2014 18:59
Good point.Hopefully the Scottish Parliament will also take note of the ease of how easy these little changes in the judiciary are apparently implemented so swiftly compared with other reforms such as increased transparency which are clearly more appropriate to restoring public trust in the courts ...
@ 20 April 2014 19:11
The Faculty of Advocates always want to keep things in the judiciary as they are .. usually because many FoA members want to be elevated to the bench at some stage in their career ...
Lord President Lord Brian Gill reckons its easier to drop wigs than declare full interests in public register.
ReplyDeleteGood evening Brian,
You resist transparency and a register of interests and refuse to appear before MSP's by quoting your stinking legislation, so by default you are telling us we cannot trust the legal profession. You did not have to do that, we know already. Secrecy and justice are mutually exclusive.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete+1 from anyone else who agrees Gill is doing this because of the headlines about the judges?
20 April 2014 11:54
+1,000,000!
This is Comedy Gold?
ReplyDeleteIronically, this is what is known by many school children as Freedom Friday or Casual Friday, where the kids are allowed to wear what they like to school on a Friday?
Trust the Judges to want to adopt something similar and pass it off as a modernisation of the Scottish Judiciary?
Just because they have a casual Justice System, with zero checks and balances, does not mean that they can now dispense with the Uniform of Justice, to emphasise to the Scottish Public that there are really zero Judges left in Scotland that they are just individuals who believe that they do not have to abide by the law and to rub our faces in it they now want to throw away the Judges Uniform, with all of the history and reverence that the uniformed held through hundreds of years of their honest and incorruptible forebears?
Once more, if it was needed, further confirmation that the Judgement of Scottish Judges cannot be relied upon?
Compare the content of Gill's practice note with the letters to msps and it is easy to see there is something going on here regarding their interests the judges are too afraid to reveal.
ReplyDeleteI also believe this has only come about because of the publicity against the judges particularly Gill himself and the shameful way he has treated the Scottish Parliament.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/no-room-for-pomposity.23979492
No room for pomposity
Herald View
Friday 18 April 2014
WHEN it comes to court dress, Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, had the right idea, though we would not necessarily agree with his choice of words.
"For Heaven's sake," he said, "discard the monstrous wig which makes the English judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum."
Now senior Scottish judges - who resemble rats in no way, shape or form - are to take his advice to heart, at least in civil cases at the Court of Session, by dispensing with wigs and robes. The 11 who sit in the Inner House will take this radical leap into the 21st century next week.
In making the announcement, Lord Gill, the Lord President, said that by sitting in civil appeals without robes or wigs the judges of the Inner House will be in line with the practice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, adding: "It makes sense in this day and age."
In that he is correct. Wigs connote authority, but they do not define it. Horsehair and silk may have served a purpose in the 17th century, but now the time is surely ripe for change. Pomp can be uncomfortably close to pomposity, and there is no case for either in a modern judicial system.
19 April 2014 17:48
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is precisely the kind of thing that exposes the Scottish Judge's inability to understand what is important and what is not?
This is the last change that the Scottish Judiciary should be making and shows that they are totally beyond help and incapable of seeing that their time is up?
In the current environment it would make far more sense to the Scottish Public if this statement read that Scottish Judges would forthwith be wearing over-sized shoes, a crazy hairstyle and a big red plastic nose?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHow can these judges defy something everyone else is expected to declare?
The msps should just go over Gill's head and put through your register of interests now and also you and the newspapers who back this register should all share in some kind of recognition or award for doing all the work to bring us the debate!
19 April 2014 18:22
////////////////////////////
I totally agree.
The MSP's should be put on 'Notice' and sent all of the details involving Scottish Judges and Sheriffs in brazen criminality and if the MSP's fail to do anything about it then they will be next?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAll this just shows the absurdity of Scotland's courts.Totally absurd place to go as there is no justice just a pack of hyenas waiting to pick your bones and steal all your money.
19 April 2014 20:20
£££££££££££££££
If you have any sense, do not use Scottish lawyers and do not use the Scottish Justice System?
Resolve your disputes by going to see an honest broker (in comparison) Big Malky?
After all, the Law Society of Scotland went down this road with a former employee, who was going to tell all?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media. Writing in his third letter, Lord Gill said: “Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act provides inter alia that the Parliament may not require a judge to attend its proceedings for the purposes of giving evidence.
===================================
Section 23(7) utter bullshit any excuse to say we Jugdes are and will be above the law. We Judges are the guiding hand behind controlling an elected parliament. This is not democracy it is stinking gross abuse of power. Who gave Gill and his cronies total power to do what they want and remain secret. This is corruption, these people are cannot prove and would not want to anyway that they are not criminals. In my opinion they are exactly that. They have power like the ancient church, utterly shocking how an organized minority can control a parliament. What is the parliament for? Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media but is not the reality. Gill is using the Scotland Act against the Scottish people by default because they vote for MSP's and get an unelected dictator we know little about controlling everything. May as well be Henry VIII.
20 April 2014 00:53
[]{}{][]{}{][]{}{][]{}{][]{}{][]{}
The Jury's out as it were on whether or not this single act was a treasonable offence?
It was certainly undemocratic as well as astonishingly ill-judged, which is ironic coming from a Scottish Judge?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe Faculty of Advocates wanted the judges to keep the wigs presumably because they charge their clients more for appearing in front of unaccountable judges dressed for the 18th Century.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scots-judges-to-ditch-their-wigs-and-robes-in-historic-move.23995913
Scots judges to ditch their wigs and robes in historic move
stuart macdonald
Friday 18 April 2014
JUDGES at Scotland's highest court are to end a 250-year-old tradition by ditching their wigs and robes when hearing civil appeal cases.
Law chiefs at the Court of Session in Edinburgh have decided to dispense with the formal clothing in some cases in an effort to modernise their image.
It follows a similar move in England after research showed the public was in favour of judges "dressing down" to help dispel their stuffy reputation.
The new dress code will apply to civil and family appeal cases heard in the court's Inner House.
Lawyers appearing in the cases will also have the option not to wear wigs and gowns.
However, judges and lawyers working on cases in criminal courts will keep their traditional wigs and gowns.
The move, which will come into effect next week, follows a proposal by the Lord President, Lord Gill, which was backed by judges. Lord Gill, the head of the judiciary in Scotland, said the move "makes sense in this day and age".
He said: "From April 22 judges sitting in the Inner House will, ordinarily, no longer wear wigs and judicial robes. Where this is the case the court will not insist that counsel should appear with wig and gown or that solicitors with rights of audience should appear with gowns.
"In deciding to sit in civil appeals without robes or wigs the judges of the Inner House are in line with the practice of the United Kingdom Supreme Court."
The Court of Session is Scotland's highest civil court and is divided into the Inner House and the Outer House, which hears cases which have not previously been to court.
Eleven judges sit in the Inner House, which is the appellate section of the Court of Session. The Inner House acts as a court of appeal for cases from the Outer House and for appeals in civil cases from the sheriff courts, the Court of the Lord Lyon, Scottish Land Court, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and other tribunals.
The former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd previously called for judges and wigs and gowns to be ditched in civil courts.
He said: "I think the criminal courts are slightly different. But really, is that the way we want to be dressed? I think not."
In 2002, the Faculty of Advocates decided to keep wigs as part of their formal dress code after a QC appeared in a civil court without one.
Colin McEachran, QC, had taken to appearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh bareheaded. He described the wearing of wigs as old-fashioned and said it was time for the profession to change.
The move caused a split among his colleagues between those who want to uphold the tradition and others who believed it is time for a change.
However, in a consultation by the Faculty of Advocates, 80% of members said they wanted to keep the formal attire, claiming that the wigs were a symbol of professional identity.
20 April 2014 19:11
&&&&&&&&&&&@@
Does it not strike you as highly ironic that, at a time when the Scottish Public have impostors passing themselves off as Judges, after breaking the law, that now these Scottish Judges are to abandon their Uniform of Office, whereby the Scottish Public would find it even harder to spot the impostors in a courtroom?
What should we expect next....Scottish Judges on a video link from the golf course clubhouse or maybe from the First Class Cabin of the aeroplane they are flying to get to their next financial investment?
There is a very big stink of judicial corruption going on here
ReplyDeleteA judge who rejects transparency has labelled himself as a judge not fit to do his job.
ReplyDeleteTop Judge would rather drop wigs, ermine robes than declare judiciary’s wealth, directorships & links to big business in register of judicial interests proposal.
ReplyDeleteThey will drop you clients, that is what they specialize in, using you for their enrichment with no chance of justice for you. Please do not trust this polished filth.
So, when Scotland’s top judge decides it is time to make an attempt to make judges appear more “human” to the public, (but not more transparent or accountable) it is obviously an exercise in newsworthiness.
ReplyDeleteTo this end, Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill earlier this week declared in an official statement that “From Tuesday 22 April 2014 Senators of the College of Justice sitting in the Inner House will no longer wear formal robes and wigs when hearing civil appeals.”
What a plonker, we are impressed. I don't care if you sit in your pajamas Lord Gill you are still a secretive man. So how can you have any credibility?
I will tell our Judges what tradition is, secrecy without a complaints system = injustice and judicial ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££'s in offshore accounts.
I gave information to my solicitor the judge who was hearing my case had a relationship with my former employers.The QC was given the details and made a request the judge recuse.No reply and after another hearing went by and nothing my QC asked to raise a motion he had told the clerks before going in he was going to do.The judge said out loud "You will not be heard on this matter" and the QC looked round at his assistant and me and my solicitor and just had to carry on.When we got out of court that day I asked what happened and the QC said my solicitor would tell me more.He did and said the judge was compromised due to his relationship with my former employers and did not want to admit this in court so no recuse was made and there is no mention of the motion my QC raised and what he asked and then what the judge said in the interlocutor of that day and we have not been allowed the transcript of what the judge all said that day in court.This all happened last year and because of your petition my solicitor said I should tell my msp.I told my msp and he said to approach you about it and try to get some publicity because my msp says the judges are running the courts for their own ends and this needs to stop.My case had another hearing to decide some other issues and we are waiting on some witnesses and then go to proof.they have now changed the judge but my QC has told my solicitor who has told me the QC now believes the new judge is taking a hostile approach to me because we found out about the judge he replaced and his conflict of interest and that other judge sat on my case about 5 times before now so all those hearings and a lot of the things he said should be looked at because it was all for the defenders who the judge does business with and goes out to dinners and meetings because he is friends and a business partner with my former employers. I am happy with my solicitors because they did try but they say I have a uphill battle against this new judge or any others because we asked about an interest so it is good your register will make it all public.I am happy to email you papers from my case and the name of my solicitor if you want.
ReplyDelete@ 21 April 2014 11:55
ReplyDeleteYes, please contact via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com and please inform your msp you have done so.
There are probably thousands of cases before now that have been misheard due to the judges failing to declare their interests so take note anyone in a Scottish court - you think you know it all and your lawyers have persuaded you to part with thousands in fees and then your case falls down because the judge has some kind of interest with the people you are claiming against.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGood one.Gill dropping wigs and gowns in court is small and cosmetic change compared to how he feels about judges interests.
These judges have too much to hide and we can all see it now I suppose thanks to your efforts!
19 April 2014 15:28
Yes it is about time someone asked the question about these judges.
We all know they are rich and have lots of jobs but we dont know what or how much and this is key to unraveling their power base and the way they lord it over the rest of us.
Just imagine how long this has been going on and no one not even a politician has taken this up until now at the Scottish Parliament.
Anyway keep up your efforts on this because it has been a real eye opener probably the biggest ever about the judges and how these courts actually operate and it came from you so you and your team can be proud of this!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI gave information to my solicitor the judge who was hearing my case had a relationship with my former employers.The QC was given the details and made a request the judge recuse.No reply and after another hearing went by and nothing my QC asked to raise a motion he had told the clerks before going in he was going to do.The judge said out loud "You will not be heard on this matter" and the QC looked round at his assistant and me and my solicitor and just had to carry on.When we got out of court that day I asked what happened and the QC said my solicitor would tell me more.He did and said the judge was compromised due to his relationship with my former employers and did not want to admit this in court so no recuse was made and there is no mention of the motion my QC raised and what he asked and then what the judge said in the interlocutor of that day and we have not been allowed the transcript of what the judge all said that day in court.This all happened last year and because of your petition my solicitor said I should tell my msp.I told my msp and he said to approach you about it and try to get some publicity because my msp says the judges are running the courts for their own ends and this needs to stop.My case had another hearing to decide some other issues and we are waiting on some witnesses and then go to proof.they have now changed the judge but my QC has told my solicitor who has told me the QC now believes the new judge is taking a hostile approach to me because we found out about the judge he replaced and his conflict of interest and that other judge sat on my case about 5 times before now so all those hearings and a lot of the things he said should be looked at because it was all for the defenders who the judge does business with and goes out to dinners and meetings because he is friends and a business partner with my former employers. I am happy with my solicitors because they did try but they say I have a uphill battle against this new judge or any others because we asked about an interest so it is good your register will make it all public.I am happy to email you papers from my case and the name of my solicitor if you want.
21 April 2014 11:55
££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
I am sorry but the problem here is with your Scottish lawyer and your Scottish MSP?
Firstly, your Scottish lawyer, as an Officer of the Court, should report all crime to the Police and to suggest that you have an uphill battle to get a fair hearing tells you that they would rather side with Scottish Judge who is acting unlawfully, rather than standing up to defend the law?
Of course, the reason for your Scottish lawyer's reticence to abide by the law and report this Scottish Judge aposter is that the Law Society of Scotland have the power to remove your Scottish lawyer's Practising Certificate For Absolutely No Reason (this is what facilitates this type of crime)?
Secondly, your MSP swore an oath to report all suspected crime to the Police, not to pass-the-buck to the DOI Journalists, albeit they provide a Public Service?
Incredibly, you QC cannot be blamed because under their Rules of Engagement as an Advocate, they have a duty to the Court (side with the Court) and you come fifth or sixth in their order of priorities (not many members of the Scottish Public are even aware of this)?
This nepotism is designed for a corrupt system, where Scottish Judges can break the law with impunity for their personal enrichment and they have been getting away with it for so long they think that it is The Law that they be allowed to deceive and cheat their way to riches?
Vince Cable must be reading your petition! look at this!Maybe the judges will be revealed soon!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27099576
Vince Cable plans public register of company owners
Companies will be forced to list their true owners on a public register in a bid to combat tax evasion and money-laundering, Vince Cable has said.
The business secretary said the list, which could be used by tax authorities, would tackle the "darker side of capitalism".
The plans follow concerns that opaque UK corporate structures can be used to channel or hide illicit funds.
Campaigners called it an "historic step" in the fight against corruption.
'Smoke and mirrors'
"For consumers, investors and the wider public to really trust a company they need to know who is really in charge," said Mr Cable.
"This is why I'm making sure we take tough action tackling the darker side of capitalism and the smoke and mirrors which have existed for too long.
"No longer will UK companies be able to use complex structures and trails of paperwork to hide information and keep the public in the dark."
The new rules, which need parliamentary approval, would force UK-registered firms to give details of anyone with an interest in more than 25% of its shares or voting rights.
These details, held by Companies House, would need to be updated every year.
'Historic step'
There are also plans to abolish so-called 'bearer shares', which can be transferred untraceably, without the need to register ownership.
And the government also wants to limit the use of corporate directors - where companies, rather than people, are directors of other companies.
A public register of company owners was originally pledged by the chancellor last year, as part of Britain's chairmanship of the G8.
George Osborne said it would help unmask the owners of 'shell' companies, where firms keep money offshore to avoid tax.
"This is an historic step in the fight against corruption and tax evasion," said David McNair, of Save the Children, reacting to Mr Cable's announcement on Monday.
"For too long, shell companies have hidden vast profits behind bogus owners, while tax dodging has cheated the world's poorest countries out of billions of pounds every year."
21 April 2014 11:55
ReplyDeleteYour solicitors may have connections to your employer too via their common insurers. Solicitors are as crooked as Judges after all the latter are just higher level solicitors. As soon as I am told someone is a lawyer I think scumbag, they are all the same. Why are they dishonest, simple they have no complaints system and they know it.
The sooner the papers name the Scottish Judges who have had all of their fingers and thumbs in the till the better?
ReplyDelete@21 April 2014 19:36
ReplyDelete... possibly although over the course of the last year some members of the judiciary have been attempting to change their financial positions and relationships around, presumably in case a register of judicial interests is to become a reality ...
Clients should now be thinking about what the benefits are of actually using solicitors or going to court because there is very little chance of actually obtaining justice in Scotland's civil courts today .. and neither should the Scottish version of "arbitration" or "mediation" be trusted because these two latter professions are run mostly by the legal profession itself or interests connected to it.
As we have seen from the debate on judicial interests so far, and the way in which the legal profession conducts itself, there is actually very little by way of an impartial hearing of any case, a damages claim or just about any kind of litigation at all in Scotland's courts if you take into account the judges who have investments in and so many links to big business and other industries Lord Gill himself puts forward their interests are so numerous they cannot be listed ... obviously for a reason ... and that reason is nothing to do with transparency or accountability.
Split your assets don't go to lawyers. My reasoning is simple my friends. In civil law at least Gill and his asshole faction will have less to do if we don't use lawyers. Lawyers and their Law Society , I loathe every one of you. And they are wolves in sheep's clothing, wigs and robes, utter bastards. We help them stay in the justice business when we go to them. And what is the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, it is the Law Society in a different wrapper, repackaged. Sorry for the swearing Peter and colleagues but you guys are the people I stand with and trust totally.
ReplyDeleteThe six on the bench in the photo, your power has no legitimacy you need to be detached from parliament I agree but you have no power to keep you in check. Your power is unlimited and against all Scots. If no one uses lawyers in civil law judges have plenty of time on their hands. I would die Lord Gill before I would trust a lawyer, or one who climbed the pole to the bench.
Wigs, robes, who cares, learn one fact here, the courts are there for your torture. Avoid the Wolves in Judicial clothing. They are wolves in sheep's clothing and the plebs they sting, they hold in contempt, call vexatious litigants pay for their wigs and robes. Please dont' trust these scumbags, they are polished reprobates against you before your court date. They think if they get rid of robes and wigs they will be more trustworthy, more fool them, the greater their power the greater the dissent must be. I have said it for a long time because I know 100% what clients are up against. There is no possible justice against a profession who are their one law enforcers. Stay away from the bastards.
ReplyDeleteLord Gill himself puts forward their interests are so numerous they cannot be listed ... So that means he cannot remember all his interests, Jesus Christ, it is like saying companies have too many assets they cannot be put on a spreadsheet.
ReplyDeleteLord Gill himself puts forward their interests are so numerous they cannot be listed. Is this or is he the joke? As we all know their interests are so pernicious to their reputations they must not be listed. What a silly man he is to expect us to believe this claptrap. People can commit corruption and get away with it is there is nothing to keep them in awe. Read Thomas Hobbes Leviathan Lord Gill if you have not done so already? "Without a power to keep men in awe life would be short nasty and brutish." Without a power to keep lawyers in awe clients are F****d.
I realise you have the judges on the ropes over their declarations because this is the talk of Edinburgh and has been for awhile.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this statement "and neither should the Scottish version of "arbitration" or "mediation" be trusted because these two latter professions are run mostly by the legal profession itself or interests connected to it."
Just how did you establish the legal profession run arbitration and mediation?
How did these crooks think they could get away with this?
ReplyDeleteClients should now be thinking about what the benefits are of actually using solicitors (NONE AS DOI KNOW LIKE THE OTHER VICTIMS OF THESE CRIMINALS, NO BENEFITS AT ALL) or going to court because there is very little chance of actually obtaining justice in Scotland's civil courts today. I THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO GET JUSTICE IN A CIVIL COURT THE INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS ALONE AS PETER ARGUED, ARE A FIX UP.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI gave information to my solicitor the judge who was hearing my case had a relationship with my former employers.The QC was given the details and made a request the judge recuse.No reply and after another hearing went by and nothing my QC asked to raise a motion he had told the clerks before going in he was going to do.The judge said out loud "You will not be heard on this matter" and the QC looked round at his assistant and me and my solicitor and just had to carry on.When we got out of court that day I asked what happened and the QC said my solicitor would tell me more.He did and said the judge was compromised due to his relationship with my former employers and did not want to admit this in court so no recuse was made and there is no mention of the motion my QC raised and what he asked and then what the judge said in the interlocutor of that day and we have not been allowed the transcript of what the judge all said that day in court.This all happened last year and because of your petition my solicitor said I should tell my msp.I told my msp and he said to approach you about it and try to get some publicity because my msp says the judges are running the courts for their own ends and this needs to stop.My case had another hearing to decide some other issues and we are waiting on some witnesses and then go to proof.they have now changed the judge but my QC has told my solicitor who has told me the QC now believes the new judge is taking a hostile approach to me because we found out about the judge he replaced and his conflict of interest and that other judge sat on my case about 5 times before now so all those hearings and a lot of the things he said should be looked at because it was all for the defenders who the judge does business with and goes out to dinners and meetings because he is friends and a business partner with my former employers. I am happy with my solicitors because they did try but they say I have a uphill battle against this new judge or any others because we asked about an interest so it is good your register will make it all public.I am happy to email you papers from my case and the name of my solicitor if you want.
----------------------------------
They are all insured by Royal Sun Alliance so you are claiming damages from their insurers and if you needed medical reports yes the doctors Royal Sun Alliance again. Happened to me, this is what they do use people for money but no one ever wins their litigation case. A stitch up from start to finish. And forget the GMC or Law Society or Scottish Legal Coverup Commission, they are a waste of time.
It is high time that the police intervened and investigated Scottish Judges for wide scale corruption and examined all of their financial and business connections going back several years so that we can sort out this scandal and see if there are any good Scottish Judges left?
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish Judges have brought the Judiciary into disrepute, to such an extent that currently there can be no such thing as a safe verdict in a Scottish court?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/widow-agrees-to-return-163-1-8m-legal-aid-cash-falsely-claimed-by-solicitor-1-693434
ReplyDeleteA SOLICITOR "embellished" claims for legal aid in child welfare cases with false details of sex abuse to fraudulently obtain nearly £2 million, The Scotsman can reveal.
In Scotland's biggest-ever legal aid fraud, James Muir made false claims for public money in hundreds of child protection cases over seven years.
Mr Muir, who kept a low profile in the profession but was regarded as one of the country's most dedicated and experienced specialist child welfare lawyers, committed suicide after the police began investigating.
Details of the case have been kept secret for two years while the Scottish Government's civil recovery unit sought to reclaim the money from his estate.
Yesterday the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) announced that an agreement had been reached with Mr Muir's family that will see 1.8 million paid back to the public fund.
==================================
The tip of the iceberg and the Judiciary don't want transparency.
@ 22 April 2014 10:19
ReplyDeleteIf you look close enough into the "arbitration" and "mediation" industry in Scotland it is easy to uncover financial links between law firms and mediators.
In one case, it was found that a mediator who was involved in a dispute between a client and a solicitor had not disclosed to the client the law firm where the solicitor is based is actually an investor in the mediator's own mediation company.
Similarly the arbitration industry has the same kinds of links, financial and family relationships with law firms, staff of regulators, members of public bodies and perhaps unsurprisingly, a few members of the judiciary and their families.
It is not easy to find completely impartial mediators or arbiters who have not been co-opted into the legal establishment since the legal profession realised the potential of arbitration and mediation which lawyers tend to use now as ALEO's (Arms Length Organisations) either to prolong cases and bog them down in mediation to avoid settlements, or some other issue where law firms or some big business client wants to avoid overt conflicts of interest.
In short, if you want to mediate, unless you are very sure of who you are dealing with, you stand about as much chance of obtaining a fair hearing or a fair decision as appearing before the Court of Session judges .. which itself is about the biggest waste of time, money and effort in what is the worst of all of the EU court jurisdictions.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI realise you have the judges on the ropes over their declarations because this is the talk of Edinburgh and has been for awhile.
However, this statement "and neither should the Scottish version of "arbitration" or "mediation" be trusted because these two latter professions are run mostly by the legal profession itself or interests connected to it."
Just how did you establish the legal profession run arbitration and mediation?
22 April 2014 10:19
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Probably for the same reason that the insidious Law Society of Scotland have 'owned' the Scottish Citizen Advice Bureau and rendered it a pale shadow of its former self, which is what the Law Society of Scotland are allowed to attack all other perceived threats to their monopoly?
It is their Precious and they are jelously guarding their right to punish whosoever they choose and to prey on the weak?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/widow-agrees-to-return-163-1-8m-legal-aid-cash-falsely-claimed-by-solicitor-1-693434
A SOLICITOR "embellished" claims for legal aid in child welfare cases with false details of sex abuse to fraudulently obtain nearly £2 million, The Scotsman can reveal.
In Scotland's biggest-ever legal aid fraud, James Muir made false claims for public money in hundreds of child protection cases over seven years.
Mr Muir, who kept a low profile in the profession but was regarded as one of the country's most dedicated and experienced specialist child welfare lawyers, committed suicide after the police began investigating.
Details of the case have been kept secret for two years while the Scottish Government's civil recovery unit sought to reclaim the money from his estate.
Yesterday the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) announced that an agreement had been reached with Mr Muir's family that will see 1.8 million paid back to the public fund.
==================================
The tip of the iceberg and the Judiciary don't want transparency.
23 April 2014 09:34
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Why wasn't this Borrow Without Consenter sent to jail for 25 years?
Because in Scotland the Law Society are allowed to be above the law and do not have to report their member crooked lawyer's crime?
Time after time after time we see the same crimes being committed by crooked Scottish lawyers over and over again?
Thereby, Scottish crooked lawyers are outwith the Scottish Justice System and have an Open Season against the SLAB Slush Fund and their Client's hard earned savings?
In a Just country, this cosy side-deal would lead to members of the Law Society and the SLAB going to jail for defeating the ends of Justice?
Scottish crooked lawyer's Borrowing Without Consent logic goes like this?
A Scottish lawyer can steal £1Million pounds but if they are caught red-handed of stealing this money then they shall pay back a fraction of the money stolen and then we will let them off Scot-Free as if they committed NO CRIME at all and we'll allow him to redouble his efforts in screwing his Clients and stealing other pots of money that do not belong to him?
This useless tinkering to improve these Judge's comfort at work is a complete and utter irrelevance?
ReplyDeleteWe need these crooked Scottish judges weeded out from their ivory towers and jailed so that we can rescue Scotland's dysfunctional Justice System?