MSPs seek more details from scripted responses of Lord Gill & Kenny MacAskill. IN the latest round of debate on proposals contained in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary – calling for the creation of a register of interests for Scotland’s judges, members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee have again written to Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, seeking their detailed views on new written evidence received from Moi Ali, Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) – who supports proposals to create a register of judicial interests.
The move comes after JCR Moi Ali recently wrote to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, supplying MSPs with eye opening evidence relating to how poorly the system of judicial complaints handling has operated in Scotland over the past two years, revealing that “..In the first 25 months of the new complaints regime, the Judicial Office's published statistics show that of 221 complaints there were 12 investigations, one judicial office holder apologised for his or her conduct and no judicial office holders were disciplined.”
Petition PE1458 Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary Scottish Parliament Public Petitions
Speaking during the latest debate at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, SNP MSP John Wilson said “We seem to be at an impasse in relation to the petition. However, the latest submission from Moi Ali opens up a number of issues. From her unique position as the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, she has certainly brought forward more evidence—in my view, anyway—with regard to the current situation.”
Mr Wilson continued: “We have had a response from the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. However, I am keen that we get their current views in response to the latest information from Moi Ali. I hope that it will be more than the one-page, three paragraph response that we seem to get from the Lord President and the cabinet secretary—it is almost as if it is scripted. The Lord President comments that neither he nor the cabinet secretary is minded to open the matter to review.”
“It would be useful, prior to the debate in the chamber, for the committee to ask the cabinet secretary and the Lord President for their detailed views on the issues that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has raised. Her submission raises a number of issues, in addition to those that she raised in oral evidence, that require more detailed scrutiny and a more detailed response from the Lord President and the cabinet secretary.”
Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali has gone on record supporting the creation of a register of interests. Writing in her letter to the Petitions Committee, Moi Ali said: “The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people’s assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.”
The JCR continued: “Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case –financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”
Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee during September 2013 on proposals to create a register of judicial interests, reported previously here: As Scotland’s top judge battles on against transparency, Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life
After debating the latest evidence & responses to the petition, the Committee agreed to seek further detailed responses from the Lord President and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and a full debate is planned in the Scottish Parliament on the proposal to create a register of judicial interests.
The official record of the Public Petitions Committee consideration of Petition 1458 on 6 May 2014 is published below:
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)
The Convener: Our first current petition for consideration today is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 4, and the submissions.
Members will know that we sought permission from the Conveners Group to get a date for a plenary debate on the subject. The Conveners Group looked at that request and a date will be allocated in due course. Once we have it, we will ensure that members are informed. Members will also know that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has supported the petition and that the petitioner urges us to ask Lord Gill for hysterical data on recusals, which we are still to follow up.
Chic Brodie: “Hysterical”?
Anne McTaggart: “Historical”.
The Convener: I meant “historical”.
Chic Brodie: You were probably right the first time. [Laughter.]
The Convener: The next step is to consider how we will deal with the petition. I suggest that we continue the petition until we have had a full debate on the matter in the chamber. I invite members to comment.
John Wilson: We seem to be at an impasse in relation to the petition. However, the latest submission from Moi Ali opens up a number of issues. From her unique position as the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, she has certainly brought forward more evidence—in my view, anyway—with regard to the current situation.
We have had a response from the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. However, I am keen that we get their current views in response to the latest information from Moi Ali. I hope that it will be more than the one-page, three paragraph response that we seem to get from the Lord President and the cabinet secretary—it is almost as if it is scripted. The Lord President comments that neither he nor the cabinet secretary is minded to open the matter to review.
It would be useful, prior to the debate in the chamber, for the committee to ask the cabinet secretary and the Lord President for their detailed views on the issues that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has raised. Her submission raises a number of issues, in addition to those that she raised in oral evidence, that require more detailed scrutiny and a more detailed response from the Lord President and the cabinet secretary.
The Convener: Do members agree with John Wilson’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Angus MacDonald: I place on record that I am grateful for the additional information that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has provided. It certainly presents us with some issues that we need to follow up, and I am happy to second John Wilson’s suggestion.
The Convener: If there are no further comments, are members happy with the proposed course of action? We will continue the petition, and there will be a plenary debate, with the date to be resolved. We need to chase up a couple of other issues with Lord Gill, in addition to addressing the points that John Wilson raised. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Chic Brodie: Is the letter from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer on the website?
The Convener: Yes.
TOP JUDGE OPPOSES TRANSPARENCY OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS:
Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill fiercely opposes calls for a register of judicial interests which would reveal the judiciary's vast personal, undeclared wealth, extensive family and business connections throughout the legal profession, links to big business, offshore trusts & investments, ownership of numerous and high value properties through a variety of ‘creative’ arrangements, directorships, shareholdings, and even unpublished criminal records of members of the judiciary.
Lord Gill has previously refused two invitations to appear before the Scottish Parliament to give evidence and face questions on his opposition to the proposal to create a register of judicial interests. The top judge has also used the Scotland Act as a loophole to avoid further scrutiny on the matter.
Lord Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media. Writing in a letter to msps, Lord Gill implied cooperation with Parliament would be withdrawn over calls to make judges more transparent in register : “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 media, 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
39 comments:
Gill was probably writing MacAskill's letters for him.
Poor Lord Gill is hysterical because you pointed out the judges have too much to hide!
Incredibly powerful judges should be held to account and to an even higher standard than anyone else.
Nice headline on Lord No No I will be buying the Sunday Mail!
Another MacAskill balls up - some justice secretary if all he can do is hold up the judge's gown like a page boy
Moi Ali said: “The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people’s assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.”
---------------------------------
Yes Miss Ali in my opinion these people have horrific power and they judge themselves. It is so wrong and vile, what can I say except it is wonderful to have a lady telling them how it is not the twisted secretive mendacity the Judges want to maintain. It has to end and MacAskill, the man is an insult to justice.
“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.
SOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOS
Its purpose is to protect Judges from the electorate because if the Judges are detached from society they are not fit to be Judges. A Judges cannot be removed via the ballot box. John Rawls wrote about how money was corrupting the democratic process. Money is also corrupting the Judicial process but Judicial actors cannot be removed by the people who seek legal representation in civil law cases. Lawyers are a law unto themselves because they have no power to keep them in awe.
I have no faith in lawyers and politicians, I expect the worst from them.
Mr Gill and Mr MacAskill. I have no time for you or your factions sir's. I know what it is like to be denied legal representation because my lawyer had hidden conflicts of interest just like the rest of you.
My advice to the public trust no lawyer, that is the safest way.
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.”
==================================
'I have to decide'. These four words tell us he has formidable power. Who gave you the right to decide, where did you get it from, in whose interests are you using it, and how can we get rid of you? The fact is Mr Gill the judiciary are independent of everyone, you have no laws to adhere to for you own profession because you have no one monitoring you. If you think this is satisfactory for the public we think it is not. The legal profession are the perfect example of how voters in a democratic country can be circumvented by omnipotent power.
The real principle is that the Judiciary are accountable to themselves.
MSP John Wilson questioned the legal 'loophole' relied on by Lord Gill to escape public scrutiny, suggesting this only related to questions arising from previous decisions taken by a Judge.
Surely it is high time the Petitions Committee established if that understanding is correct, and if it is, insist Lord Gill appear and explain himself.
The public interest is that people should never use the courts and although this is not always practicable based on how the system is set up, expect to be stung, then you won't be disappointed. The courts are money spinners for lawyers, justice goes to those with the deepest pockets as the Judges don't want the public finding out. It is not that Judges have too many interests for a register, they have too many damaging interests.
Little wonder the Scottish courts are considered so corrupt when the judges are more concerned with hiding their gain because if revealed we all get to find out what has been going on all these years.
Make this register retrospective and then you will see just how many judges have been fiddling the cases in their own interest.
What gives Mr Gill the right to say no. What makes him so important?
I want to see Lord Gill show up as he was asked to instead of being a coward and sending threatening letters to msps
Judge act like he run UK
@ 25 May 2014 17:48
Good point.
The Lord President's failure ... bordering now on a refusal to produce detailed historical recusal data in response to several requests from the Petitions Committee is an indication of the scale of the problem where judges have clearly been in a conflict of interest position regarding their interests and have failed to recuse.
Anonymous said...
Moi Ali said: “The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people’s assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.”
---------------------------------
Yes Miss Ali in my opinion these people have horrific power and they judge themselves. It is so wrong and vile, what can I say except it is wonderful to have a lady telling them how it is not the twisted secretive mendacity the Judges want to maintain. It has to end and MacAskill, the man is an insult to justice.
24 May 2014 21:28
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
More like an insult to human beings?
Diary of Injustice said...
@ 25 May 2014 17:48
Good point.
The Lord President's failure ... bordering now on a refusal to produce detailed historical recusal data in response to several requests from the Petitions Committee is an indication of the scale of the problem where judges have clearly been in a conflict of interest position regarding their interests and have failed to recuse.
26 May 2014 15:58
£££££££££££££££££££££
Is it true that 'Lord' Gill has dispensed with the 'Lord' in his name as well as ditching the wigs and gowns of his creepy pals?
He now simply prefers to be called 'The President'......
Time he was impeached?
Something fishy going on with this judge who believes he rules the roost in Scotland.What about all these politicians who shout down anyone who treats the parliament like crap?
About time there was some more outspokenness on this especially now the press and you have dug up the shares link and what about the fraud judge!Its almost unbelievable this judge is allowed to do as he pleases after all this coming out.Good work all involved!
How can they get away with making the rules up as they go along and just telling lie after lie after lie after lie and nobody seems to give a shit?
Very good petition idea.We should all be thinking about making this compulsory for judges all over not just in Scotland.
Good stuff and about time someone looked at what the courts are doing.I started buying the Sunday papers again because of you!
Mr Wilson continued: “We have had a response from the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. However, I am keen that we get their current views in response to the latest information from Moi Ali. I hope that it will be more than the one-page, three paragraph response that we seem to get from the Lord President and the cabinet secretary—it is almost as if it is scripted. The Lord President comments that neither he nor the cabinet secretary is minded to open the matter to review.”
Thank goodness for msps like John Wilson.
Did you hear its all round Edinburgh lawyers Gill and MacAskill are deliberately making a fool of the msps to allow time for judges to sort out their private finances
@ 27 May 2014 12:33
Yes ... however it has generated a lot of information on the movements of judges personal interests, matters which can be reported as time goes on ...
The judges will be running around like scared sheep every time they read your stuff!
The evil cabal that is the Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Scottish Judges have ruined Scotland with their corrupt ways?
This is such a valuable Whistle-blowing Service for the People of Scotland
Agreed.The delay is all about protecting judges and their secrets.
Anyone running a bet on whether Gill will come up with the goods or just do another stalling letter to msps.
Total disgrace the judge is able to get away with all this.
A QC was recently asked by his client to request the judge recuse himself over holdings in a bank.The QC refused and warned his client if he made a further request to him of a similar nature he would withdraw from acting for him "and see to it this will be the end of his case".
Completely unfair and proves your point there is a lot at stake here when allegedly independent members of the Faculty of advocates are out to protect judges shareholdings in banks at the expense of obtaining a fair hearing for their clients.
Have to admit I always assumed judges declared their interests so a bit of a surprise to learn different.Good thing the internet and a very well written blog backed up by good sources!
Anonymous said...
A QC was recently asked by his client to request the judge recuse himself over holdings in a bank.The QC refused and warned his client if he made a further request to him of a similar nature he would withdraw from acting for him "and see to it this will be the end of his case".
Completely unfair and proves your point there is a lot at stake here when allegedly independent members of the Faculty of advocates are out to protect judges shareholdings in banks at the expense of obtaining a fair hearing for their clients.
29 May 2014 14:41
/////////////////////////////////////////
The way I heard it was that the QC said that such a complaint could not possibly be levelled at the judge because the judge had a good reputation and it would not be fair for the judge?
Anonymous said...
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; [HE MEANS HE IS TERRIFIED OF TRANSPARENCY] and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”[THIS BEGGARS BELIEF. HE IS ARTICULATE AND INTELLIGENT, THE SUBJECT MATTER WILL BE DAMNING IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO BE PUT IN WRITING TO A SATISFACTORY STANDARD. THERE ARE MANY MORE QUESTIONS IN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THAT ARE PUT IN WRITING. ANY EXCUSE LORD GILL, ANY EXCUSE YOU ARE MAKING YOURSELF LOOK INCREASINGLY FOOLISH. IF SOMEONE SAYS TO ME WHERE DID THE HUMAN RACE COME FROM I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE BEST ANSWER IS NOT TO ASK THE QUESTION. BUT THIS FROM A JUDICIAL OFFICE HOLDER IS PATHETIC.
Lord Gill I know before I go to court I cannot possibly win, I know because of what happened to a relative. I have zero faith in Scotland's Judiciary.
I urge people not to use lawyers or the courts. If you want to see how ruthless these people are in ruining you and then protecting each other go for it. You have been warned by the people who have tried and found out the system is a corrupt business, that is why they need secrecy.
Anonymous said...
Lord Gill I know before I go to court I cannot possibly win, I know because of what happened to a relative. I have zero faith in Scotland's Judiciary.
I urge people not to use lawyers or the courts. If you want to see how ruthless these people are in ruining you and then protecting each other go for it. You have been warned by the people who have tried and found out the system is a corrupt business, that is why they need secrecy.
31 May 2014 17:46
.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,
SECRECY = CORRUPTION
We need people like you in politics not just writing it doing it!
Spotted this in the paper yesterday so what is going on when there are secret meetings the msps are not told about???
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/holyrood-boss-in-row-over-judge-transparency.24435363
Holyrood boss in row over judge transparency
Paul Hutcheon
Investigations Editor
Sunday 8 June 2014
HOLYROOD's chief executive is embroiled in a row over the country's top judge refusing to give evidence to the Parliament about setting up an official judicial register of interests.
Paul Grice held a secret meeting with the office of Lord Gill, the Lord President, on the controversial issue, without MSPs on the Public Petitions Committee knowing about it.
Another secret meeting at the parliament about the judges secrets?This is NOT on!
Is the BBC still boycotting this story?Who at the BBC has made this decision not to report on all of this?Is someone getting a take for the silence?
Post a Comment