Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali supports register of judicial interests. MSPs who are currently investigating proposals to create a register of interests for Scotland’s “incredibly powerful”, yet highly secretive judges contained in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, have considered further submissions of evidence this week from Moi Ali, Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) whose function is to review the way in which judge handle complaints against their own colleagues.
Writing in a letter to members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, Moi Ali, first Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer reiterated her strong support for the creation of a register of interests for Scotland’s judges, telling msps “a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public”.
Moi Ali said: “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.”
And, responding to claims from Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill that a register of judicial interests was not needed due to “safeguards” put in place by MacAskill in consultation with the same judges who now oppose a register of interests, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer told msps: “As the person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary to review complaints handled under these rules, I can say from experience over nearly three years that the rules are not fit for purpose.”
MSPs were also given a copy of the JCR’s response to a consultation on revising the rules governing complains against judges, and statistics revealing how Scotland’s judges including the Lord President Lord Gill have dealt with complaints against their own judicial colleagues under rules effectively written by themselves and waived through by MacAskill.
Astonishingly, not one Scottish judge has been disciplined in 25 months and very few complaints were actually investigated by the judges against their own colleague, according to the JCR who told msps: “..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.”
MSPs have called for further responses from the Scottish Government and Lord President over the information contained in the evidence submitted by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, published here:
Judicial Complaints Reviewer evidence to MSPs on register of judicial interests: I understand that the Committee is due to consider this petition again shortly. In view of this, and in response to the Cabinet Secretary’s letter of 22nd April 2014, this is an opportune time to pull together the reasons why the Judicial Complaints Reviewer believes that a register of interests for the judiciary is essential.
I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.
I think it likely that the number of complaints against the judiciary would fall were there to be a published register of interest for judicial office holders. I have received complaints about perceived conflicts of interest that have come to light after court proceedings. A register of interests would allow issues to be dealt with at the time, thus averting the need for a complaint. That would be good for the judiciary and for the public.
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.
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.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice states that there are sufficient safeguards already in place, citing the complaints rules as one of these safeguards. As the person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary to review complaints handled under these rules, I can say from experience over nearly three years that the rules are not fit for purpose. I have attached a document I prepared in December 2013, following consultation with members of the public who had made complaints under these rules, to support this assertion.
The Judicial Office’s published statistics demonstrate either that judicial conduct is exemplary, and the public vexatious or unable to understand the rules; or they show that the rules are not fit for purpose. I suggest that it is the latter. For the first year in which the Rules were operational(a 13-month period to 31st March 2012), 107 conduct complaints were made to the Judicial Office and 98 were completed during that year. With one exception, all of them were dismissed without investigation. Only one investigation was carried out, following which the complaint was dismissed as "unsubstantiated".
The latest statistics have yet to be published, but year two figures (to March 31st 2013) show that 114 complaints were made (plus the 9 carried over from year 1). Of 116 concluded during the year, only 11 were investigated. Four of the 11 were still underway at year-end, meaning that 7 investigations were completed in Year 2. Of the 7, one was withdrawn; 2 resolved informally; and 4 were reported to the Lord President. Of the 4 reported to the Lord President, 3 were deemed to be without substance, unsubstantiated or vexatious. For the one remaining complaint, an apology was offered by the judicial office holder and the Lord President deemed that no further action was required.
In summary, 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.
My experience in this office leads me to the conclusion that the rules are not a sufficient safeguard. But even if they were, particularly when combined with the judicial oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics, why not go further in enhancing transparency and accountability?
There are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent members of public boards from acting inappropriately –such as robust audit committees, external scrutiny and regulation, board meetings held in public and a rigorous appointments process. Nevertheless, such members are still required –and rightly so –to complete a publicly accessible register of interests in order to demonstrate transparency and accountability. It is right that public appointees and elected politicians are required to do this, and it is also right that the judiciary should too. Registers of interest are the norm now and the judiciary is out of step with standard practice. This undermines their standing with the public.
For all of the above reasons, it is in the interests both of the judiciary and of the public for there to be a register of interests.
I have been frank about my views in this letter, and I hope that I have not given the impression that I do not have a great deal of respect for the judiciary and the difficult work that they undertake for the greater good of society. Their work is essential, their independence vital. An independent judiciary underpins a civilised society. But with independence goes accountability, and a register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability.
I will be standing down from my role as JCR in the summer, but until that time I am happy to provide further information to the committee if that would be helpful.
Last year, Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali attended the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee to give evidence to msps 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
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.
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
Very good.Moi Ali is to be commended for her attentiveness to detail and duty.
ReplyDeleteI think this should be extended to all law firms because they take on cases knowing they have shares etc in insurance companies. Law firms may also have shares in employers businesses.
ReplyDeleteHowever beware, even with such a register a Judge can step down and a colleague can take the case and do the judge a favour by killing it off. Miss Ali was correct to resign stating her office was toothless or something similar. What is the point of having a Judicial Reviewer who is constrained from reviewing. Miss Ali did the right thing.
The most important lesson the legal profession taught me with my case was never to walk through the door of another law firm and I won't. I will never trust another lawyer even if they represented me for £0.00. Those who get too close to snakes risk being bitten, but there is no anti-venom with this faction of snakes.
What do you do when a Scottish Judge ignores the Rules?
ReplyDeleteIn fact it is more like they act as if Rules do not apply to them. Instead, Rules only apply to the Common People?
After the evidence led and the wicked and twisted way Scottish Judges have been caught tricking the Scottish Public, you would have to be no-right-in-the-heed to oppose a Register of Interests for Scottish Judges & Sheriffs?
ReplyDeleteKenny MacAskill is the proof of this concept?
Judicial “safeguards” put in place by MacAskill in consultation with the same judges who now oppose a register of interests. MACASKILL THE ONLY SAFEGUARD IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO STAY AWAY FROM LAWYERS.
ReplyDeleteThe Judicial Complaints Reviewer told msps: “As the person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary to review complaints handled under these rules, I can say from experience over nearly three years that the rules are not fit for purpose.”
I am not surprised Miss Ali these people have no "power to keep them in awe" as Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan.
This is a very interesting document you have published from Moi Ali.What she is saying in her cover letter and consultation reply could easily pass for other jurisdictions where judges frequently bend or write the rules in their own favor.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with your petition.
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.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
These people have omnipotent power, the only thing they cannot do is order people to be murdered. Just like Psychiatrists they can lock people away in mental institutions for life if need be . I am not saying they do this for sinister reasons, I am saying they can if they work together.
The Judiciary are detached from society, they make decisions about society but are under no scrutiny for it, like the ancient Church.
It would be an act of pure ignorance to ignore the expert professional evidence from Ms Moi Ali, who has seen with her own eyes the level to which secrecy and self serving behaviour exists in Scotland's Judiciary, where sweeping things under the carpet is done with the efficient fervour of the Scottish Curling Team?
ReplyDeleteThe 'opinion for sale' that is MacAskill in siding with NoNo just goes to show how anti Scottish Public he has become and how wedded he is to be the bun-boy of the Law Society of Scotland?
(Bun-boy: not a typo....a person who runs errands for someone to collect orders of cake from the bakers so that his over-lords can stuff their face)?
Did anyone bother to tell the judge arguing against declaring any interests is now generally viewed as concealing corruption.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine if Lord Gill was hearing a case and he ordered parties to disclose their assets and said parties refused.
Lord Gill will find them in contempt of court and fine or sentence them to custody.
How can Lord Gill get away with activities he will not allow in his own court and I say "his own court" because Gill and the judges are now treating the courts as their own just as you have said time and again Mr Cherbi and now it all comes out in the open in how they are replying to you and the msps when you made this petition to the Scottish parliament.
I support Moi Ali for telling the msps the truth about the judiciary.
ReplyDeleteI formerly worked for several years at the Scottish Court Service.from personal experience I am happy to support Peter Cherbi's calls for a register of interests as I have seen many cases of sheriffs who knew very well they had conflict of interests and did nothing about it.
And Peter may be interested to (or may know already)the recusal stats now published by the Lord President is being laughed at by many of my former colleagues.Truth be told if the figures were accurate the recusals would be much higher.
The Judicial Complaints Reviewer makes clear the judges should drop their boycott of wider parliamentary and public scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteEngagement with elected representatives is not, in itself, a danger to judicial independence and to continue to insist so is hyperbole.
When a senior figure in the legal establishment says that the current oversight of our judiciary is not fit for purpose and is ineffective it undermines the credibility of parliament, and public confidence in it, if these failings are allowed to persist.
The Scottish Parliament cannot and must not continue to bury its head in the sand.
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."
ReplyDeleteThis is what really needs to hit home with everyone about the judges and how powerful they are.Judges cannot be allowed to get away with fiddling their own rules to suit their power .Make them register the lot otherwise none of them can ever be trusted.
Judges and their subordinates want to be allowed to carry on behind a smokescreen and they are upset because they think this situation should be allowed to continue. Who gave them independence from society? They did, the public were never consulted and the system if therefore corrupt. In the Judges world there are no laws. like the Law Society no laws there either. Transparency would utterly destroy the judiciary and they know it hence all of the resistance.
ReplyDeleteWithout Politics every man would have to choose their own principles of justice which would create chaos and "continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short". Thomas Hobbes Levaithan, because there would be no Police and Courts to regulate disputes.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of the Judiciary there is no power to control them in terms of what they do to members of the public in court and so civil litigants are at the mercy of people who choose principles of justice based on there own conflicts of interest, which clearly is not justice. As Hobbes meant no politics to govern society meant that each man makes up his own rules.
The Judiciary make up there own rules {Judges with criminal records in the Courts} because there is no power to prevent them from doing so. In theory terms the state on not having a government is anarchy, or the state of nature. Hobbes was right although Locke argued safeguards were necessary to remove a government that turned on the people.
The Judiciary collectively are their own law enforcers and hence have no legitimacy to do their jobs. They need a power to "keep them in awe" because self regulation and justice are mutually exclusive.
If Mr Gill was an MSP he could be removed through the ballot box. But he has unlimited power to use against members of the public and he cannot be removed from his position by any member of the public. This fact proves is not attached to society, on the contrary he has power like the rest of his profession that is unregulated. This is an untenable situation in 2014 in this country. Power is never relinquished, constant vigilance is the price of freedom from domination.
ReplyDeleteGood on you Ms Moi Ali for not being bullied by these fiends?
ReplyDeleteMs Moi Ali's expert witness evidence clearly shows that the judicial oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics in Scotland is not worth the paper it is written on and consequently Scotland is a sham country and certainly not a Democracy because it's Judges and Sheriffs have twisted the law of the land, so that they and their flunky's are above the law?
The Scottish Judges have spoken through their Chief NONO and are resisting the main principle of their job as a Judge, which is to be accountable to the People?
It is now clear to all in Scotland that the Scottish Judges & Sheriffs have not been answerable to the People of Scotland for some time and they do not intend to do so because they are stuffing their pockets with cash?
These Judges & Sheriffs have caused so much damage to the Judicial System that It has reached the time where they should be sacked forthwith and have all of their cases investigated to see how many incidences they should have recused themselves but they didn't be ause they were deliberately and wilfully favouring one side against the other in Court?
Only then will the truth come out as to how serious and widespread the corruption has been?
Ms Moi Ali is highlighting that many people who should know better have acted unlawfully to allow this corruption to exist, including the opinion for sale MacAskill, who Ms Moi Ali has 'outed' for backing-up the Judges & Sheriffs beyond all reason or excuse, which is such a dereliction of duty that he should be sacked from his post as being wholly unfit and for being a traitor to the Scottish People?
If Salmond tries to yet another cover-up and tries to give another sick and slimey vote of confidence in MacAskill then he should be impeached?
Salmond, if you are not part of Scotland's Future then kindly F-Off along with your Yes-Men?
It is simply incredulous for a Scottish Judge or Scottish Sheriff to think it is alright for them to have numerous shares in business, when it is predominantly businesses who use the Courts?
ReplyDeleteThis is an astonishing and apparently deliberate abandonment of their duty to be fair and impartial?
They have dismissed their duty as a Judge in favour of pursuing their own cash enrichment and as such have ruled themselves out of being a Judge and should be sacked for bringing the Office of Judge into disrepute?
When did these creeps decide to stop being Judges?
How long have these sharp-practises being going on for?
Mr Gill and his cronies are a confederacy of deceivers who claim to be honest but have no concrete way of proving it, and clearly believe they should not have to. And because of this fact how can they be fit to do the jobs they do?
ReplyDeleteSalmond, MacAskill and Sturgeon Gill's and the Law Society's stooges.
All you need to witness is that Scottish Judges are refusing to accept accountability for their decisions and are wedded to secrecy and lack of transparency?
ReplyDeleteIs this consistent with the standard required to Judge?
What possible excuse can they come up with to explain their conduct, which is against the Public Interest?
If they are not part of the solution they are definitely part of the problem?
MacAskill must be sacked over his part in trying to cover-up this corruption?
ReplyDeleteThe Whole of Scotland is very lucky to have the patriotic and thoroughly professional Ms Moi Ali to warn us all that the Judges are not fulfilling their job requirements and that their behaviour and conduct is unbefitting of a competent Judge and that emergency action is urgently required to sort Scotland's Judiciary out and to stop their sordid little self serving carve-up of the Justice System?
ReplyDeleteAs an eminent QC said on Radio Scotland, "I have no doubts at all about having a conscience for getting a Client off, who I know is guilty of murder, rape etc because of all of the miscarriages of justice that are commonplace in the Scottish Courts" !
It is widely accepted that anything involving Scottish Lawyers/ Judges/ Sheriffs is almost certainly corrupt but they have been getting away with being above the law for too long?
Of course one of the reasons Scottish Lawyers are above the law is the Law Society of Scotland is far too powerful and that Scottish Police are not allowed to investigate lawyers/ Crown Office Staff/ Judges & Sheriffs?
I wish that Moi Ali was given overall control to clean-up the scandal and corruption at the The Crown Office and within the Scottish Judiciary?
ReplyDeleteThis way, Justice will be served?
Well I fully agree judges must declare their interests and to be honest I always thought they had to.Congrats to your petition and the headlines for making us aware of all this corruption in the judiciary.
ReplyDeleteI see that Dundas and Wilson are the latest scottish law firm to take part in a merger, as reported at;
ReplyDeletehttp://www.casecheck.co.uk/GeneralArticle1.aspx?article=Dundas++Wilson+Becomes+Part+of+CMS%202368
Once again we have Moi Ali to thank for championing transparency and justice over secrecy and corruption?
ReplyDeleteI wonder what goes through someone's mind when they decide that they want to become a Scottish lawyer?
ReplyDeleteThey must think either that they are doing it through greed and to have power over others or because they passionately believe they can make a positive change in the World?
We all know which type the Law Society of Scotland promote and protect through all of their unlawful processes?
I wonder what happens to all the good guys after they get spat out of the system for trying to do good?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI think this should be extended to all law firms because they take on cases knowing they have shares etc in insurance companies. Law firms may also have shares in employers businesses.
8 May 2014 19:27
They mostly do and never tell you.If people woke up instead of walking into a lawyers office and wasting their money/life then this cycle will come to an end.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI think this should be extended to all law firms because they take on cases knowing they have shares etc in insurance companies. Law firms may also have shares in employers businesses.
8 May 2014 19:27
They mostly do and never tell you.If people woke up instead of walking into a lawyers office and wasting their money/life then this cycle will come to an end.
13 May 2014 15:22
-----------------------------------
Using a Scottish lawyer is synonymous with wiping your bottom with £100 notes?