Anti-Transparency: Lord Gill protests independent support for proposal to declare judges interests. SCOTLAND’s top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill has lashed out at support given by the independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali for Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary - a proposal under consideration by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee which would create a register of judges interests for all members of Scotland’s Judiciary.
In a letter to Committee Convener MSP David Stewart MSP, the clearly frustrated Lord Gill hit out at earlier evidence in which Moi Ali told MSPs “a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”
Gill, who has tried in vain for over a year to close down the debate on secret judicial interests & failures to recuse in court curtly declared: “I do not share Ms Ali's view that a register of interests is essential. I do not believe that such a register is necessary.” and went on to claim "I'm not aware of recent evidence that there's public concern about the integrity of the judiciary.”
However, the top judge has refused several calls to appear before the Scottish Parliament in public to answer questions on the secret interests of judges & goings on in Scotland’s judiciary, where reports of judges convicted of fraud & other criminal offences have emerged in the media, as well as multiple failures of judges to recuse themselves in court over conflicts of interest and failures to declare other interests.
And the Lord President’s increasingly bitter opposition to transparency created by a register of judicial interests has made it clear judges fear the openness created by judicial disclosure – revealing their 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numerous and high value properties through a variety of ‘creative’ arrangements, directorships, shareholdings, and even unpublished criminal records of members of the judiciary.
The Scottish Sun on Sunday reports:
Judge's gifts plan outburst
EXCLUSIVE : By RUSSELL FINDLAY Scottish Sun 8 June 2014
SCOTLAND'S top judge has slammed a watchdog in a row over whether law chiefs should reveal gifts and investments.
Lord Gill hit out at Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali over her support for a register of interest for sheriffs and judges.
In a letter to Holyrood bosses, the Lord President said: "I fail to see how the creation of a register would reduce the number of complaints.
"I'm not aware of recent evidence that there's public concern about the integrity of the judiciary."
A log could detail hospitality. gifts, property, shares, criminal convictions and links to outside bodies such as law firms.
But legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi said: "This letter smacks of yet more judicial arrogance.
It's about time the head of Scotland's judiciary realised that he is answerable to the public."
TOP JUDGE - Protests Transparency Register of Judicial Interests:
Top Judge Lord Gill’s latest letter of protest to Public Petitions Committee Convener. I do not share Ms Ali's view that a register of interests is essential. I do not believe that such a register is necessary. I set out my views in my letter to you of 5 February 2013. My views remain the same.
Ms Ali suggests that the number of complaints against the judiciary would fall were such a register to be published. In fact the number of complaints made against judicial office holders in Scotland is small by comparison with the number of cases with which they deal. Complaints cover a wide range of matters; but only rarely do they make allegations of personal interest. I fail to see how the creation of a register would reduce the number of complaints.
Ms Ali suggests that a failure to institute a register of judicial interests will create suspicion, and that this will in turn undermine judicial credibility. I am not aware of any recent evidence that there is public concern about the integrity of the judiciary. In my view the terms of the judicial oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the provisions of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 for the regulation of judicial conduct are effective safeguards that enjoy public confidence.
The Judicial Complaints Reviewer suggests that the rules about complaints against the judiciary - the Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2013 - are not fit for purpose. I disagree. Our experience of operating the Rules, since they were introduced in 2011, is that they provide a system for review that effectively filters out complaints that are without substance, while providing an effective hearing mechanism in others.
I am considering amendments to the Rules in light of a consultation that was carries out last autumn. Ms Ali has annexed to her letter to you a submission dated 2 December 2013 setting out her views on the Rules. I will take her views into account when I instruct amendments to the Rules. It would be inappropriate in this letter to comment in detail on the points she seeks to make.
JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS REVIEWER - Support for register transparency:
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
Writing in a recent 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.”
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
One of the Parliament staff asked a question about your petition said about Gill "At least Moi Ali came along to the Parliament and gave evidence while the judge hides behind his wig."
ReplyDeleteThe ones not fit for purpose are the judges.
ReplyDeleteI've got news for you Mr Gill ...... anyone arguing against transparency looks and sounds like a crook.If you want to test that out say all this in a public venue instead of letters and controlling the debate.We pay your wages Mr Gill so get to declaring all the judges interests
Where is the Attack Lord's poodle (MacAsskill) Surely not too far behind his master's voice!
ReplyDeleteMoi Ali for Lord President - her letter is a LOT more honest than Gill who doesn't even bother to sign his.
ReplyDeleteTop judge says he sees no evidence or need for transparency and watchdog says the rules are not fit for purpose.
ReplyDeleteWell well well the judge is unlikely to want outside scrutiny of his fellow judges so we can take it as read Moi Ali is 100% on this and should be given credit for her support of your petition and the whole idea of bringing these judges into line with others.
Witness the consequences of calling someone a "Lord"
ReplyDeleteYou can see in his letter he believes he is the Lord.
Scotland's justice system is very backward isnt it.
I dont believe a word the judge says
ReplyDeleteYes he's good at attacking people who call for judges to disclose their secrets not so good in public debate because everyone gets it there has to be a register of interests
ReplyDeleteOld Gill not got the better of you yet? He must be losing his touch!
ReplyDelete"Ms Ali suggests that a failure to institute a register of judicial interests will create suspicion, and that this will in turn undermine judicial credibility. I am not aware of any recent evidence that there is public concern about the integrity of the judiciary. In my view the terms of the judicial oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the provisions of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 for the regulation of judicial conduct are effective safeguards that enjoy public confidence"
ReplyDeleteNot really.If you had so much public confidence then why are you refusing to go to the Scottish Parliament and tell the truth?
Utter rubbish from the judge
Look at it from Gill's point of view. He is a business manager with legal qualifications. People get lawyers to take their cases to court if they are lucky but Gill and his profession have financial benefits in making sure clients cannot win damages. Mr Gill is a businessman getting rich bonuses from the Capitalists and like MP's helping himself to taxpayers cash. He is lashing out because he has a terrible lot to hide hence his repugnance towards transparency.
ReplyDeleteAll Judges, Sheriffs etc and lawyers unions are businesses who make sure capitalists and insurance companies don't pay damages because they secretly pay the judiciaries bonuses for services rendered.
Gill said “I do not share Ms Ali's view that a register of interests is essential. I do not believe that such a register is necessary.” and went on to claim "I'm not aware of recent evidence that there's public concern about the integrity of the judiciary."
ReplyDeleteA register is not essential Mr Gill it is critical. Get your head out of the sand Mr Gill, it is too uncomfortable for you to accept the public want change. You are anti-justice, your demand for secrecy makes you unfit for public office. A register would clearly diminish your income. Regarding your reputation as a Judicial Office holder, well you are doing an excellent job of damaging that yourself.
"I'm not aware of recent evidence that there's public concern about the integrity of the judiciary."
ReplyDeleteThis man is either scarily out of touch with reality or he is being completely disingenuous and sly with these comments?
His latest letter does even more to emphasise just why a Register of Judges Interests is a necessity and is needed as soon as possible?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMoi Ali for Lord President - her letter is a LOT more honest than Gill who doesn't even bother to sign his.
11 June 2014 16:11
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I second that motion!
Everyone knows, especially NONO, that an unsigned letter is not a lawful document and cannot be treated as valid?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Ms Ali suggests that a failure to institute a register of judicial interests will create suspicion, and that this will in turn undermine judicial credibility. I am not aware of any recent evidence that there is public concern about the integrity of the judiciary. In my view the terms of the judicial oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the provisions of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 for the regulation of judicial conduct are effective safeguards that enjoy public confidence"
Not really.If you had so much public confidence then why are you refusing to go to the Scottish Parliament and tell the truth?
Utter rubbish from the judge
11 June 2014 19:23
---------------------------------
In bringing the Scottish Judiciary into disrepute this man seems determined to prove to the Scottish Public that he is devoid of any sense and is completely and shamelessly untrustworthy?
Err.....nobody is listening to you because you are talking pure pish?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWitness the consequences of calling someone a "Lord"
You can see in his letter he believes he is the Lord.
Scotland's justice system is very backward isnt it.
11 June 2014 17:43
Good point.
I thought Scotland was supposed to be progressing under the Scottish Government.So why is the same Scottish Government allowing the judiciary to run the country and escape any standards of decency or transparency.
What grubby deals are being done in the background with the judges and their kin to carve out their judicial and legal empires..
DOI show how there are many types of power. And the greatest form of power is truth which is the reason Lord No No is impotent regarding DOI's coverage of the debate. Cash will be flowing into Gill's bank account or offshore account from the Capitalists who control civil law decisions because their judicial agents are not neutral. There is a causal link Mr Gill, the bonus into the Judges bank kills off the civil law case a member of the public used the Capitalists courts for. The Judges and Capitalists are in it together which is one of the reasons you will never implement your civil court review. It is all about ££££££££££££££ not justice.
ReplyDelete"I'm not aware of recent evidence that there's public concern about the integrity of the judiciary.”
ReplyDeleteTypical lawyer mentality, cannot bear to look at the reality.
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks. How wise Fanon was. If readers are interested read The Wretched of the Earth.
Nore again he states "I'm not aware of recent evidence that there's public concern about the integrity of the judiciary.” So he means he is aware of non recent evidence in the past that there was public concern about the integrity of the judiciary.
The judge is attempting to assert his version of reality over that which is appearing in the media which I am sure will be getting to your politicians one way or another.
ReplyDeleteWell done for getting this far!
NONO seems to live in an isolated and protected ivory tower, where he reinvents history to fit in with his agenda of secrecy and lack of accountability?
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when Scottish Judges have made themselves above the law, where they feel that they do not have to account to the people who pay their wages and do not have to account to Parliament?
This is Gangsterism?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhere is the Attack Lord's poodle (MacAsskill) Surely not too far behind his master's voice!
11 June 2014 15:43
??????????????????????
Do you not mean MacAssKiss?
This latest letter is synonymous with a spoilt child's tantrum?
ReplyDeleteThis is what I want and if I don't get what I want I will stamp my feet and girn until I get what I want?
This is my toy and you cannot play with it?
I am glad you put both letters up side by side from Gill and Moi Ali.Gives people the chance to see who is honest and who is a bare faced liar.
ReplyDeleteHats off to Moi Ali and a lot of respect for her stance on your petition and what she has said about the role of Judicial Complaints Reviewer.
No one else gets away with it so why should the judges.
ReplyDeleteAnd why is it taking so long to make it law.Are the judges threatening politicians and others in the background to slow it all down?About time we knew what the judges have and how they got it.
It beggars belief that a Lord President could behave in this manner and treat the Parliament and the Scottish People with such disdain and naked contempt?
ReplyDeleteAs long as we put up with this nonsense we will have to suffer secrecy, lack of transparency and non accountability?
This just goes to show that Scotland is being ruled and is in the grip of Scottish lawyers who are allowed to operate in a vacuum whereby they are above the law?
ReplyDeleteI would sooner trust Moi Ali than The Lord President, who seems to be too concerned about keeping secrets?
ReplyDeleteWelcome to what 'independence' will offer in spades.
ReplyDeleteIf he can use an act of parliament to block the Scottish people's right to know his financial connections which affect the outcome of court cases this is criminal in itself.
ReplyDeleteYou are like a magician Lord Gill, you want to create an illusion that the Judges are fit to judges but cannot provide evidence because you know your civil court review was a review, it was never a plan for action. You are not an important person, you are out of touch with the principles of transparency as your actions are condemning you. Open your eves Mr Gill.
All of the legal profession and capitalists share the booty, and kill off legitimate cases. The courts are a business, not about justice.
ReplyDeleteLord Gill shows once again how to defend the indefensible?
ReplyDeleteLord NO NO v Moi Ali - she wins hands down on every angle including respect.
ReplyDeleteGood to know there are people around like Moi Ali who will stand up for what is right.
This scandal shows just how MacAskill is neutered by Scottish Judges and the Law Society of Scotland?
ReplyDeleteGill how historically did you get this power? It is because power is omnipotent without dissent. You don't want to see the evidence for transparency and I admire Miss Ail for sticking to her principles. MacAskill will not make a mockery of Miss Ali and DOI.
ReplyDeleteGill wants compliance not dissent.
The judge does himself no favours with his letters
ReplyDeleteIf there is nothing to hide the judge would have given you the register already and not acted the way he is.
ReplyDeleteWe can conclude from this judges in Scotland cannot be trusted.
"I'm not aware of recent evidence that there's public concern about the integrity of the judiciary."
ReplyDeleteObviously not reading the papers or in touch with reality - typical judge.
Well Peter dont know if this is your intention but you have got me buying the Sunday papers again!
ReplyDeleteKeep it up mate your points on the judges is the best I've seen for ages!
The Lord President and MacAskill must be mad-as-hatters about Moi Ali and Peter Cherbi blowing the whistle on them and revealing the truth to the Scottish People?
ReplyDeleteRegarding several unpublished comments identifying judges involved in particular cases, it is the policy of Diary of Injustice to investigate and then headline the issue at a later date ...
ReplyDeleteAny information relating to specific members of the judiciary involving interests, conduct in cases and matters relating to recusals or the lack of, should be emailed to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com to ensure the widest possible public debate in the public interest.
Lord Gill hates scrutiny and is so blinkered he is demeaning himself and his colleagues and it is wonderful to read DOI's coverage of the debate and Miss Ali's comments. The Judiciary are defending the indefensible, but no surprise there because that is their modus operandi. We have a Judicial culture which has allowed them to do as they please and hit us with preposterous statements such as "I'm not aware of recent evidence that there's public concern about the integrity of the judiciary.” Dream on Lord Gill you do't read the press reports and DOI's blog and Miss Ail's correspondence when they are about you and your colleagues. I call that evidence. What do you call it?
ReplyDeleteWow yes what a good blog about the legal system finally we get the truth not to trust the judges as well as the lawyers.Well I suppose it had to follow because judges are just jumped up lawyers in fancy dress anyway and they all want to cover up all that wealth and stuff you have found out.The criminal convictions one has to be the icing on the cake now who ever thought judges actually have criminal records! Well done!
ReplyDeleteI cannot understand how Lord No No can still be employed because his conduct unbefitting of a judge should've got him the sack by now?
ReplyDeleteI wouldnt worry too much about the bbc boycott - they often take a story and ruin it so be thankful!
ReplyDelete"Ms Ali suggests that a failure to institute a register of judicial interests will create suspicion, and that this will in turn undermine judicial credibility. I am not aware of any recent evidence that there is public concern about the integrity of the judiciary. In my view the terms of the judicial oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the provisions of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 for the regulation of judicial conduct are effective safeguards that enjoy public confidence."
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case scrap every register of interests in existence because the judges can be trusted to do their own thing.
In all of this we can be sure of one thing, that the judiciary is as corrupt as you and the newspapers have revealed it to be.
I can see what you mean about Lord NoNo.....he conducts himself like he is the Chairman of the board of Directors who is untouchable and accountable to a few and it's all a nod and a wink and I'll see you alright if you look after me...?
ReplyDeleteI note too that it took Moi Ali all of 5 minutes to figure out that this is nothing other than a self-interest club where the members are given freedom to do as they please without oversight or consequences?
Another example of judges from another country protecting bankers and siding with big money now holding Argentina to ransom.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27886361
IMF in warning over Argentina ruling at US Supreme Court
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned that Argentina's legal defeat in its fight against hedge fund investors may have wider implications.
On Monday, a US Supreme Court ruling sided with bondholders demanding Argentina pay them $1.3bn (£766m).
The IMF said it was concerned about "broader systemic implications".
Meanwhile the ratings agency S&P cut Argentina's credit rating, warning the ruling made it more likely that the country would default.
"The Argentine government has limited capacity to pay the plaintiff creditors while servicing its current debt", S&P said.
S&P reduced the credit rating by two notches from "CCC+" to "CCC-".
The move makes it more expensive for Argentina to borrow money.
Argentina's Economy Minister, Axel Kicillof, said the government was "starting to take steps" to restructure the debt under Argentine law - as a way of avoiding complying with the US order.
In a press conference Mr Kicillof said this would allow the country to honour its commitments with those creditors who had accepted the initial agreement.
Argentina has agreed a restructuring with the bulk of investors holding its defaulted debt, but the so-called "hold-outs" have been fighting for 100% of the value.
Mr Kicillof added that he would be sending lawyers to speak to the US judge behind the ruling, Thomas Griesa.
On Monday President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said her country would not bow to "extortion", in a reference to the court's ruling. She urged people to "remain tranquil" in the days ahead.
'Hold-outs'
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
This realistically is the end of the road for Argentina's decade-long fight”
The Supreme Court rejected Argentina's appeal against an order to pay the full value of bonds that some hedge funds bought after the country defaulted more than a decade ago.
Also, the bondholders won the right to use the US courts to force Argentina to reveal where it owns assets around the world. The court's decision means that bondholders should find it easier to collect their debts.
Some analysts believe it is possible that the Supreme Court's ruling could encourage investors to hold out in other restructurings of sovereign debt.
"The Fund is considering very carefully this decision and, as we have said before, we are concerned about possible broader systemic implications," the IMF said. The Fund is usually closely involved in the financial restructuring of countries in trouble.
'End of the road'
Mrs de Kirchner went on national television to say her country could not afford to honour the ruling.
She said her government was willing to discuss the issue further, but added: "What I cannot do as president is submit the country to such extortion."
However, Anna Gelpern, an expert in sovereign finance at the US-based Georgetown Law School said: "This realistically is the end of the road for Argentina's decade-long fight."
The South American country defaulted in 2001 following its economic crisis, and has been in a legal battle with bondholders led by hedge funds NML and Aurelius Capital Management.
Argentina argues that the funds bought most of the debt at a deep discount after the default, and has since tried to impede the country's efforts to restructure.
Investors holding more than 92% of the defaulted debt agreed in 2005 and 2010 to write off two-thirds of their pre-crisis value, providing Argentina with time to re-build its economy.
But the hedge funds owning the remaining 8% held out against the restructuring.
It now seems almost certain that the delay in bringing this Register of Interests into law is being used so that they can get their houses in order to try to evade justice?
ReplyDeleteAll done on MacAskill's watch?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI wouldnt worry too much about the bbc boycott - they often take a story and ruin it so be thankful!
17 June 2014 12:18
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The word is that the BBC were vehemently attacked over their 'Lawyers Behaving Badly' exposure of the corruption by the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitor Discipline Tribunal, where they were demanded to completely remove large parts of their evidence or else?
However, these attacks were designed to sabotage their programme and ruin the end result but the BBC stuck to their guns and went ahead with broadcasting of their programme despite the warnings for them not to do so?
Since the BBC exposed corruption, their programme has been 'wiped-off-the-face-of-the-earth' and removed from all online sources in a cynical attempt to try to preserve the myth that there is no corruption involving the regulation of Scottish lawyers?
However, the Genie is now out of the bottle and the Scottish Public is now well aware that corruption is rife and the so-called regulators have been making the rules up to suit themselves and to cover-up for the misdeeds of their members for years?
The BBC are still expecting their day in the Sun....?
Scottish Judges are a product of the Law Society of Scotland's monopolistic regime, where they have by letting their lawyer members off Scot-Free, have created a climate where through time Scottish Lawyers have become accustomed to being able to be above the law and to rob, steal and lie with impunity because they know that the worse they will get is a tickle under their chin and an encouragement to go and do it to their clients all over again?
ReplyDeleteIs it any wonder then that we have got the Scottish Judiciary we have, considering the closed-shop, criminal workplace that they have 'learned their trade in', which has nothing to do with honesty, integrity and the truth?
Getting rid of the Scottish Judges and replacing them with civic minded servants of the People is only a part solution because unless the cancer of Society that is the Law Society of Scotland is broken up and prosecuted will we be able to have a system in which lawyers will stand and fall on their level of skill and expertise instead of the lazy, slobbery and vindictive fiends that the Law Society produces at the moment?
@19 June 2014 11:24
ReplyDeleteIn any fair minded and transparent society your idea is sound ... however certain politicians who profess the same have realised the historical regime in the judiciary can be used to their own purpose, and that very same self serving, selfish, determined & secretive judiciary are willing to oblige for a few extra pounds and continued secrecy over their own activities ...
This is some fight you have here! like a battle between good and evil
ReplyDelete