Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Scottish Parliament debate on register of Judicial interests: Graeme Pearson MSP opening speech - ‘It is better to be up front and record things in a register’

Scottish Parliament debate on register of judicial interests. ON Thursday 09 October 2014, the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber held a detailed ninety minute debate on calls to require judges to declare their significant financial and other interests, as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. On conclusion of the debate, MSPs overwhelmingly supported motion S4M-11078 - in the name of Public Petitions Convener David Stewart MSP on petition PE1458 and urged the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges.

The public petition, submitted to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in late 2012 envisages the creation of a single independently regulated register of interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

In a move aimed at widening public awareness of the undisclosed interests of Scotland’s judiciary and details contained in the recent debate by MSPs at Holyrood, each day this week, Diary of Injustice is publishing the official record of the speeches given by individual MSPs who participated in the debate along with video footage.

This article focuses on the opening speech given by Graeme Pearson MSP (South Scotland, Scottish Labour).

Graeme Pearson MSP opening speech Register of Judicial Interests Petition PE1458 Scottish Parliament

Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab): I will make some general comments before addressing some of the key issues in the motion. We persistently discuss the need to deliver a fair, just and transparent system, not only of government but of public law and administration. In that context, I welcome the petition from Peter Cherbi to the Public Petitions Committee.

I commend, too, David Stewart and the members of his committee for taking seriously the content of the petition and for recommending that we discuss it in public here in the chamber. The petition raises issues that cause concern in the world generally, and which can cause concern to some of our constituents. Many of us will have received comments from constituents displaying reservations about their dealings with the courts and sometimes raising issues.

Furthermore, I welcome the opportunity to celebrate publicly the integrity of our judiciary. In my involvement with the judiciary over the years, I have been impressed by the nature of the work that it does and the solemnity with which it approaches its difficult tasks. That said—as was referred to earlier—Moi Ali, the former Judicial Complaints Reviewer, made fairly strident comments in connection with her work. She indicated that she felt that she had no power to make things different and better. It is worth our while to consider for a moment that although Parliament should not always seek to deal with problems that are identified, sometimes it is our duty to deal with the perception that there is a problem in order to ensure that, in the years ahead, we demonstrate fairness and transparency in all that we try to achieve on behalf of citizens.

Lord Gill indicated that he saw no point in introducing a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. He said that he relied on a judge recusing him or herself if they identified a perceived or actual bias. That places extreme pressure on a judge, before the commencement of proceedings, to examine their soul and consider all possible circumstances.

Until the petition was discussed, there was no knowledge of recusals in the public domain. I welcome the fact that, as of April this year, the Lord President has introduced a register of recusals. It is fair to say that without the petition and the work of the Public Petitions Committee, such a register would probably not have been considered.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP):

Would the member agree that the welcome addition of the register of recusers will help us in the future to understand the nature and scope of the ways in which judges have to stand down? I suspect that it might show us that financial considerations are the least of it. However, until we see the results, that is speculation, and merely a personal opinion.

Graeme Pearson:

I am sure that the viewpoint that Mr Stevenson has expressed is right. I doubt that financial considerations will figure because, all too often—certainly in the media and the contents of postbags—it is about people’s perceptions of judges belonging to various groups and associations. I would not seek to indicate which groups and associations, because that would merely create heat instead of light. Nevertheless, the perception that those on the bench are in some way influenced by their various connections creates concern among the general public and elements of the press.

My approach has always been that it is sometimes better to be up front in those matters and to record things in a register, even although people will lose an element of privacy. I understand the threat that may attach to that in the pressures that judges could face in the future, and wonder whether there is a way in which we could, once we have given some thought to the matter, create a register that would not be used by those who would be vexatious to attack or pursue our judiciary, but would give us confidence that our courts operate for the best outcomes for the future.

I look forward to hearing what other members have to say on the subject.

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 can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Aye just bring in the register now folks its about time we had judges telling us the truth for a change instead of ordering us to tell the truth while they sit in the pulpit lying their heads off.

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill indicated that he saw no point in introducing a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. He said that he relied on a judge recusing him or herself if they identified a perceived or actual bias. That places extreme pressure on a judge, before the commencement of proceedings, to examine their soul and consider all possible circumstances.

Yes and the problem is they are acting as judge and jury in their own cause so not really on is it.There has to be a register of interests.No one trusts politicians to judge their own interests this is why a register exists for parliament so why not for the judiciary.

Keep up the good work Peter!

Anonymous said...

It all adds fuel to the fire that Scottish Judges and Sheriffs have done nothing to dispel the widely held belief that they cannot prove that they are fit to practise.

Anonymous said...

Scottish lawyers are in an all out WAR against the Scottish Public?

The Law Society of Scotland allow:

Scottish lawyers to pilfer from the Scottish Legal Aid Fund to the tune of £Millions of Pounds every year and then when they are caught out they blame the SLAB?

Scottish lawyers to rob their clients blind by double and treble billing their clients?

Scottish lawyers to lie in court?

Scottish lawyers to deceive with impunity?

Scottish lawyers to evade justice by colluding with the SLCC & SSDT to water-down cases against them or to completely invent false reasons to block complaints at the SLCC Gateway Stage to make it look like the Law Society were not involved, when everyone knows they commit crimes like this with impunity before breakfast?

Scottish lawyers to evade justice by never...NEVER...Ever reporting a crooked Scottish lawyer to the Police, instead they deliberately defeat the ends of justice by usurping the police and going straight to their fellow crooked lawyers at the Scottish Crown Office, where they make 'deliberate mistakes' to let their pals off with it on a nod and a wink?

Now we have a Scottish Judicial expenses scandal that they are desperate to keep out of the mainstream media to hide their nefarious scams?

This is what it has come to folks.

Years of injustice, privilege and self serving hateful acts of scummery against the Scottish Public?

Anonymous said...

I imagine all this detail is the last thing Gill and his cohorts want.Too bad.It is about time we all learned the truth about the judiciary.

Anonymous said...

I am a little lost here about why the judges are able to resist having a register of their interests when everyone else has to declare.And why bother asking the judges if they want a register when they are obviously going to say No.

This must become the law and not only in Scotland.All judges everywhere have to declare everything they have if they want to be a judge otherwise no one really knows if they can be trusted.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Lord Gill indicated that he saw no point in introducing a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. He said that he relied on a judge recusing him or herself if they identified a perceived or actual bias. That places extreme pressure on a judge, before the commencement of proceedings, to examine their soul and consider all possible circumstances.

Yes and the problem is they are acting as judge and jury in their own cause so not really on is it.There has to be a register of interests.No one trusts politicians to judge their own interests this is why a register exists for parliament so why not for the judiciary.

Keep up the good work Peter!

21 October 2014 19:11
£££££££££££££££££££££££££

This is only a persuasive argument if a Scottish Judge had a soul to start with.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I am a little lost here about why the judges are able to resist having a register of their interests when everyone else has to declare.And why bother asking the judges if they want a register when they are obviously going to say No.

This must become the law and not only in Scotland.All judges everywhere have to declare everything they have if they want to be a judge otherwise no one really knows if they can be trusted.

22 October 2014 02:03
/////////////////////////////////////////

Great point well made.

Unless a Scottish Judge can demonstrate that they have a character above reproach, then they cannot be Scottish Judge.

As Alexander the Meerkat would say, 'Simples'

We can no longer be satisfied with, 'It's alright love, you can take my word for it'

Especially when you consider that even Scottish Senior QC's and Professors of Law openly state that the current regime is hopelessly corrupt?