Court staff switched details of Lord Carloway visit AN INVESTIGATION by the Scottish Information Commissioner into false & misleading data released by the Scottish Court Service has received evidence court officials hurriedly switched the travel destinations of Scotland’s second most powerful judge – the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Carloway, after journalists queried an FOI disclosure, asking for further details of a journey.
The switch of Lord Carloway’s destination during a trip taken in March 2014 – from Bristol - a city within the UK, to Dublin – capital of the Republic of Ireland, only came about after court staff realised they had previously claimed to journalists, and more recently to the Scottish Information Commissioner, the SCS did not hold data on judges trips inside the UK.
Staff at the Scottish Court Service maintained that to find the information on UK only travel – for the past year, the work would cost over £600, arguing the SCS were therefore under no obligation to disclose the data which included destinations and costs of the taxpayer funded trips of judges around Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Lord Justice Clerk Lord Carloway, the deputy head of Scotland’s justice system - who earns £207,730 a year, was listed in papers released by the Scottish Court Service: Overseas Travel of Scotland’s Judges 2013-2014 as having taken three taxpayer funded trips in the past year – a six day trip to Vancouver, Canada costing £5,820.16, a two day trip to Dijon, France, with a claimed cost of £59.15 and a two day trip initially listed as Evidence & Procedure Review Study Visit costing £232.93.
The Scottish Court Service was then contacted by journalists who asked officials to provide a destination of Lord Carloway’s Evidence & Procedure Review Study Visit. In response, a senior SCS official said “Lord Carloway attended the event in Bristol.”
When journalists again contacted the Scottish Court Service asking why one domestic UK trip had seemingly been disclosed when court officials claimed it was too expensive to publish the UK only trips, the same official replied “I queried this with the Judicial Office for Scotland who have asked me to pass on their apologies. Lord Carloway actually attended the event in Dublin and not in Bristol. It appears to be a miss-communication on their part.”
The Judicial Office for Scotland also became involved in attempts to set the FOI record straight, however an email from the Judicial Office concluded “we have checked the information that we provided and we have nothing further to add.”
Lord Carloway’s travels and the journeys of other Scottish judges including a State visit by Scotland’s top judge - Lord Gill - to Qatar, were featured in papers disclosed by the SCS and published here : LORD JET SET: Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill takes 5 day STATE VISIT to Qatar as investigation reveals judiciary's international travel junkets spree.
Judicial Air Miles at taxpayers expense. Curiously, a further five trips to destinations in the Republic of Ireland - undertaken by Lord Brailsford, Sheriff Wendy Anne Sheehan, Sheriff Frank Crowe, Sheriff Nicola Stewart, and Sheriff Thomas McCartney to the Four Jurisdictions Family Lawyers Conference, also had no destination listed in the papers published by the Scottish Court Service in response to the FOI request.
The family law conference - where the group of judges stayed for several days took place at luxury Carton House hotel and spa in Co Kildare where the itinerary included a black tie gala dinner and optional round of golf on the hotel's course.
Now, it can be revealed the misleading information provided by the Scottish Court Service on Lord Carloway’s trip along with other erroneous claims relating to judges trips, has been under investigation since early August by officials based at the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office in St Andrews, Fife.
A submission provided by a journalist to SIC officials investigating the case states: “The feeling I am left with, as any reasonable person would be left with, is that the SCS tried to conceal information which rightly should be disclosed under FOI or in any case, should be in the public domain so members of the public can see for themselves the significant expenditures of public funds on members of the judiciary who travel round the UK and the world.
Information is already published on judicial travel & expenses claims on the Judiciary of Scotland’s website, it cannot be much of an effort to add the actual destination to what is already published so why the refusal to hand over the judiciary's UK travel information.
The effort the SCS has expended on this matter, together with arguments against disclosure, errors, correcting them etc could well have been put to better use by being honest in the first place and disclosing the information sought on what is after all, a small judiciary with a limited number of courts and duties. After all, the SCS with their huge annual budget, have also just spent about £60 million on repairing the Court of Session & Parliament House – and they cant even get an FOI right or accurate details on the travels of their top judges ?”
Speaking to Diary of Injustice this morning, a legal insider said: “The conduct of those involved appears to indicate the destinations to Ireland were deliberately withheld by the Scottish Court Service or the Judicial Office because of the proximity of Ireland to the United Kingdom. It would not be unreasonable to expect disclosure of UK travel destinations given the SCS already collects data of judicial trips to Ireland.”
A decision in the investigation is expected to be published in due course by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Rosemary Agnew.
PROFILE: LORD CARLOWAY
Lord Carloway was appointed a Judge in February 2000 and was appointed to the Second Division of the Inner House in August 2008. He is a graduate of Edinburgh University (LLB Hons) and was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1977. He served as an Advocate Depute from 1986 to 1989 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1990. From 1994 until his appointment as a Judge he was Treasurer of the Faculty of Advocates.
He is an assistant editor of ‘Green’s Litigation Styles’ and contributed the chapters on ‘Court of Session Practice’ to the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia and ‘Expenses’ in Court of Session Practice. Lord Carloway was the joint editor of ‘Parliament House Portraits: the Art Collection of the Faculty of Advocates’ and is a former president of the Scottish Arts Club.
In response to the case of Cadder v HM Advocate and its implications in Scotland, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill appointed Lord Carloway to undertake a now widely known review of Corroboration - a long held safeguard against miscarriage of justice in Scots law where evidence in a criminal trial is required from two separate sources for a conviction.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government had embarked on a policy to abolish the safeguard from Scots law in an effort to ensure the Crown Office obtained more convictions – even when the evidence was not there or sloppy casework by prosecutors ended up in failed criminal trials.
Lord Carloway’s report agreed with Mr MacAskill & Crown Office campaigners that corroboration should be removed, however all other remaining judges including Scotland’s top judge the Lord President Lord Gill rightly opposed the removal of corroboration. The full Carloway Review can be read online here: Carloway Review Report & Recommendations 2011 along with the Executive Summary and Lord Carloway's statement
28 comments:
Must be a similar distance flying Edinburgh to Dublin or to London so it can be released surely?
Why all the secrecy about judges flights and these 4 day visits to golf courses and posh hotels?
The Scottish Court Service was then contacted by journalists who asked officials to provide a destination of Lord Carloway’s Evidence & Procedure Review Study Visit. In response, a senior SCS official said “Lord Carloway attended the event in Bristol.”
When journalists again contacted the Scottish Court Service asking why one domestic UK trip had seemingly been disclosed when court officials claimed it was too expensive to publish the UK only trips, the same official replied “I queried this with the Judicial Office for Scotland who have asked me to pass on their apologies. Lord Carloway actually attended the event in Dublin and not in Bristol. It appears to be a miss-communication on their part.”
Poor dears.You caught them out.Courts have too much to hide and lie to hide it.
What I want to know is, did the Judge request that this information be kept secret from the Scottish Public?
This is yet more evidence that the Judges/ SCS cannot be trusted to disclose what goes on behind the public's backs.
The sooner we have a completely separate standards body the better, that governs, controls and monitors Scottish Public Officers ethics and transparency the better.
These people are supposed to work for us not to treat us like their most reviled enemy.
Sounds more like a lie than a "miss-communication"
Was this intentional as in to trip you up or is there something going on in the background re Bristol and Dublin.
The earlier comment makes a good point - did the judge order this covered up?
In any case the information on travel should be published by judges and in a truthful version this time.
How many other instances of cooking-the-books has gone on in these lists?
Why should we accept what these people publish, when we later find out that the facts and figures have been fiddled to deceive?
Carloway does not strike me as a person to let something like this go so I hope someone in the court mafia loses their job for it.Lying in replies to Freedom of information requests deserves no less!
The switch of Lord Carloway’s destination during a trip taken in March 2014 – from Bristol - a city within the UK, to Dublin – capital of the Republic of Ireland, only came about after court staff realised they had previously claimed to journalists, and more recently to the Scottish Information Commissioner, the SCS did not hold data on judges trips inside the UK.
HA!They cant even get their lies straight these days.
Males me wonder what other dishonesty is going on in the Scottish Court Service.
Will Agnew tell the whole story or will we have to guess between the blanks?
Having read your blog for awhile now I am used to seeing stories of lawyers and liars in the courts and now they are lying about freedom of information very wrong and someone should get their knuckles wrapped for this and names named.
Courts lie to get out of FOI haha you couldnt make this up they are just so rotten and crooked the lot of them!
As has already been said over and over again, it is all about cash and secrecy..
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish parliament's justice secretary today united to condemn 'ugly' Conservative plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. Lib Dem Alistair Carmichael and the SNP's Kenny MacAskill also raised the prospect that Scotland could remain bound by the European Convention of Human Rights even if England and Wales abandon it.
Speaking in Edinburgh at the Law Society of Scotland’s flagship conference, MacAskill said he is ‘deeply concerned’ by the prospect of the UK being ‘sidelined’ along with ‘the likes of Belarus’ by abandoning the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). My apologies for this being off topic but MacAskill talking about human rights, money for lawyers he means. Scots have no human rights when they want to sue a Scottish lawyer.
The unpalatable truth is that we cannot trust a single word from the Scottish Court Service, who also seem to be anti-Scottish Public minded?
Colin Sutherland could be the new Lord President replacing Gill if MacAskill has anything to do with it - think strip Corroboration and more by edict rather than legislation.
Rumours on the go MacAskill has decided not to give ScotParliament a vote after Justice Committee chucked it out first time around.
Glad to see you support retention of Corroboration and are not one of the nut gang who want it scrapped for Mulholland's headline generator - you nailed that one in your posting.
@ 5 October 2014 12:44
Doubt corroboration could be axed without a vote by MSPs however if it were possible Lord Carloway has already stated his position and with MacAskill as Justice Secretary anything by way of help to COPFS to convict even on non existent evidence will go through ...
You could be right on this one.MacAskill found his Yes man for corrob removal.
How do you feel supporting Gill on corrob and not on register of interests?
Anonymous said...
Colin Sutherland could be the new Lord President replacing Gill if MacAskill has anything to do with it - think strip Corroboration and more by edict rather than legislation.
Rumours on the go MacAskill has decided not to give ScotParliament a vote after Justice Committee chucked it out first time around.
Glad to see you support retention of Corroboration and are not one of the nut gang who want it scrapped for Mulholland's headline generator - you nailed that one in your posting.
5 October 2014 12:44
----------------------------------
The Scottish Crown Office, turn a blind eye to prosecuting their pals, where they let them off Scot-Free and then label these cases as either, 'not in the Public Interest to prosecute' or 'there was insufficient corroborating evidence' in order to per err the course of justice to suit themselves?
Therefore, 'Corroboration' in Scots Law is nothing other than a barometer of skill and thoroughness in order to compile evidence and build and present a successful case?
Statistics show that the declining standards in Scottish lawyers has resulted in a record number of failed cases or cases where which show that Scottish lawyers no longer have the skill or cannot be bothered to compile the evidence so, their solution is to change the goal posts to lower the required standard of evidence to equate to the new lazy and incompetent standards of Scottish Crown Prosecutor lawyers to do their job, so that they can increase the number of cases won?
Typical of Law Society of Scotland Ken, who is responsible for sliding standards and a race to the bottom strategy to suit his masters?
Agnew used to be at the SLCC so do you expect she will expose these court liars in the foi???
The Scottish Justice System is run like a monopoly, whereby the only winners are the 'actors' in the System (i.e. Scottish lawyers)?
Only in Scotland could you get a system whereby a Scottish lawyer charges you on how much the case is worth to you. This is legalised fraud?
The Scottish lawyer is representing you and another party against a third party?
Much to your surprise, even though you had a bullet-proof case, you win your case and the third party are told to pay you £50,000 and the other party £500,000?
Your Scottish lawyer will send you the balance of £30,000, after deducting his Fee of £20,000?
However, the Scottish lawyer will send the other party a cheque for the balance of £300,000, after deducting his Fee of £200,000?
This is what Scottish lawyers call a Proportionality Fee?
What is the difference between the two Fees?
Nothing, other than one is 10 times the other one?
The Scottish lawyer's service is exactly the same but they just want to get their grubby hands on your hard earned cash because they can get away with it and there is nothing you can do about it because the Law Society of Scotland makes sure that crooked Scottish lawyers are above the law in Scotland?
The switch of Lord Carloway’s destination during a trip taken in March 2014 – from Bristol - a city within the UK, to Dublin – capital of the Republic of Ireland, only came about after court staff realised they had previously claimed to journalists, and more recently to the Scottish Information Commissioner, the SCS did not hold data on judges trips inside the UK.
What a laugh, they forgot what they said before and then lied about it to stop us finding out the UK flying club.There must be a lot of trips to these hotels with golf courses disguised as law lectures.Rotten to the core the lot just as bad as cheats and fraudsters.
@ 5 October 2014 21:35
Fine with that as both are quite separate issues.
Corroboration is an issue which can potentially affect any criminal office there it is a safeguard against injustice and it is right Lord Gill supports retention of Corroboration.
A register of judicial interests is about transparency and accountability within the judiciary and informing the public on information everyone should have a right to know before using the courts.
Transparency is not a difficult argument to present.The fact Lord Gill opposes the same levels of transparency expected of all other branches of Government is of significant cause for concern and decreases public trust in the justice system as a whole.
@ 6 October 2014 11:38
Whether she does or not it is a headline either way ... the evidence was handed over to the SIC from the SCS own communications.
The SCS changed their position many times, issued erroneous disclosures which, given the subject matter and media interest could easily be construed as intentional, rather than a series of unexplained, unbelievable mistakes.
@ 6 October 2014 13:24
There are ... and it is now down to the Scottish Information Commissioner to ensure the data is released.
Expensive Air Miles, rounds of golf and fancy dress balls on the taxpayer while these judges sit at lofty desks condemning all and sundry before them is something the public ought to know without all the Scottish Court Service excuses and caveats to conceal what the judiciary are up to.
The switch of Lord Carloway’s destination during a trip taken in March 2014 – from Bristol - a city within the UK, to Dublin – capital of the Republic of Ireland, only came about after court staff realised they had previously claimed to journalists, and more recently to the Scottish Information Commissioner, the SCS did not hold data on judges trips inside the UK.
What a laugh, they forgot what they said before and then lied about it to stop us finding out the UK flying club.There must be a lot of trips to these hotels with golf courses disguised as law lectures.Rotten to the core the lot just as bad as cheats and fraudsters.
6 October 2014 13:24
££££££££££££££££££
Some say the Caddies were even paid out of this Leisure Fund?
Did you know the Scottish Government operate a small department of people who have an unofficial role to coordinate FOI requester information across public bodies.Some may even admit in private they discuss FOI requests with a view to controlling the type and amount of information released.
Not very honest is it when special advisers and civil servants have a list of names up on a wall and tallies of FOI requests to public bodies and when or if they should be replied to.
With the amount of people involved and all the resources at the SIC no one wants to take it on.Fancy a go anyone?
@ 7 October 2014 13:03
I am sure many journalists have suspected this for some time and there is mounting evidence in FOI responses that disclosures are being coordinated between public bodies in Scotland to minimise their impact when eventually published.
It may even be investigations and subsequent decisions by the Scottish Information Commissioner are also being manipulated by public bodies.
If they are prepared to lie as blatantly as this there is no hope of anyone getting a fair hearing in court.
And why is Lord Carloway not stamping the boards asking for an investigation into why his own court workers are liars?He has plenty to say about other people when he feels like it.Look what he tried to do to Aamer Anwar just because he had the guts to speak out against the courts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7058612.stm
Contempt issue after terror case
The lawyer who represented student Mohammed Atif Siddique during his four-week terror trial last month could be disciplined by the ruling judge.
Lord Carloway has been considering contempt of court charges against Aamer Anwar over a statement he read outside the High Court in Glasgow in September.
A spokesman for Mr Anwar, who described the jury's guilty verdict as a "tragedy for justice", said he would apologise.
Siddique, 21, from Clackmannanshire, was convicted of three terror charges.
In the statement, Mr Anwar said the accused did not receive a fair trial and that it was heard in an "atmosphere of hostility".
The solicitor also said that the prosecution was "driven by the State" and Siddique was found guilty of "doing what millions of young people do every day - looking for answers on the internet".
In a procedural hearing on Tuesday, Lord Carloway said he was concerned that the solicitor was essentially making "disparaging remarks".
The judge said: "The court views with some concern that immediately after the trial a solicitor, who has a duty of some description to the court, should essentially make disparaging remarks which appear to be directed against almost every aspect of the case.
"He seems to criticise the advocate depute in stating the prosecution was driven by the State.
"He impugns the verdict of the jury... and the activities of the trial judge."
The judge asked: "Does Anwar accept some boundaries in what a solicitor can say?"
Referring to the remark about Siddique using the internet to look for answers, Lord Carloway said based on evidence heard during the trial, that comment was "simply a lie".
Speaking for Mr Anwar, Stephen Woolman QC said his client accepted that the media statement was inaccurately framed and he would make an apology.
Fully supportive
Mr Woolman said: "The statement came about because Mr Anwar thought he was espousing the word of his client."
The QC added that Mr Anwar had been under a great deal of strain as a result of the potential contempt proceedings.
Crown Counsel, Brian McConnachie QC, said he was willing to assist the court should the judge begin proceedings.
Lord Carloway said he would make his decision about any contempt of court action within the next two weeks via a written note.
Outside the court, Siddique's brother, Mohammed Asif Siddique, spoke in support of Mr Anwar.
He said: "Today Aamer Anwar has been criticised for a statement released on September 17 on behalf of my brother.
"The family disagree with all these allegations and are fully supportive of Mr Anwar."
The switch of Lord Carloway’s destination during a trip taken in March 2014 – from Bristol - a city within the UK, to Dublin – capital of the Republic of Ireland, only came about after court staff realised they had previously claimed to journalists, and more recently to the Scottish Information Commissioner, the SCS did not hold data on judges trips inside the UK.
SO THE BIGGEST LIARS IN COURT ARE THE SCOTTISH COURT SERVICE
Had forgotten about that thing with Anwar and Carloway
Wholly inappropriate and was thrown out but what it does show is the mindset of judges who are taken to task about their actions.
Didnt Lord Gill say in one of his rambling letters to msps judges cannot speak out?
He neglected to mention judges turn the courts into a weapon against anyone who dare speak out.
One wonders why the journey of judge number two was switched from Bristol to Dublin and what motives lie behind this switcheroo.
Is he getting you down Richard?We have all heard the chatter!
Sounds like someone at the courts has been discovered fibbing and had to switch Carloway from Bristol to Dublin for some reason.Wonder what was so bad it had to be changed?
Post a Comment