Tuesday, October 14, 2014

TRANSPARENCY TIME: Top judge & Scottish Government told to rethink refusal on declarations of judges as Holyrood MSPs support calls to create a register of judicial interests

MSPs voted to support calls for a register to feature judge’s interests. MSPs have overwhelmingly supported a petition urging the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges – despite Scottish ministers following a ‘scripted’ sick line issued by Scotland’s top judge Lord President & Lord Justice General Brian Gill - who opposes calls for judges to declare their sizeable wealth and hidden links to big business including banks, legal, and other professions.

Last Thursday’s debate in Holyrood’s main chamber, which lasted around 90 minutes saw msps hotly debate proposals for judicial transparency put forward in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

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.

Since January 2013, members of the Petitions Committee have looked at the issues raised in the petition, and have taken evidence from the now former Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) Moi Ali - who supports the petition. During evidence at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee last September, Moi Ali told msps there was little transparency or accountability in Scotland’s judiciary.

Scottish Parliament debate on Register of Judicial Interests Thursday 9 Oct 2014

Official record of debate. Opening the debate in Holyrood’s main chamber, David Stewart MSP, Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee told fellow MSPs in his opening address that Media investigations into members of the judiciary "revealed a number of criminal charges and convictions".

Speaking in support of the petition, Labour MSP Neil Findlay said: "Is it not an outrage that Lord Gill had such contempt for this Parliament that he refused to attend a particular meeting?"

Angus McDonald MSP, who sits on the Petitions Committee said: "Given the spirit of openness and transparency that we in the Parliament so rightly hold in high regard, it was a clear snub to the committee when Lord Gill refused to appear in public."

John Wilson MSP who is also a member of the Petitions Committee, said: "In the speech Lord Gill gave in Qatar he said a jurisdiction steeped in tradition is slow to react to change.

"He should re-read his own words and give the same speech in Scotland to bring the judicial system up to a standard that we would all like it to hold."

Labour MSP Graeme Pearson said the petition has raised "issues of concern" and suggested the creation of "a register which would not be used by those who would be vexatious to attack or to pursue the judiciary, but at the same time give us confidence that our courts for the future operate to the best outcome".

Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said he was not persuaded that a register is necessary , but criticised Lord President Brian Gill's refusal to appear before the committee to make his case.

Lord Gill's response gave the impression that he was "part of an Edwardian establishment disdain of the right of the hoi polloi, as he sees it, to have any understanding of these matters, and that there was a swish of judicial ermine and velvet that should cow into deference the public and the legislator in relation to our right to understand the issues", Mr Carlaw said.

David Stewart said Mr Cherbi's petition was inspired by a bill in New Zealand following the resignation of a former Supreme Court judge who was accused of misconduct for "allegedly failing to disclose a large debt he apparently owed to a lawyer appearing in a case before him".

"The judiciary there (in New Zealand) was not overly enamoured at the suggestion of a register of interests," Mr Stewart said.

"I think that is a fair assessment of the position here to say that is probably true as well as far as the judiciary are concerned."

The committee was disappointed at Lord Gill's refusal to meet with them in public, he said.

Mr Stewart added: "The petitioner has said that the catalyst for his petition was investigations by the Scottish media into members of the judiciary here.

"The petitioner told the committee that the media investigations had revealed a number of criminal charges and convictions.

"The petitioner points out that there is a greater public expectation now in terms of transparency and accountability across all branches of public life. And that the judiciary has a duty to be accountable to the wider community and should be expected to adhere to the same standards as those which apply to others in public life, such as MSPs, ministers, and MPs."

Mr Pearson said: "My own approach to these things, and it always has been, is that sometimes even though you lose an element of your own privacy it is better to be upfront in these matters and record these things in a register.

"I understand the threat that may attach to that in terms of the pressure that judges could face in the future and I wonder if there is a way, once we give some thought to it, that we could create a register which would not be used by those who would be vexatious to attack or to pursue the judiciary, but at the same time give us confidence that our courts for the future operate to the best outcome."

Mr Carlaw said: "Amongst my parliamentary colleagues, I should say that, without naming anyone, I have been told quite clearly that “We don't want any of that”.

"But let me say, I think the minister identified quite ably why in fact we should have confidence in the current process, and why I am not persuaded that we do actually need a register of interests."

But he added: "I have to say the response of the Lord President was essentially to say “Get your tanks off my lawn”.

"In briefing I have heard from the Law Society of Scotland that they don't think the Petitions Committee of the parliament is a grand enough committee for the Lord President to have to command his attention.

"I did myself say that it gave the impression that the Lord President was part of an Edwardian establishment disdain of the right of the hoi polloi, as he sees it, to have any understanding of these matters, and that there was a swish of judicial ermine and velvet that should cow into deference the public and the legislator in relation to our right to understand the issues."

He added: "The appropriate way to have done it would have been for the Lord President to come and in a responsible environment place his case on the record, allow us to have tested it and then quite in all likelihood have agreed with the principle that he had articulated and thereby have advocated why we thought that was the right approach.

"We weren't able to do that and that's why we are having the debate today."

But Legal Affairs Minister Roseanna Cunningham followed the line issued by Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill, who has waged a bitter campaign against the transparency proposal for two years.

The minister, almost quoting word for word from a series of “No” letters issued as proclamations by judge Lord Gill, 72, to the Parliament’s Public Petition Committee insisted "the safeguards currently in place are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary".

Ms Cunningham said: "The Scottish Government considers that it is not necessary to establish a Register of Judicial Interests. It is our view that the safeguards currently in place are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland."

In an attempt to justify the Scottish Government’s identical position to that of the Lord President, in opposing the move to make judges declare their interests, the Legal Affairs Minister went on to quote findings from the GRECO report - itself written by judges and members of the legal profession from Europe who also steadfastly oppose any declarations of their significant financial wealth and interests.

Ms Cunningham claimed the GRECO FOURTH EVALUATION ROUND Corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, Judges and Prosecutors found "nothing emerged during the current evaluation which could indicate that there is any corruption in relation to judges, nor is there evidence of judicial decisions being influenced in an inappropriate manner".

Given the duration of the debate and detail, video footage of MSPs who spoke during the debate and the official record will be published on Diary of Injustice in separate articles for the benefit of readers and those following the debate on accountability and transparency within Scotland’s judiciary.

The petition will be heard again in late October by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee who will consider their next move.

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

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Congrats!Go for it!!

Anonymous said...

Yes and about time too the judges have had it so good too long get this register on the go now

Anonymous said...

So Lord Gill did go to Holyrood after all at least in the form of Roseanna Cunningham.

What a ridiculous position for the Scottish Government to take - opposing transparency.

Come on folks we know already from all the headlines the judges are well at it and every other MSP voted for it so lets be having a register of interests for m'lords asap

Anonymous said...

too long debate to watch can you put them up in clips thanks

Anonymous said...

The gossip is your graphics are giving the judges media team a few nightmares..

Anonymous said...

In an attempt to justify the Scottish Government’s identical position to that of the Lord President, in opposing the move to make judges declare their interests, the Legal Affairs Minister went on to quote findings from the GRECO report - itself written by judges and members of the legal profession from Europe who also steadfastly oppose any declarations of their significant financial wealth and interests.

Old Cunningham relying on some report written by judges to protect judges.She didnt bother to tell the rest of the parliament how it came about did she.

Anonymous said...

Good one Peter am sure you will eventually get this and more importantly this is a vindication of all you have been writing about and your efforts to inform us about the judiciary.If not the msps would not have voted for it so good work and now you have this debate it is time all judges everywhere declare their interests and we should all thank the Scottish Parliament for taking this as far and giving you the time you deserve.

Anonymous said...

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.

I VOTE FOR THIS!

Anonymous said...

I like how Cunningham just reads off paras from the report like it is gospel from Gill.Pure p*sh and everyone knows it no wonder they voted for your petition.

Anonymous said...

A little surprising this top judge of yours was so stupid to treat your parliament as he did and who says no to openness.

The stuff he says about agressive media is enough for him to go.This is not the kind of comments expected of a judge who turns round and accuses the press just because he is not getting his own way.

Anonymous said...

Good to see the msps breaking away from Gill and his edicts.

What now for the old judge and your petition?

This is effectively a vote of no confidence in Gill's war against the Scottish Parliament anyone with decency would do the right thing and first apologise then write up the register as you are asking for.

Anonymous said...

Where do the Judges get the power to refuse a Register of Interests? The system has evelved this way I assume but it is a licence for corruption and has no basis in a democracy. Judge X or Y dismissing cases because he has shares in the company paying the damages. Bunch of crooks in robes and wigs.

Anonymous said...

How can Judges detached from society and democracy have all this power. A good question for our new First Minister.

Anonymous said...

Holyrood v Judges

one nil..one nil..one nil..one nil..one nil..one nil..one nil..

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 14 October 2014 16:33

Over the next few days.

@ 14 October 2014 17:12

No she didnt ... and the judges on the European court have some interesting interests of their own they dont declare ...

@ 14 October 2014 19:09

Yes it was a very good debate and MSPs have been very fair and even handed with regard to the petition.

As this is the first debate ever in Scotland on judicial interests the Scottish Parliament deserves a round of applause, and it is hoped this encourages others to engage in the debate, politics in general and the future of Scotland.

@ 15 October 2014 10:41

Judges dont do apologies, they do shareholdings ...

The petition will be heard again at the Petitions Committee at the end of October ...

@ 15 October 2014 03:09

Mistreating the press is a growing theme in Scottish courts and with Lord Gill setting such an aggressive example we can only expect more of it unless more people and politicians speak out and speak up for the public.

The courts do not belong to Lord Gill and neither does the term "justice". Both belong to the wider Scottish community who fund it and expect justice to be delivered in a fair manner without miscarriage of justice or skewed verdicts in favour of big business and vested interests.

Just remember the media itself is one of the finest regulators in existence for keeping a check and balance on errant public services,public figures and corporations out for personal gain etc ...

Support those in the media who bring this balance by reading their material, and if you want more content, as readers speak up!

Regarding an unpublished comment @ 14 October 10:35 identifying a judge and a family case, the content cannot be published, however please email full details to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com and a journalist will look into what you say.

Anonymous said...

Jings you are right about the press and Gill giving it all his bile

Keep on at them Peter you are a swell guy!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
So Lord Gill did go to Holyrood after all at least in the form of Roseanna Cunningham.

What a ridiculous position for the Scottish Government to take - opposing transparency.

Come on folks we know already from all the headlines the judges are well at it and every other MSP voted for it so lets be having a register of interests for m'lords asap

14 October 2014 15:32
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Roseanna Cunningham's disgusting sooking up to Lord Gill and her thinly veiled threat to all of the Scottish Patriots who spoke up in support of this Public Spirited Petition, where she made it clear that Lord Gill was tuning into the Debate to see who was speaking against him, was completely unconscionable, especially when she argued that there was sufficient measures in place (the Status Quo) where she glossed-over that at least two Scottish Patriots revealed that there are Scottish Judges who are convicted criminals and who are still pretending they are fit to Judge?

Roseanna, you have sold your soul to the Dark Side and have acted so against the Public Interest that the Scottish People will never forget what you did and will never forgive?

How can you say that it is fine to have Convicted Criminals wilfully impersonating Judges, who have by their own actions (by choosing to break the law) have demonstrated that they are disqualified to be a Judge because their Judgement from this point forward will always be untrustworthy?

It would be of no surprise whatsoever if this signalled the end of her political career, or for her constituents sent her to Coventry?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
A little surprising this top judge of yours was so stupid to treat your parliament as he did and who says no to openness.

The stuff he says about agressive media is enough for him to go.This is not the kind of comments expected of a judge who turns round and accuses the press just because he is not getting his own way.

15 October 2014 03:09
-------------------------------------

It should not be beyond the wit of the regular Scotman (woman), least not the MSP's where the penny has finally dropped that this scandal has emphasised the degree to which the Head of Scotland's Judiciary has shown that his judgement is seriously skewed against the Scottish People and in favour of vested-get-rich-even-quicker-self-interested-parties?

This seems to have gone well beyond a simple dishonourable retirement and the New First Minister should make representations to the Queen as Head of State to intervene and to order a sacking with no fat pension to boot?

Scottish Patriots want Democracy back and want rid of the Scottish Lawyer State we have become?

Anonymous said...

When did Scotland become a Scottish Lawyer State, take over Scotland and get rid of Democracy?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Good one Peter am sure you will eventually get this and more importantly this is a vindication of all you have been writing about and your efforts to inform us about the judiciary.If not the msps would not have voted for it so good work and now you have this debate it is time all judges everywhere declare their interests and we should all thank the Scottish Parliament for taking this as far and giving you the time you deserve.

14 October 2014 19:09

Totally agree and thank god someone has the guts to take on the judges like one of the msps talked about.

Anonymous said...

Many people I have spoken to about this are delighted that the Scottish MSP's have stood up for Democracy but have warned that if you think this is over you are wrong and that the Law Society of Scotland and Lord Gill will try to get their revenge on all of the MSP's who supported the Petition and against the Scottish People...

Anonymous said...

Apart from Cunningham's obvious support for Gill the debate is good and I hope this goes forward to legislation.You did well and it is so obvious an issue it must go through.

Very good!

Anonymous said...

It is now for the Public Petitions Committee to give the electorate an example of democracy in action, and put forward recommendations for the immediate creation of an independently regulated and regularly updated Judicial Register of Interests.

Then, and only then, will Scotland be seen to have taken the first step in reforming its 'Victorian' justice system, and in doing so will set an example for the world to follow.

Anonymous said...

Why do we need the agreement of the judges to make them declare their interests????
Does anyone consult criminals before changing the law?????
No!!!!!!
Bring it in now!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

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.

Best idea I have read in a long time and why not happened before now?

Anonymous said...

Well at least everyone gets the point here and you have a damn good debate going on so good work and keep on at them until they have to declare all!

Anonymous said...

Yes good work I have been reading a lot of the posts on this blog and it is obvious to me the best thing to do is stay the hell away from lawyers and courts in Scotland!

Anonymous said...

What is this GRECO report anyway another written essay by judges about how lovely judges are and we cannot question their secrets?Bugger off GRECO and stop interfering in Scotland!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
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.

Best idea I have read in a long time and why not happened before now?

16 October 2014 13:38
------------------------------------

I had thought that all of this was a pre-requisite to safeguarding truth and justice in a Democracy.

How wrong was I

Anonymous said...

This case is another example of the integrity and commitment to the truth by the Diary of Injustice journalists.

You are a credit to Scotland

dum de dum said...

"despite Scottish ministers following a ‘scripted’ sick line issued by Scotland’s top judge" LOL HAHA!!

Please honourable members I cannot speak today or recommend judges disclose their drawers haha I can just seem him writing it out for RC to follow

Yes Cunningham and that other guy who said he was on the Standards Committee comes across as going all Brian Gill

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 17 October 2014 18:30

GRECO is one of these legal system in house spin machines ... with the same overtones as weekly spin reports put out by crime agencies in Scotland hoping to catch some lazy publicity to induce people into thinking crime is under control when it is clearly not and those involved in crime go all the way to the highest point of the justice system itself ...

Anonymous said...

Roseanna Cunningham's rancid and unjustifiable speech had all the hallmarks of a Law Society of Scotland scriptwriter.

I wonder how she feels now being shown so vehemently opposed to Truth and Justice and the Scottish People?

Maybe she should give a statement to the Diary of Injustice, as the preeminant reporter on behalf of the People of Scotland on all matters pertaining to Truth and Justice.