Justice Secretary to face Holyrood Committee on judicial interests plan. SCOTLAND’S Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has been summoned to appear before the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee and face questions from msps on the creation of a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
During the committee’s latest meeting, MSPs agreed to call in the Justice Secretary to face questions on the judges interests. MSPs also demanded to see the unredacted 2014 annual report of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), Moi Ali - who has since quit the judicial investigator role - comparing it to “window dressing”.
The move to call MacAskill before the Petitions Committee comes after msps in the Scottish Parliament’s main debating chamber last month rounded on Scotland’s top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill for refusing to appear at Holyrood and discuss the issue of judicial interests in public. Among those speaking in support of the petition, MSP Neil Findlay condemned Lord Gill’s failure to attend as “an outrage”.
Mr MacAskill previously opposed the creation of a register of judicial interests, however he said in ‘scripted’ letters to the committee it was up to Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill to create such a register if he was so minded. Lord Gill fiercely opposes any wider disclosure of judicial interests.
Petition PE1458 – a proposal to increase judicial transparency and 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.
The proposal to create a register of judicial interests is also widely supported in the media, and has the backing of Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali – who gave her support for the petition during an evidence session before MSPs at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee last September, 2013.
However, top judge Lord Gill has waged a bitter two year war against the proposal. The Lord President branded media as “aggressive” and complained court users would end up invading the privacy of judges - who have since been revealed to have criminal records, offshore interests, and investments in companies convicted of bribes, industrial espionage, bid rigging and other offences around the world.
Scottish Ministers are also against the plan to disclose all of the judiciary’s interests. Legal Affairs Minister Roseanna Cunningham attempted to justify the present status quo citing judicial oaths and rules – written by the judges themselves as an adequate safeguard.
The Minister’s input during the October debate at Holyrood had little effect in helping the embattled top judge who is widely seen to have played a flawed hand in refusing to show up before the Petitions Committee to answer questions from politicians.
MSPs who spoke in support of the petition during the October debate on judicial interests were critical of Lord Gill for failing to show up in public. Scottish Labour MSP Neil Findlay condemned Lord Gill’s failure to attend as “an outrage”.
During a speech in support of the proposal to call judges to account for their interests, Mr Findlay said: “.. we should have a register with clear rules that leave no one in any doubt about who and what should be registered. Is it really a surprise to people that the legal establishment does not want such a register, and is it not an outrage that Lord Gill had such contempt for this Parliament that he refused to attend a particular meeting? Does that not make people even more suspicious of his motives?”
Highlighting the fact Gill flew to Qatar for a six day state visit yet refused to show up at Holyrood, MSP John Wilson MSP said of Lord Gill’s non attendance: “Clearly, we must ask why we cannot have a register. No doubt the associated media coverage of Lord Gill’s non-appearance at the Public Petitions Committee has led to him being given the title of Lord No-No. That is not something that I particularly welcome, although, quite frankly, it seems to have a degree of merit for an individual who spent six days in Qatar to give a speech about transparency and judicial regulation that lasted one hour, but who could not find the courtesy to accept an invitation from a mandatory committee of this Parliament.”
Despite opposition from Scottish Ministers and judicial opposition, 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
A date for MacAskill’s appearance before MSPs is yet to be announced.
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)
The Convener: The next petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.
Members will know that this has been a long, hard-work saga for the committee. I thank all members for their thoughtful contributions in the plenary debate that we had. Mr Cherbi has written to us to suggest that we take careful note of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer's annual report for 2014 and that we invite Kenny MacAskill to appear before the committee to talk about the judicial oaths issues. It was also argued that we should write to the Lord President seeking an update on changes to the rules on complaints about the judiciary.
There are a few issues for members to look at. I ask for members' views on whether those suggestions would be acceptable.
Chic Brodie: This saga will not go away. I have a couple of things to say. One is that the JCR has left and, as far as I am aware, no replacement has been announced.
The Convener: I understand that the Government has appointed a new Judicial Complaints Reviewer.
Chic Brodie: That was probably done during the recess.
It is also important that we receive the JCR's report unexpurgated, so that we can take a definitive view of something that is close to the problem, and we should ensure that the Lord President is encouraged to let us know as soon as possible what changes have been made to the rules on complaints. He will have had the JCR's report.
The Convener: Do members agree with Peter Cherbi's suggestion to invite Kenny MacAskill to appear before us?
Members indicated agreement.
The Convener: The other suggestion, which I hope makes sense, is that we get the JCR's report. We can have that in a written format, as the previous JCR has left. In addition, does the committee agree to write to the Lord President for an update on changes to the rules on complaints about the judiciary?
In fairness, there was a change regarding recusals—instances when a judge decides not to take part in a case because there is some conflict—and there has been a register of them since April. I identified that in my speech in the plenary debate. At the time I spoke, there were 14 instances. There is now a website, which is an improvement. I am glad that the Lord President has taken the issue on board, and that move helps. I do not suggest that it fully satisfies the petitioner, but a move in the right direction is always welcome.
John Wilson: I agree that things have moved in the petition's direction of travel. I accept your comment, convener, about the fact that the register of recusals is now available on the website, but I would seek the Lord President's clarification of whether those recusals were voluntary. Judges may still be sitting on cases in which they have an interest.
I would like some clarification. I know of a recent case in which a judge recused herself because she was a member of an organisation from which she was about to hear evidence. As we still do not have a register of interest for judges, is it still very much up to individual judges to decide whether they feel that an interest is relevant and whether to recuse themselves from a case?
The Convener: The Lord President could give you a definitive answer on that. My understanding comes from the discussions that I and Mr Brodie had with the Lord President and from my reading of the website, which contained a list of 14 recusals when I looked at it. Most of those recusals were made because there was a conflict in relation to personal issues—for example, the judge knew a witness. As far as I could see, there were no financial issues involved at all.
I am not sure about any involuntary recusals that have taken place. In all the cases in the list that I saw, the judge had said, "There is a conflict and I do not want to appear in this case." We might need to get some comments from the Lord President on the matter. I was going to suggest that we invite him to the committee, but we have already covered that subject.
Jackson Carlaw: The recommendations that have been made are appropriate. With reference to the debate, the Law Society of Scotland has subsequently been keen to assure me that any indirect briefing that I may have received that suggested that the society regards this committee as being of any less value than any other committee of the Parliament certainly did not represent its views. I was happy to accept that reassurance, given that the impression might have been created in the debate that the Lord President somehow felt that he would prefer not to appear before this committee because it was not covering weighty matters that required his direct attention. I am happy to be reassured that that is not the Law Society's view.
The Convener: I am pleased that you have raised that matter and that the Law Society has put those comments to you. They are now on the record.
Are members satisfied with the suggested course of action? First, we will invite Kenny MacAskill to appear before us; secondly, we will get in written form the annual report from the JCR, which we can discuss when it comes before the committee; and, thirdly, we will write to the Lord President seeking an update on changes to the rules on complaints about the judiciary. In particular, we will highlight John Wilson's point about involuntary recusals, in which a judge does not wish to raise a matter but is approached about not taking the case.
Chic Brodie: I want to come back to the JCR's report. I am not suggesting that anything wrong has been done. However, given the strength of the incumbent's view regarding the register of interests, it is important that we see the naked report in order to get a true evaluation of whether anything has moved on.
The Convener: Yes.
Angus MacDonald: Is there a deadline by which the report is due? According to the petitioner's letter, it is due soon.
The Convener: My assumption is that it is almost upon us. The previous JCR has completed her term of office, so I assume that the work in 2014 of which she has been a part will be available very soon. We will ask the clerks to chase it up.
John Wilson: I also ask the clerks, in chasing it up, to get clarification of when the JCR's report was submitted to the Lord President. My understanding is that the report may be on the desk of the Lord President at present. Given that the JCR gave up her post during the summer, it would be interesting to find out when the report will be released.
The Convener: That is a good point—thank you. Do members agree with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
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
Will Kenny bring the usual backup team from ScotGov justice to stamp on anyone asking difficult questions?
ReplyDeleteLaw Society must have slapped Jackson Carlaw around a bit for him to come out with that one!
ReplyDeleteSo Lord Gill's secretary is going to the committee to give the views of his boss instead of Gill showing up in person.Cowardly or what.
ReplyDeleteNeil Findlay is correct - it is an outrage Gill refused to go to the Parliament and it is also an outrage judges are allowed to defy this register of interests petition - they should already be declaring all their interests and people should be suspicious of judges refusing to do it.
ReplyDeleteAnyone spotted this part yet?seems to be about 5mins into the video clip.Jackson Carlaw forced to correct himself by the Law Society!
ReplyDeleteJackson Carlaw: The recommendations that have been made are appropriate. With reference to the debate, the Law Society of Scotland has subsequently been keen to assure me that any indirect briefing that I may have received that suggested that the society regards this committee as being of any less value than any other committee of the Parliament certainly did not represent its views. I was happy to accept that reassurance, given that the impression might have been created in the debate that the Lord President somehow felt that he would prefer not to appear before this committee because it was not covering weighty matters that required his direct attention. I am happy to be reassured that that is not the Law Society's view.
The Convener: I am pleased that you have raised that matter and that the Law Society has put those comments to you. They are now on the record.
What is MacAsskill going to say at this hearing?Is he going to sit there and defend judges having shares in bribes firms and Lord NO-NO refusing to show up and then say everything is hunky dory and no register needed??
ReplyDeleteSeems to me both of them should resign as both are a disgrace to Scotland and the justice system both more concerned with protecting themselves than justice and thank goodness someone is around to write about this properly instead of spoon fed dribble on the beeb.
Expect more weasel words fro McRoadkill.
ReplyDeleteI just hope the Committee give home a two word reply......the second one is OFF!
MacAskill to give a live performance on behalf of shadowy figure Lord Gill who prefers backroom venues to cameras..
ReplyDeleteKenny will be summoned to Lord Gill's office before appearing at the committee so he follows Brian's script to the letter!
ReplyDeleteMcAskill keeps coming across like a Scottish lawyer. Arrogant as if they are above the law.
ReplyDeleteHere's some pertinent question for Kenny MacAskill to answer before the Scottish Public Petitions Committee.
ReplyDeleteQ. Did you know that convicted criminals were passing themselves off as Judges?
Q. If yes, how long have you known this?
Q. If no, who has kept this a secret from you?
Q. What have you done/ are you going to do about this miscarriage of justice?
The Law Society of Scotland scriptwriters will be kept busy.
ReplyDeleteMy vote for the new Labour Scotland Leader will be MSP Neil Findlay.
ReplyDeleteHe has a great understanding of the difference between right and wrong and is a democrat that will seek to repair Scotland's rotten and bloated Justice System and the unprosecutorial Scottish lawyers
No doubt the Law Society of Scotland's File on him will be being updated and their whispers behind his back to ruin his chances will already be put in operation
I see they now get the issue about recusals,reading what the convener said
ReplyDelete"Most of those recusals were made because there was a conflict in relation to personal issues—for example, the judge knew a witness. As far as I could see, there were no financial issues involved at all.
I am not sure about any involuntary recusals that have taken place. In all the cases in the list that I saw, the judge had said, "There is a conflict and I do not want to appear in this case." We might need to get some comments from the Lord President on the matter. I was going to suggest that we invite him to the committee, but we have already covered that subject."
This has to be thoroughly investigated because the list on the judicial website lacks any credibility.
MacAskill is going to look and sound such an idiot or even worse if he sits there pontificating about how good judges are compared with the headlines around him!
ReplyDeleteWell done!
lol @Carlaw!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnyone spotted this part yet?seems to be about 5mins into the video clip.Jackson Carlaw forced to correct himself by the Law Society!
Jackson Carlaw: The recommendations that have been made are appropriate. With reference to the debate, the Law Society of Scotland has subsequently been keen to assure me that any indirect briefing that I may have received that suggested that the society regards this committee as being of any less value than any other committee of the Parliament certainly did not represent its views. I was happy to accept that reassurance, given that the impression might have been created in the debate that the Lord President somehow felt that he would prefer not to appear before this committee because it was not covering weighty matters that required his direct attention. I am happy to be reassured that that is not the Law Society's view.
The Convener: I am pleased that you have raised that matter and that the Law Society has put those comments to you. They are now on the record.
7 November 2014 21:51
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jackson Carlaw's cryptic statement is highly significant.
In the first instance he has divulged the Law Society of Scotland's 'behind the scenes view' that The Lord President is above Parliament and does not need to lower himself to pay any attention to the MSP's at the Public Petitions Committee.
Of course, the Law Society of Scotland were very quick to use their behind the scenes influence to bully and force Jackson Carlaw to retract this reality, which shows the unelected and insidious power that the Law Society of Scotland have been handed by Alex Salmond and Kenny MacRaskill.
Where the Law Society of Scotland are concerned if you give them a penny they will take several pounds and their power grab is at the root of this stand-off between democracy and self-serving betrayal of justice in pursuit of cash.
I wonder, does Kenny McAskill get to read these Law Society of Scotland pre-prepared scripts in advance of these committee meetings because it sounds as though he just reads them out, then slouches back in his seat with his arms folded. Job done!
ReplyDeleteHow long can we afford to allow the Law Society of Scotland to organise this multi million pound fraud to allow Scottish lawyers to steal from the Tax Payer?
ReplyDeleteWhat Jackson Carlaw said in the debate and watching the video clip of him talking is a lot more consistent with known methods of Law Society behind the scenes back slapping.
ReplyDeleteJackson Carlaw in the debate - "From briefings that I have heard from the Law Society of Scotland, it seems that it does not think that the Public Petitions Committee of this Parliament is a grand enough committee to command the Lord President’s attention. The suggestion seemed to be that if it was a subject committee such as the Justice Committee, that would be fair enough, but all manner of petitions could come forward and the Lord President would have to present himself. That is not the way the Public Petitions Committee conducts itself at all. We thought that the petition made a serious argument that ought to be examined."
Now Mr Carlaw says this -
Jackson Carlaw: With reference to the debate, the Law Society of Scotland has subsequently been keen to assure me that any indirect briefing that I may have received that suggested that the society regards this committee as being of any less value than any other committee of the Parliament certainly did not represent its views. I was happy to accept that reassurance, given that the impression might have been created in the debate that the Lord President somehow felt that he would prefer not to appear before this committee because it was not covering weighty matters that required his direct attention. I am happy to be reassured that that is not the Law Society's view.
The Convener: I am pleased that you have raised that matter and that the Law Society has put those comments to you. They are now on the record.
Carlaw sounded more believable the first time around at the debate and he knows it.So do the others going by their reactions.
ReplyDeleteObviously the Law Society are one of the forces campaigning against judges declaring their interests.
No need to wonder why.Judiciary and Law Society are major power players in the justice system for their own mutual benefit over that of anyone else including the rest of us.
Hope they give MacAskill a good grilling!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHere's some pertinent question for Kenny MacAskill to answer before the Scottish Public Petitions Committee.
Q. Did you know that convicted criminals were passing themselves off as Judges?
Q. If yes, how long have you known this?
Q. If no, who has kept this a secret from you?
Q. What have you done/ are you going to do about this miscarriage of justice?
8 November 2014 13:36
----------------------------------------
I can see it now. The same answer as the Law Society of Scotland's SSDT, there are different levels of dishonesty for a Scottish Judge that means they can continue to be a judge, as this conviction is not as serious as the same conviction as the Scottish Public get and it is acceptable to keep this a secret from the Scottish Public.
Only in Scotland!
It is to be hoped - and it is given past experience a pretty threadbare hope - that Neil Findlay's Lobbying Bill currently before the Scottish Parliament is passed in full and quickly.
ReplyDeleteThe signs are at present that MacAskill and his cronies at the Law Society of Scotland prefer to delay and see it kicked into the long grass, I wonder why?
What Jackson Carlaw said in the debate and watching the video clip of him talking is a lot more consistent with known methods of Law Society behind the scenes back slapping.
ReplyDeleteJackson Carlaw in the debate - "From briefings that I have heard from the Law Society of Scotland, it seems that it does not think that the Public Petitions Committee of this Parliament is a grand enough committee to command the Lord President’s attention. The suggestion seemed to be that if it was a subject committee such as the Justice Committee, that would be fair enough, but all manner of petitions could come forward and the Lord President would have to present himself. That is not the way the Public Petitions Committee conducts itself at all. We thought that the petition made a serious argument that ought to be examined."
Now Mr Carlaw says this -
Jackson Carlaw: With reference to the debate, the Law Society of Scotland has subsequently been keen to assure me that any indirect briefing that I may have received that suggested that the society regards this committee as being of any less value than any other committee of the Parliament certainly did not represent its views. I was happy to accept that reassurance, given that the impression might have been created in the debate that the Lord President somehow felt that he would prefer not to appear before this committee because it was not covering weighty matters that required his direct attention. I am happy to be reassured that that is not the Law Society's view.
The Convener: I am pleased that you have raised that matter and that the Law Society has put those comments to you. They are now on the record.
9 November 2014 17:51
---------------------------------------
So, we now know that the Law Society of Scotland have dropped The Lord President in the shit by briefing Committee Members about The Lord President's utter contempt for them and for the Scottish People?
Their attempt to stop this deliberate leak is too late. We can now see the underhand way that the Law Society of Scotland act to subvert the law and to inveigle situations to their benefit?
A criminal organisation exposed?
Who needs enemies when you count on the Law Society of Scotland as your friend?
The justice jokester MacAskill will be doing rehersals with Gill on what not to say
ReplyDeleteand why not! It will be good to see MacAskill sit there and defend corrupt cheating judges from the same laws applying to the rest of us!
ReplyDeleteGood work getting it this far and all this information you have put in the public domain.
I feel a bit sorry for Jackson Carlaw having to say that in an open debate.Almost gives away the possibility the Law Society are running the show.Although maybe this was his intention all along given the way he said it!
ReplyDeleteWe know that MacAskill is in league with the Law Society of Scotland and the Judiciary to keep their games a secret from the Scottish Public?
ReplyDeleteHe was an irrelevance as a Justice Secretary and will go down in history as being a highly divisive figure as regards the truth and I do not see the point in speaking to yesterday's man when he is in the process of being ceremoniously dumped out into the street for deeds done against the Scottish People to protect his lawyer colleagues?
It will be interesting to see who the Law Society of Scotland have selected as our next Scottish Justice Secretary?
09:49
ReplyDeleteAgree - his latest sounds incredulous compared to debate speech.
Law Society feeling the heat?
Highlighting the fact Gill flew to Qatar for a six day state visit yet refused to show up at Holyrood, MSP John Wilson MSP said of Lord Gill’s non attendance: “Clearly, we must ask why we cannot have a register. No doubt the associated media coverage of Lord Gill’s non-appearance at the Public Petitions Committee has led to him being given the title of Lord No-No. That is not something that I particularly welcome, although, quite frankly, it seems to have a degree of merit for an individual who spent six days in Qatar to give a speech about transparency and judicial regulation that lasted one hour, but who could not find the courtesy to accept an invitation from a mandatory committee of this Parliament.”
ReplyDeleteDrag Gill along to Holyrood!
It is not for him to say when he doesnt show up it is for the parliament.Gill is unelected the parliament is elected and therefor the will of the people not the will of some judge hiding something.
Patronise patronise patronise, the Law Society of Scotland told me to do it!
ReplyDeleteHow are the rehearsals going,Kenny?
ReplyDeleteHow does that one go about judges who are crooks and tax dodgers dont need to declare their interests because they take an oath?LOL!
MacAskill is to Scotland what swimming with a millstone round your neck is like
ReplyDeleteMacAskill will refuse to go to the Public Petitions Committee because he is an untouchable Scottish lawyer and is above the law in Scotland and stands outwith the touch of non Scottish lawyer MSP's
ReplyDeleteTalk about a two-tiered Scottish Parliament
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteand why not! It will be good to see MacAskill sit there and defend corrupt cheating judges from the same laws applying to the rest of us!
Good work getting it this far and all this information you have put in the public domain.
11 November 2014 00:52
:;;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:
I imagine that hundreds of thousands of Scots will be tuning in to Scottish Parliament TV to watch the latest lies from MacAskill and his sycophantic sooking-up to the Law Society of Scotland and his indefensible defence of the Scottish Judiciary.
What a creep.
Kenny McRaskill must really hate the Scottish People to fully endorse the Scottish Court Reform legislation?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point in having a Justice Secretary who is totally and fundamentally opposed to the Scottish People having a fair Justice System?
Hopefully Nicola Sturgeon will be smarter over the choice of the new Scottish Justice Secretary and will stand up to the Law Society of Scotland to oppose their selection of Scotland's Justice Secretary?
Word is that the Law Society of Scotland have already pre-selected Roseanna Cunningham, which was sealed after her fawningly creepy defence of The Lord President's untenable position?
MacAskill was until recently protected by the Scottish Legal Mafia, the Law Society of Scotland.
ReplyDeleteNow that he has served his purpose by slavishly following his masters commands at each and every turn like a puppet on a string, he is about to be burnt and discarded onto the 'remember that guy' pile of the forgotten.
Maybe then he will wake up to reality and it will haunt him.