Monday, December 08, 2014

JUDGING THE JUDGES: Scotland’s Judicial Watchdog’s report reveals an ermine world of racism, bullying, conflicts of interest & secret tape recordings made by judges out to dodge scrutiny

Judicial Investigator Moi Ali finds judges guilty in final report. SCOTLAND’S first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), Moi Ali, has published her final and highly critical annual report on how judges handle complaints against their colleagues. The stinging attack on Scotland’s judiciary reveals details of cases including alleged racial bigotry, bullying, lying, omitting details from records, conflicts of interest, and even making secret recordings of meetings.

In one case, Ms Ali details a complaint made by a journalist against a judge who cleared the media from a court case – even though similar cases previously had been heard with journalists present. Another case involved a complaint filed by a mother on behalf of her disabled son. The complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Office because the judge may not have been able to recall events due to a “time gap”.

Another case related to an alleged conflict of interest and failure of a judge to recuse, with specific information provided regarding a relative of the judge. The Judicial Office dismissed that part of the complaint and when the matter was referred by the JCR to the Lord President Lord Brian Gill, he revoked the initial dismissal, referred it to a determining judge who went on to find ‘nothing of concern’.

The JCR also found breaches of complaints rules in a case  involving an alleged “outburst of racial bigotry” by a judicial office holder. Within this case, it was also alleged by the person who made the complaint that “The official record had been falsified to omit the racist comment.”

In another case review, the JCR revealed that an organisation who works closely with the courts and when they tried resolve matter with the judge – he secretly recorded their meetings.

The JCR’s report in the secret recordings case states: “Over a number of years various members of staff within the organisation had difficulties with the conduct of a JOH, which they sought to resolve informally. The situation was ongoing but matters came to a head due to a cluster of incidents. A formal complaint was made to the Judicial Office about bullying.”

“During the investigation, it came to light that the JOH had made recordings of meetings. Organisation F lodged a further complaint about these allegedly covert recordings (Review 2). The original complaints about the JOH were investigated - without Organisation F's witnesses being interviewed. It was not upheld. The complaint about covert recordings was not investigated. Organisation F was not told that it would not be investigated.”

Moi Ali was appointed Judicial Complaints Reviewer in 2011 but announced her decision to quit her role earlier this year after describing her role & function to MSPs investigating judicial transparency - as “window dressing”. Previously Ms Ali had requested the now sacked Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill give greater powers to the JCR. MacAskill refused, leaving the office in limbo and at the mercy of Scotland’s top judge – Lord Brian Gill – who must himself approve any changes to the remit of the JCR.

And in spite of promising new complaints rules, Scotland’s top judge the Lord President Lord Brian Gill is still to act over a year after his consultation on changing the rules around judicial complaints.

Moi Ali also continues to support the creation of a register of interests for Scotland's judiciary as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

Ms 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, wrote in her 2014 annual report: “I continue to be of the view that a register of interests would increase transparency, enhance public confidence in the judiciary, and reduce complaints numbers and review requests.”

The Sunday Mail newspaper reported on the Judicial Complaints Reviewer’s 2014 annual report here:

WATCHDOG'S WITHERING ATTACK ON JUDICIARY

MY FINAL VERDICT ON JUDGES? A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES

Investigator says she got no co-operation and only met law chief once in three years

By Mark Aitken Political Editor Sunday Mail 07 December 2014

A former watchdog who probed complaints about legal chiefs has hit out at Scotland's judges in her farewell report.

Moi Ali was appointed the country's first ever judicial complaints reviewer in 2011 but announced her decision to quit earlier this year because she had no power and the role was "tokenistic".

Her final report details complaints of alleged racial bigotry, bullying, lying, conflicts of interest and making secret recordings of meetings.

And Ali, who left the role in August, reveals Scotland's top judge, Lord Gill,only met her once.

She said: "Unfortunately, there has been little interest in the positive difference that the JCR could make.

"Although I have had a good working relationship with the judicial office, I have met the Lord President just once in three years.

"My interactions with both the Lord President's office and the judicial office have focused more on what I cannot do rather than what I can do and as such, an opportunity for whole system improvement has been lost.

Reform campaigner Peter Cherbi said: The current system of judges slapping each other on the back and dealing  with their own complaints is clearly unfit for purpose.

"Ms Ali found investigations by the judicial office were delayed for months, officials were confused as to their own procedures, and complaints were treated with the disdain.

"One complaint filed by a mother on behalf of her disabled son was kicked out because too much time had passed and the judge could have forgotten the events. There's not much point in having judges who forget what they had for breakfast but can remember to pick up a £200,000 salary and all the expenses trappings of judicial office."

Independent MSP John Wilson said:"It is up to the new justice Secretary to take a serious look at the report by Moi Ali and develop a system that is independent of the Lord President to bring confidence in the judicial review process."

A judicial office spokesman said: "The judicial office has fully co-operated and will continue to work with the judicial complaints reviewer to take forward the recommendations of the Lord President's consultation on the complaints process.

JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS, SCOTLAND 2014:

Report of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer 2013-2014. Moi Ali wrote in her report: When I accepted the office, it was in order to make a difference and I do believe that I have had an impact, albeit a more limited one than I had hoped at the outset. My aim was to work with the Judicial Office and the Lord President to help shape a fair, user-friendly, user-centric and transparent complaints system. I saw my role as not only reviewing the handling of complaints, but also using my insights into the complaints system to work in partnership to bring about improvements to the system as a whole. I believed that my wider observations could be fed into the justice system. For example, from my unique independent viewpoint I have seen from my complaints reviews that there are potential issues around communications training for the judiciary. My observations were an opportunity to inform and improve judicial training, to help avert future complaints and to provide a better court experience for everyone.

Unfortunately there has been little interest in the positive difference that the JCR could make. Although I have had a good working relationship with the Judicial Office, I have met the Lord President just once in three years. My interactions with both the Lord President's office and the Judicial Office have focussed more on what I cannot do rather than what I can do, and as such an opportunity for whole- system improvement has been lost.

Over the last few months of my term of office there were positive developments at the Judicial Office. I was recently invited to work with their team on reviewing their standard letters to complainers to help make them clearer and more user-friendly. I was critical of these letters from the outset and was delighted to be involved.

Another success is achieving the Lord President's agreement that he will now share a summary of the key findings of investigations with complainers, having initially decided that he would not. Complainers quite reasonably expect to see the findings of any investigation into their complaint. Sharing a summary is a big step forward in terms of transparency, but it still does not go far enough. I cannot see why, in most cases, the full investigation report cannot routinely be shared with both complainers and complained-about.

Last year I reported that the Lord President told me that "third parties" such as the JCR could not be given information relating to outcomes of my referrals for reasons of confidentiality. As my role is an integral part of the complaints process, I was surprised that I would not be informed of the outcome of my own referrals, especially as I would have already seen the full details of each complaint. Following correspondence with the Lord President's office, I am pleased that he has reconsidered the matter and agreed that this will now be shared with the JCR. Although a welcome development, again it does not go far enough. In England and Wales, the outcomes of investigations, when upheld, are published on the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office's (JCIO) website. Greater transparency builds public confidence.

When I became JCR in 2011, there was no appetite among the judiciary for an independent complaints reviewer and I have seen no evidence that that position has changed. There was also scepticism among the public about the role. The feeling was that the JCR would be in the pocket of government, or the judiciary - or both. I have asserted my independence, to the extent that both government and the judiciary have at times felt uncomfortable. My stance has helped build public trust and confidence in the office, even if frustrations have been voiced about the lack of powers of the JCR. It is vital that the public and the judiciary can appreciate the value of the JCR to a fair complaints system. I have won part of the battle, with the public. I hope my successor is successful in persuading the judiciary of the benefits.

In just over three years of the new complaints regime, the Judicial Office's published statistics show that of 313 complaints received, there were 22 investigations. These resulted in one judicial office holder apologising for his or her conduct and no judicial office holders being disciplined. This may explain why no JOH has sought to have their case reviewed by the JCR: only a finding against the JOH would be likely to result in their making a review request. My previous experience of being a member of the review process in England and Wales bears this out: JOHs challenged when the finding is against them; not when it is in their favour.

The Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee has received a copy of Moi Ali’s report. MSPs are due to debate Petition PE1458 again tomorrow, Tuesday 9 December, and hear evidence from Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse. 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

69 comments:

Anonymous said...

I for one am not surprised there are racist thugs among our judges and the one with the recording should be sacked and put on trial along with all the others dodging scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

Wheelhouse will be doing all his rehearsals tonight after a good seeing to by the judges..tomorrow should be fun to watch and your inevitable write up on it.

Good work as always Peter and congratulations to Moi Ali breaking the truth about judges to MSPs in such a way they understood it.

Anonymous said...

Reform campaigner Peter Cherbi said: The current system of judges slapping each other on the back and dealing with their own complaints is clearly unfit for purpose.

"Ms Ali found investigations by the judicial office were delayed for months, officials were confused as to their own procedures, and complaints were treated with the disdain.

"One complaint filed by a mother on behalf of her disabled son was kicked out because too much time had passed and the judge could have forgotten the events. There's not much point in having judges who forget what they had for breakfast but can remember to pick up a £200,000 salary and all the expenses trappings of judicial office."

Good stuff Peter love your quotes I saw them in the paper yesterday hope the crooked judge involved is taking note.

How about some powers for the JCR whoever the new Justice minister is??

Anonymous said...

of course we all know what judges think of disabled people and how they should not be treated I have heard plenty in the courts before about cases chucked out by judges who make nasty snide comments about people with disabilities

Anonymous said...

and my final verdict on the judges? Drag Gill to the parliament and get him to apologize for covering up all his pals interests and crookery

Anonymous said...

It is becoming crystal clear that the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Judiciary (with the help of the Scottish Crown Office) have been making the rules up as they go along to suit themselves, so that Scottish lawyers employed in a variety of positions are allowed to be above the law and they simply do not recognise any of the laws of the land, considering them only to apply to the common people, whilst they use their self-awarded un-prosecutable status to grab as much of the country's cash as quickly as they can and they have been hiding behind secrecy and threats so that the Scottish Public are kept in the dark as to what they are doing behind their backs?

The scale of this criminality is out-of-control?

Anonymous said...

My God! Does Scotland and the Sottish People need this woman! If only there were more like her.

She gets my vote for any post of a truly independent regulator WITH TEETH to oversee the the longsince dysfunctional scottish legal system - including oversight of the notorious Law Society of Scotland and its minions.

This of course would require any so-called 'Scottish' politician to have the best interests of the Scottish Public at heart, and the backbone to appoint her....that means YOU NICOLA STURGEON!

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Anonymous said...

your judges have become so bad just think how big this problem is and other judges are not have their interests to register it is time to have register

Anonymous said...

What is the point in having Rules, when Scottish lawyers are allowed to ignore them?

Anonymous said...

Moi Ali has proven herself to be truthful and transparent yet she has been treated appallingly by the Scottish Judges. The only reason for this is that they have lots to hide from the Scottish Public and is yet more corroboration that many Scottish Judges and Sheriff's are unfit to do their job and are taking Tax Payers hard earned cash under false pretences?

Scottish Judges demand respect because they are Scottish lawyers who believe they are owed a free lunch instead of commanding respect by showing by their actions that they have a character above reproach?

Anonymous said...

All this talk of judicial independence is being used to mask corruption and poor judges out for their own gain - it is glaringly obvious to everyone.

Anonymous said...

What the Hell are Scotland's Judges playing at?

If you are fixing complaints and getting rid of valid complaints, then all you are doing is hiding the fact that the System is broken and not fit for purpose?

If Moi Ali has assessed this over a very short period of time, how bad must it really be over say the past ten years?

It sounds as though instead of going to a Scottish Court, you are safer going to arbitration or going to someone to resolve these differences rather than trusting a Scottish Court?

Scottish Judges and Sheriffs have brought this calamity on their own heads and have as a collective by their own actions brought the Scottish Judiciary into disrepute?

Anonymous said...

Judges secretly recording victims groups have no place in the justice system - this judge should be sacked and up on charges

Anonymous said...

Great work by Moi Ali and good to see it covered in the papers.John Wilson is correct the judicial complaints must be taken away from judges.

Law Society habits of Judges looking after their pals is not on just as it is not on anywhere else.

Anonymous said...

In my Scottish Judges are utterly corrupt, an archaic out of touch band of criminals.

I am Glad Miss Ali report demonstrated what we already knew, the system is corrupt prejudiced and detached from any regulation.

Anonymous said...

WATCHDOG'S WITHERING ATTACK ON JUDICIARY

MY FINAL VERDICT ON JUDGES? A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES.
------------------------------------
Yes all lawyers are a law unto themselves. A sickening corrupt band of criminals who appear not to be criminals but they all are.

Anonymous said...

"One complaint filed by a mother on behalf of her disabled son was kicked out because too much time had passed and the judge could have forgotten the events. There's not much point in having judges who forget what they had for breakfast but can remember to pick up a £200,000 salary and all the expenses trappings of judicial office."

Yes - the judges can pick up their cheques and fly around the world but when it comes to admitting their own mistakes or revealing their interests oh no we cant have that chaps!

Bunch of criminals probably even bigger criminals than the ones appearing in front of them.

Anonymous said...

Heard today the cops like your petition because they are fed up of arresting crooks who get away with it because of some dodgy judge and crown running interference on behalf of their pals in the private world

Anonymous said...

The JCR also found breaches of complaints rules in a case involving an alleged “outburst of racial bigotry” by a judicial office holder. Within this case, it was also alleged by the person who made the complaint that “The official record had been falsified to omit the racist comment.”

Judges altering court records to protect themselves - This should prove to anyone Scotland's courts are not a safe place for anyone because when the judges or court staff falsify the records there is no justice.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Judges secretly recording victims groups have no place in the justice system - this judge should be sacked and up on charges

9 December 2014 at 15:08
---------------------------------------

Clearly, the judgement exercised by this Scottish Judge is typical of the behaviour of Judges in Scotland?

Untrustworthy?

Anonymous said...

The so called 'legal' system in Scotland has been shown to be unfit for purpose from top to bottom thanks to DOI's tenacious reporting - backed up by independent and objective evidence.

As an earlier report suggested, no sane person from abroad would touch it with a bargepole, for obvious reasons.

Congratulations on exposing the truth.

Anonymous said...

Moi Ali has removed the cork in the bottle. The Genie has escaped and we now all know that Scottish lawyers are a privileged sect in Society who are above the law and have been holding Scotland to ransom for decades?

Scotland does not belong to Scottish lawyers, the Law Society of Scotland or The Lord President (State visit to Qatar)?

Can we have our own country back please?

You have stolen her, abused her and drained the life-blood from her veins?

No more!

We want a Scottish Judiciary that is honest and transparent, not one which operates on secrecy and lies?

Anonymous said...

Judges have made it so they are a law unto themselves the world over not just in Scotland.

It is time to end this self imposed secrecy and untouchable status and make the judges account to all of us who have to pay their salaries.

Keep up the good work folks.

Anonymous said...

Traditionally Scottish Judges were considered immune from prosecution because they all had characters above reproach and it was considered unthinkable that a Scottish Judge could ever break the law, therefore the Scottish Public were protected?

Changed days?

Moi Ali has revealed that what has been going on behind oak panelled doors involves, lies, cover-ups and self serving behaviour where standards have slipped to such a degree that Scottish Judges now believe that them being convicted criminals does not harm their Judgement and ability to do their jobs?

Scotland's Judiciary is broken beyond repair and their own actions have resulted in complete mistrust in them by the Scottish Public?

We need to get rid of the rotten element within the Scottish Judiciary, Scottish Court System and within the Law Society of Scotland, so that we can reset things back to a time when the Scottish Public could trust the Scottish Judiciary?

Moi Ali should be commended and awarded for her principled stance not victimised and spat out like what has happened?

Whoever engineered her resignation is not acting on behalf of the Scottish Public, rather they are acting for self serving self interests?

Anonymous said...

Where would we be without the Whistleblowers Moi Ali and Peter Cherbi?

Anonymous said...

Agreed on the taping judge needs investigation and probably more.Why did the courts try to say it was okay for court time to be recorded when this was a meeting instead of court?

Cant trust anyone these days certainly not a judge!

Anonymous said...

The way Moi Ali has been treated is disgusting and to think that the crooks responsible for her demise still remain in charge shows just how corrupt Scotland has been allowed to become?

Anonymous said...

Why are judges allowed to get away with secretly recording people?The judge was obviously up to something to begin with and now there is a judge running around spying on others and if one is doing it there will be more so what is the so-called "top judge" Lord Gill doing about it?

Anonymous said...

No complaints allowed about Scottish lawyers.

No complaints allowed about Scottish Judges.

One rule for one and a different rule for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Looks like they treat racism with more importance south of the border - a judge resigned but up here Gill and the judicial squad just covers it all up

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/i-quit-the-judge-who-said-that-anyone-called-patel-cant-be-working-anywhere-important.1417984418

I quit: the judge who said that anyone called Patel can't be working anywhere important
Sunday 7 December 2014

An English district judge has resigned after he allegedly told a court that a victim of crime "won't be working anywhere important" because her surname is Patel.

The Crown Prosecution Service said it made an official complaint about Deputy District Judge Richard Terrence Peter Hollingworth after his "inappropriate" comments about the harassment victim at Preston Magistrates' Court in Preston, Lancashire.

He allegedly made the racist remark after the prosecution said 22-year-old Deepa Patel might struggle to attend Preston Magistrates' Court at short notice for the sentencing of the defendant, the Sun on Sunday said.

He reportedly replied: "It won't be a problem. She won't be working anywhere important. She'll only be working in a shop or an off licence."

When the stunned prosecutor Rachel Parker asked him to clarify his comments he replied: "With a name like Patel, and her ethnic background, she won't be working anywhere important."

Ms Parker said she was "professionally embarrassed" after the incident in October and could no longer work on the case.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office confirmed that Judge Hollingworth has resigned as a district judge while his role as a first tier immigration judge is under review.

Anonymous said...

Judges and crooks one in the same!

Anonymous said...

Sturgeon is to give Lord Hardie the power to compel witnesses to attend the toy tram inquiry after everyone did a Lord No No why doesnt she do the same to get Lord No No to the parly!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30418785

The man leading the public inquiry into the Edinburgh trams fiasco has told how key figures refused "point blank" to co-operate.

In a BBC Scotland interview, Lord Hardie pledged his investigation would be tough and effective.

The Scottish government said last month the inquiry was to be given the power to compel witnesses to participate.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon took the decision after Lord Hardie reported he had encountered a lack of co-operation.

In his first broadcast interview since the start of the inquiry, Lord Hardie said: "Our preliminary investigations, contacting people who we thought might be of assistance, threw up the problem.

"Some people refused point blank to co-operate, others just didn't answer letters.

Anonymous said...

This shows the mendacity of Scottish Judges to misbehave and to break the law because they know that they have immunity from prosecution and they know that The Lord President has got their back and will throw out any complaint against them in order to allow them to continue as if no complaint was ever made?

What is the point of having a Scottish Judiciary when they cannot be trusted and the complaints process cannot be trusted?

No wonder courts across the land are being closed down due to a lack of cases because the Scottish Public have finally realised that it is barmy to use a Scottish Court?

You will notice though that the court staff and judges have not gone along with the court closures but instead they are transferred to other courts, where it is common sense to say that they are sharing the work at their new courts, which means that we are paying the same Scottish Judiciary to do less work?

Notice that at all or any cost the self serving self interests of Scottish Judges is their most important concern?

The same is true prior to these court closures, where it can be said that the reason the courts were closed was due to lack of work, therefore we were paying Scottish Judges for doing less work?

No wonder they have had plenty of time to fly all around the World on champagne charlie flights?

Anonymous said...

I don't see how your judges can ever recover from this report on their behavior towards complaints.Clearly the judiciary can no longer be trusted and we must face the fact they may never have been deserving of trust given the way they reacted towards your petition and Moi Ali's term as judicial investigator.

Anonymous said...

“During the investigation, it came to light that the JOH had made recordings of meetings. Organisation F lodged a further complaint about these allegedly covert recordings (Review 2). The original complaints about the JOH were investigated - without Organisation F's witnesses being interviewed. It was not upheld. The complaint about covert recordings was not investigated. Organisation F was not told that it would not be investigated.”

Imagine this coming out in court and a judge trying to deny it!

If the judges are at it others down the line are - probably anyone working in the courts could be secretly taping others so anyone dealing with this lot better watch out.

Anonymous said...

This is the most truth about the judiciary anyone will ever find and damn good blog you have too.How did Wheelhouse do at the committee?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 12 December 2014 at 10:11

There is evidence others who frequent court have also been making secret recordings ... including solicitors making secret recordings of their clients. An upcoming investigation will reveal more detail on this.

@ 12 December 2014 at 13:04

Paul Wheelhouse and the Petitions Committee will be covered next week as it is important people read this article on Moi Ali's final report as JCR and take the time to read the report document itself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Sturgeon is to give Lord Hardie the power to compel witnesses to attend the toy tram inquiry after everyone did a Lord No No why doesnt she do the same to get Lord No No to the parly!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30418785

The man leading the public inquiry into the Edinburgh trams fiasco has told how key figures refused "point blank" to co-operate.

In a BBC Scotland interview, Lord Hardie pledged his investigation would be tough and effective.

The Scottish government said last month the inquiry was to be given the power to compel witnesses to participate.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon took the decision after Lord Hardie reported he had encountered a lack of co-operation.

In his first broadcast interview since the start of the inquiry, Lord Hardie said: "Our preliminary investigations, contacting people who we thought might be of assistance, threw up the problem.

"Some people refused point blank to co-operate, others just didn't answer letters.

11 December 2014 at 09:26
--------------------------------------

The irony is not lost in that it was their Scottish lawyers that advised them not to cooperate?

More money for Scottish lawyers?

Anonymous said...

The judiciary must love you!

Anonymous said...

If we are to further the Rule of Law and promote Justice, Transparency and Accountability then Moi Ali must be the future?

If we want the opposite then it is business as usual with the current mob in control?

Anonymous said...

A big thanks to the Sterling efforts of Moi Ali and the Diary of Injustice journalists for opening the yes of the Scottish Public to the scandal going on behind our backs?

Please can you tell me, who is the Scottish Justice System serving because it is certainly not the Scottish Public?

It is almost as if there is a huge amount of Tax-Payer's money is being used to prop-up a whole industry of Scottish lawyers in order that they can live a life of privilege and perquisites at the expense of the Scottish Public?

These Scottish lawyers in their various guises seem to have taken over Scotland for their own selfish-self-serving desires?

Anonymous said...

I have had around a dozen meetings with my Legal Team and have yet to see a single copy of any of the minutes.

When I queried something that I was told at a previous consultation, they all denied it.

Is this normal behaviour from Scottish lawyers?

Anonymous said...

Quite a damning report and no escape for any of these judges.
The fact is the much praised Scottish justice is actually a pile of garbage run by paranoid despots for their business pleasure.
Same could also be said for other country's judges but you guys really got it bad.
Hope you overcome with people honest enough to write reports like this one.

Anonymous said...

The judge in our civil case was a nasty old git who kept refusing our expert witnesses while he let the other side (lawyers) witnesses drone on and on and we found out a couple of years later he did the same to someone else up against the same law firm so must be some kind of connection just as you say about their interests.

Our own case never came to a ruling because the other side settled then our lawyers took most of it in fees just to keep themselves happy.

Wouldnt advise court for anyone or bothering with lawyers because you are always going to get ripped off no matter what they say to you and the judges are always on their side.

Anonymous said...

Scotland is forever indebted to Moi Ali and the Diary of Injustice journalists for their admirable work against tyranny against the Scottish People?

Anonymous said...

Read the following link and see how Canada caught the Scottish/UK disease of corrupt judiciary selection.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/canada-judicial-appointments_b_5264567.html

J.J. McCullough

HuffPost Canada Media Critic

Canada Is Corrupt When it Comes to Choosing Judges
Posted: 05/05/2014 1:08 pm EDT Updated: 07/05/2014 5:59 am EDT

Here's a fun fact you probably didn't know -- Canadian judicial appointments are among the most corrupt in the entire world.

That's the opinion of the human rights watchdog group Global Integrity, at least, who gave the integrity of Canada's judicial appointments a pitiful 32 out of 100 in their 2010 survey on good governance around the globe.

On whether there's "a transparent procedure for selecting national-level judges" Canada received a flat "no." Our rating on whether "judges are appointed fairly" received an astonishing 17. Angola got 25. Hell, Bangladesh got 83.

The Global Integrity people observed a reality Canadians are taught to ignore: a political system in which senior judges are appointed solely by the Prime Minister, with no effort exerted whatsoever in making these appointments publicly visible or democratically accountable.

True, they concede, the current government has started convening a small parliamentary committee to vet appointments to the Supreme Court. Yet this committee "does not exist in law, but simply at the whim of the Prime Minister" and was specifically constructed to have "no power of any kind to resist let alone reject the Prime Minister's appointment." All other judges, and the members of most other senior quasi-judicial tribunals, are selected "without any public process," period.

Official Canadian mythology dictates this secrecy equals independence, which is to say, if ordinary Canadians or their elected representatives -- basically anyone other than the PM and whatever circle of flunkies have his ear -- were allowed to properly scrutinize judicial nominees before installation, the neutrality of the appointees would be compromised. Opinions would be learned, some wouldn't like what they heard, and the ideal of superhuman judges free of any human bias or failing would be lost.

It's a logic that crumbles if you think about it for more than a minute. Faith in an appointment process that's based around not learning things in favour of blindly trusting the man doing the picking is astonishingly naive and obviously prone to abuse -- particularly if the man in question delegates his powers to someone else entirely.

Yes, it gets worse. Because they're so busy with other things, our prime ministers have taken to outsourcing responsibility for judicial appointments to small committees of non-government lawyers. The lawyers pick names for the PM and expect a rubber stamp, which they usually get.

Such cliquey committees are dominated by members of the federal and provincial bar associations, and as such constitute a muscular assertion of special interest control over a critical government function. The tradition's helped breed a culture in which Canada's lawyer-judicial complex understands itself to be entirely self-governing, self-regulating, and self-perpetuating. One could say the Canadian judiciary is barely a branch of the government at all these days, but simply a free-floating thing unaccountable to anyone but the lawyers who get jobs and money from it.

Indeed, the fact that Prime Minister Harper's efforts to democratize Supreme Court appointments have gone nowhere -- why the parliamentary advisory committees have been so pathetic and toothless -- can be directly credited to the strength of the legal community's strident campaigning against anything remotely resembling the dreaded "American model" in which a candidate's fitness for judicial appointment is assessed in (gasp!) an open hearing where their resume and philosophy is permitted to be scrutinized by folks other than their lawyer buddies.

Anonymous said...

Part 2 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/canada-judicial-appointments_b_5264567.html

Another good case study was the current Chief Justice's eagerness to lobby Prime Minister Harper about a supposed "issue" with the proposed appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court last year, as recent gossip has now publicly exposed.

The controversy of Nadon's appointment centred around a vague clause of the Supreme Court Act which left it ambiguous whether the Court's Quebec seats had to be filled by a current member of the Quebec bar (which Nadon wasn't) as opposed to a former one (which Nadon was).

In March, the Supreme Court itself ruled 6-1 that Nadon was not qualified for an appointment. But we now know the Chief Justice already decided that months earlier.

In defending her lobbying, Chief Justice McLachlin's spokesman claimed her calls to the Prime Minister were merely to raise concerns "well-known within judicial and legal circles" about appointing a judge from Nadon's background, which presumed there not only existed an establishment consensus regarding what the vagaries of the Supreme Court Act really meant, but that the Chief Justice -- despite being only one vote on the court -- was qualified to share it.

It was a tremendously revealing episode of both the single-mindedness of the Canadian legal community and its expectation of preemptive veto over any idea (or judge) that contradicts their conventional wisdom. The Canadian Bar Association, needless to say, expects Harper to apologize.

The press has been keen to portray the Prime Minister's discomfort at the Chief Justice's lobbying as a sort of petty "spat" between a principled paragon of judicial virtue and a crass politician craving judicial subservience. And to be sure, the story has legs because of its usefulness as a cipher for the larger conflict between a right-leaning government with a tough-on crime agenda and a left-leaning judiciary eager to undermine it.

But the issue is much broader than a prime minister's satisfaction or displeasure with specific court rulings.

Canada's judicial branch does not exist to uphold the interests of lawyers' guilds or bow to their esoteric groupthink. It exists to ensure that justice is done, and when subjective ambiguities arise in laws and cases (which, let's be clear, is often) they are settled through debates that reflect a diversity of perspectives and opinions representative of Canadian society as a whole.

Canada's closed-door, special interests-driven system of judicial appointments may be efficient and it may be non-partisan (though certainly not non-ideological), but it's also a system whose unaccountable, cliquey nature is fundamentally at odds with the substantially more important legal principles of transparency and impartiality.

Thankfully, as establishment figures like the Chief Justice become ever-more brazen in asserting their imagined privileges, we're beginning to get a clearer glimpse at a disgraceful side of Canadian government that's gone ignored for far too long.

Anonymous said...

They get away with it because the judges handle their own complaints - take that away from them and see a difference

Anonymous said...

The Canadian article could have been written to describe the current Scottish system, which is clearly not fit for purpose on several levels - as DOI has brilliantly made clear.

There can be no coming back from Moi Ali's final damning report - Nicola Sturgeon must introduce immediate change to force the judiciary to adopt the principles of transparency and accountability required of every public servant in the 21st century.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 14 December 2014 at 22:35
@ 14 December 2014 at 22:36

Thanks for posting the article on judicial selection in Canada. It appears to be a mirror image of what happens in Scotland, and the UK as a whole.

With particular regard to the paragraph referring to "the cliquey committees are dominated by members of the federal and provincial bar associations" and
"outsourcing responsibility for judicial appointments to small committees of non-government lawyers. The lawyers pick names for the PM and expect a rubber stamp, which they usually get"

Scotland has an equivalent 'committee', or judicial quango in the form of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland http://www.judicialappointmentsscotland.org.uk/Home This is Scotland's rubber stamp for the legal profession to get their chosen few onto the bench, or into judicial slots, whichever term you prefer.

Vested interests, shares in corrupt companies, investments in buy to let empires and care homes where staff assault the elderly & patients do not appear to figure in any definition of ethics for judicial appointments in Scotland ... then there are secret criminal records, allegations of abuse towards members of their own family & others, rigging court hearings, failure to disclose financial relationships with law firms, tax avoidance, etc ...

Anonymous said...

A well known msp was asked at a meeting I attended about your blog and the thing with the judges and specifically why you and the Petitions committee have not been silenced.The response caused a few gasps.

The msp replied to the question along the lines of "because what the press and Mr Cherbi publish about the judiciary is all true and about time it came out".

He also made some comments about judges who refuse to appear in public to answer questions on their own letters.

Cant get better confirmation than that!

Anonymous said...

Here's another good story on the lack of judicial honesty - a judge in America planted drugs on a woman who accused him of sexual harassment.

My point about posting it is the judge obviously felt he could get away with it so planted the drugs and this aura of judges doing as they please because they can get away with it is relevant to your debate on judicial ethics/interests/regulation etc

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874041/Judge-guilty-planting-crystal-meth-woman-publicly-accused-sexually-harassing-chambers.html

Judge found guilty of planting crystal meth on woman who publicly accused him of sexually harassing her in chambers

Bryant Cochran was found guilty of six federal crimes in north Georgia
Included looking through the phones of female employees
Angela Garmley told the court Cochran said he needed a 'mistress' in 2012
Her husband then reported him when she found out they had been flirting
Officers then received a tip that they would find drugs in Garmley's car
He faces up to 20 years in federal prison for the various crimes

By Wills Robinson for MailOnline

Published: 01:37, 15 December 2014

A former judge has been found guilty of planting crystal meth on a woman who accused him of sexually harassing her inside his chambers.

Bryant Cochran, who was the magistrate of Murray County, Georgia, was convicted of six federal crimes relating to a number of court employees.

The charges included illegally searching through another woman's phone, framing a woman for arrest and asking a childhood friend to lie to investigators on his behalf.

Guilty: Bryant Cochran, who was the magistrate of Murray County, Georgia, was convicted of six federal crimes relating to a number of court employees including Angela Garmely (right) who had the drugs planted on her when she accused him of harassment

According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press he shook his head as the guilty were read out and will return for sentencing on February 20.

Virginia Rector, Cochran’s former clerk, told the jury that she feared working for the former magistrate and claimed he sexually harassed her years.

But she didn’t report the crime until after he resigned.

During a hearing on December 3, she said: 'He had a lot of friends in the county. I would get fired and nobody would know. … It’s not right. It’s not fair.'

Sonya Petty, his secretary, said he would go through women's cell phones when they were out of the office.

Angela Garmley visited him in his office in 2012. She asked Cochran to take out warrants against three people she said had beaten her.

She told the court that Cochran said needed a mistress and asked whether she liked oral sex. They spoke and text messaged each other for about a week.

Mugshot: Garmley was initially arrested when officers found crystal meth in her car, but the charges were later dropped. Cochran is facing 20 years in federal prison

Months later, Garmley said, Cochran told her husband she had flirted with him. Joe Garmley reported the relationship to the Judicial Qualifications Commission and local media outlets in July 2012.

A month later, the Murray County Sheriff’s Office arrested Garmley on charges of possessing methamphetamine after Cochran gave officers a tip that the drug would be found in her car.

The charges against Garmley were later dropped.

Cochran now faces up to 20 years in a federal prison with each charge carrying a range of sentences.

Anonymous said...

Being able to fire off info about the JAB as you can shows how invaluable a resource on the legal profession you are.

Poor Canada but now they know where they caught the disease from - old mother Scotland!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Sturgeon is to give Lord Hardie the power to compel witnesses to attend the toy tram inquiry after everyone did a Lord No No why doesnt she do the same to get Lord No No to the parly!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30418785

The man leading the public inquiry into the Edinburgh trams fiasco has told how key figures refused "point blank" to co-operate.

In a BBC Scotland interview, Lord Hardie pledged his investigation would be tough and effective.

The Scottish government said last month the inquiry was to be given the power to compel witnesses to participate.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon took the decision after Lord Hardie reported he had encountered a lack of co-operation.

In his first broadcast interview since the start of the inquiry, Lord Hardie said: "Our preliminary investigations, contacting people who we thought might be of assistance, threw up the problem.

"Some people refused point blank to co-operate, others just didn't answer letters.

11 December 2014 at 09:26
--------------------------------------

The irony is not lost in that it was their Scottish lawyers that advised them not to cooperate?

More money for Scottish lawyers?

12 December 2014 at 14:13
/////////////////////////////////////////////////

If the Head of Judges in Scotland says NoNo to our elected representatives, then how can Scottish lawyers and Judges expect anyone to appear as a witness, when The Lord President has given such a bad example of conduct?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 15 December 2014 at 12:30

Good to know.Transparency & openness v secret judges out on a tax dodge and others on taxpayer junkets to Qatar and other countries instead of visiting Holyrood is not a difficult argument to present for reform ...

@ 15 December 2014 at 13:22

It couldn't possibly happen here ... the judge would simply appear in front of himself and rule he was not guilty, if the Crown Office had not already shredded the case for a backslapping favour.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Quite a damning report and no escape for any of these judges.
The fact is the much praised Scottish justice is actually a pile of garbage run by paranoid despots for their business pleasure.
Same could also be said for other country's judges but you guys really got it bad.
Hope you overcome with people honest enough to write reports like this one.

14 December 2014 at 02:38
----------------------------------------

It is sometimes mentioned about other jurisdictions being similarly affected but the reality is that Scottish Lawyers and Judicial System is firmly ensconced in the equivalent of the Junior Football Leagues, whilst other countries at least are operating at Premier League level?

In other words, if you want to see best practice for criminality and self-serving interests then look no further than Scotland where Scottish lawyers are a law unto themselves and they continually get off Scot-Free, which is a phrase that was made for Scottish lawyers evading the law?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The judge in our civil case was a nasty old git who kept refusing our expert witnesses while he let the other side (lawyers) witnesses drone on and on and we found out a couple of years later he did the same to someone else up against the same law firm so must be some kind of connection just as you say about their interests.

Our own case never came to a ruling because the other side settled then our lawyers took most of it in fees just to keep themselves happy.

Wouldnt advise court for anyone or bothering with lawyers because you are always going to get ripped off no matter what they say to you and the judges are always on their side.

14 December 2014 at 14:33
£££££££££££££££££££££££

When are we going to learn?

Scottish lawyers (including judges and Sheriffs) are unconcerned with your case and unconcerned with the truth?

They are uniquely motivated to use your case as a vehicle to pay themselves large amounts of money, whether they do anything to win or lose your case?

It is a money making scam and if you win your case, it will be entirely an irrelevant byproduct of their cash-making-system?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
They get away with it because the judges handle their own complaints - take that away from them and see a difference

15 December 2014 at 00:13
;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(;(

If we had an honest and transparent Judicial Complaints System, would we not end up with Zero Judges?

Moi Ai has been a great Whistleblower but she has been shafted by the Law Society of Scotland plants within the Scottish Government?

Anonymous said...

aye Peter you give them no quarter and rightly so!They do the same to us!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
A well known msp was asked at a meeting I attended about your blog and the thing with the judges and specifically why you and the Petitions committee have not been silenced.The response caused a few gasps.

The msp replied to the question along the lines of "because what the press and Mr Cherbi publish about the judiciary is all true and about time it came out".

He also made some comments about judges who refuse to appear in public to answer questions on their own letters.

Cant get better confirmation than that!

15 December 2014 at 12:30
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Either Nikola Sturgeon grasps the thistle and breaks up and reforms the corrupt Scottish lawyer problem we have and drastically reduces the insidious influence of the Law Society of Scotland behind the scenes or the police should move in on these crooks and put their arm up their backs?

Anonymous said...

I like your comment about the Crown Office covering up for Judges crimes?

The Scottish Crown Office department responsible for doing so is called the National Casework Division of the a crown Office?

Anything involving a suspected crime by a Scottish Judge or Sheriff is handed over to the National Casework Division who's job it is to enact a cover-up?

Anonymous said...

Had a good read through Moi Ali's report it is a true revelation to see this coming from the justice system itself finally someone from within the whole apparatus speaks out and tells the truth.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Had a good read through Moi Ali's report it is a true revelation to see this coming from the justice system itself finally someone from within the whole apparatus speaks out and tells the truth.

15 December 2014 at 18:40
=====================

Moi Ali's Report is a Watershed Moment for the Scottish Judicial System?

We can no longer accept a System where cover-up and greed are the Pillars of the Justice System?

Moi Ali has pointed the way forward and highlighted that the current System and incumbents are not fit for purpose and are the problem?

The sooner we rid ourselves of these legal Vampires the better who are sucking Scotland's wealth and health out of her very marrow?

Anonymous said...

After Moi Ali's Fantastic accurate and precise Report, we now know that The Lord President cannot be trusted?

After all he is a Scottish lawyer?

Anonymous said...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/clash-over-probe-into-allegations-of-bullying-in-the-justice-system.26048805

Clash over probe into allegations of bullying in the justice system
Paul Hutcheon
Investigations Editor
Sunday 7 December 2014

TWO of Scotland's key legal bodies have clashed over an investigation into a member of the judiciary.

The fight is between the Judicial Office for Scotland (JOS) - headed by the country's top judge - and the watchdog responsible for holding it to account.

The legal watchdog attacked the JOS for its handling of a probe into claims a judicial office-holder was guilty of bullying and of making covert recordings.

Complaints against judges, ­sheriffs and justices of the peace are handled by the JOS, which provides support to the Lord President.

The investigations are carried out by fellow members of the judiciary.

If a complainant is still unhappy, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) can examine whether the probe complied with the rules.

Moi Ali, who recently stood down as the JCR after saying she did not have adequate powers, published her final annual report last week.

She produced details of an extraordinary case in which the JOS dealt with allegations of impropriety by a judicial office-holder. An unnamed organisation that "works closely with the courts" complained of bullying by a member of the judiciary, adding that the same figure had made secret recordings.

The organisation was not satisfied with the JOS probe into the case and contacted Ali.

On the bullying allegation, Ali said she was hampered after the "nominated judge" who carried out the first investigation failed to put all correspondence in the complaints file.

After the complainant asked for all tapes and transcripts obtained during the probe, the request was initially rejected.

Ali described this response a "an unnecessary lack of transparency that could damage external confidence in the investigation process".

She also described as a "lack of even-handedness" the fact that the judicial officer-holder under investigation received an ­apology for delays in the case, but the complainant did not.

The organisation's witnesses were also not interviewed.

The original complaint was not upheld by the JOS, but Ali concluded: "I was concerned about how the conclusion was reached that the allegations could not be substantiated in light of the evidence that I saw in the complaints file."

Anonymous said...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/clash-over-probe-into-allegations-of-bullying-in-the-justice-system.26048805

On the recordings allegation, the judicial office-holder under investigation had said the tapes were not made "in any secret way", although permission was not sought.

Ali believed this complaint should have been included as part of the other probe, or referred anew to the JOS, but she said: "Neither path was followed. The complaint was never investigated. No explanation was offered as to why not."

In the two reviews Ali carried out, she found seven rule breaches.

Scottish Conservative chief whip John Lamont said: "In almost no other walk of life do you have an organisation which is only accountable to itself in instances like these.

"The public expectation is that - when there's a case to answer - an independent or separate authority should be asking the questions."

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said: "Moi Ali has previously reported weaknesses in the systems through which the public can complain about the conduct of the judiciary and seek redress.

"Some of the incidents reported suggest that those involved in the complaints process were more concerned with stopping Moi Ali from doing her job than behaving responsibly and responding to the issues that had been raised."

A spokesperson for the ­Judicial Office said the recordings were made in court, not during meetings, adding: "The Judicial Office does not comment on individual complaints as the information is confidential. All complaints are fully investigated in accordance with the relevant rules.

"In respect of recording in court, it is open to the court to have proceedings recorded where it considers it to be appropriate."

Anonymous said...

By far the best read I have ever had on what lawyers and judges get up to and congrats to Moi Ali for being so honest in her report.

Anonymous said...

By far the best report I have ever read on the judges - it is about time judges were elected and have to sit through openness tests and be properly accountable instead of all this cloak and dagger activities by the top judges.

Who can ever trust a judge who secretly records people with the obvious intention of using it to wriggle out of complaints or wrongdoing later on - and if one is doing it they all are so none can be trusted.

Anonymous said...

The judge involved in the recording incident should be identified and probably sacked.