Questions of judicial integrity as former top prosecutor steps aside in case THE FORMER Lord Advocate who prosecuted two Libyans for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 now features among a list of judges who have been required to step aside (recuse) in cases where conflicts of interest have come to light.
Lord Colin Boyd – who was Scotland’s top law officer from February 2000 to October 2006 and is now a Court of Session judge – recused – or- stood down from a civil case earlier this month due to the fact one of the respondents involved was convicted of offences while Lord Boyd was Lord Advocate.
The term “recusal” relates to where a judge can or should be disqualified from participation in the decision in a case, for reasons such as a conflict of interest such as a link to any party involved in a court hearing, or a financial or personal interest in the outcome of a court case.
The details – minus any actual reference to the case itself - came to light in recent additions to the ‘recusal register’ – now required to be published by the Scottish judiciary after undertakings were given by outgoing top judge Lord Gill to msps who are investigating calls for a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
The proposals under investigation by the Scottish Parliament call for the creation of a single independently regulated register of judicial 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.
However - despite the fact Scotland’s judges take home a whopping £30.6 million pounds a year in judicial salaries and other perks - not one judge has revealed or declared a financial related conflict of interest.
The lack of financial related recusals has raised questions as to whether judges are telling the truth in court after details have emerged over the past two years of staggering wealth, secretive links to big business, judicial participation in offshore tax avoidance schemes and property empires – all leading back to the judiciary.
Among those in the judiciary snared on the year old list of recusals - outgoing Lord President Lord Brian Gill was forced to step aside in a case after his own son – Brian Gill junior appeared in the Court of Session representing one side in a civil case.
An example of where a failure by a judge to recuse himself from a miscarriage of justice appeal reported Mr William Beck - who was convicted of an armed robbery in 1982 and has been fighting a long battle to clear his name since, had his appeal against conviction thrown out by Lord Osborne.
Lord Osborne failed to declare in court he prosecuted him in the original cases all those years ago while working for the Crown Office.
A letter containing evidence provided by Mr William Beck to the Scottish Parliament reveals how one judge, Lord Johnston, failed to declare any interest or recuse himself from an appeal by Mr Beck against a wrongful conviction & sentence handed down by Lord Dunpark - who was Lord Johnston’s father.
Mr Beck’s submission to MSPs also revealed, Lord Osborne, who sat with two other judges and rejected another appeal by Mr Beck against his wrongful conviction, failed to disclose that he was the prosecutor in the original trial of Mr Beck.
When asked by the Sunday Mail newspaper why he did not recuse himself at the time, Lord Osborne claimed he forgot.
No action has been taken against Lord Osborne over his failure to recuse in the Beck case, and a number of other cases in Scotland’s courts are now coming under suspicion of being ruled upon by judges with vested interests in the outcomes of cases.
And, earlier this year, a sheriff was suspended by Scotland's top judge after the Scottish Sun newspaper reported details of a multi million pound writ against Glasgow law firm Levy & Mcrae in connection with the collapse of a £400 million hedge fund.
However, it emerged the suspension of Sheriff Peter Black Watson – formerly of Glasgow based law firm Levy and McRae - only came about after journalists from the Sun newspaper contacted the Lord President Lord Gill’s office and queried him about the writ – which Gill had allegedly not heard of until the media drew it to his attention.
A few days later, Lord Gill suspended Sheriff Peter Watson after concluding Watson’s offer to voluntarily step aside was “not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary”.
The full statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland on Watson’s suspension announced:
Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.
“On Friday 13 February the Judicial Office was made aware of the existence of a summons containing certain allegations against a number of individuals including part-time sheriff Peter Watson.
The Lord President’s Private Office immediately contacted Mr Watson and he offered not to sit as a part-time sheriff on a voluntary basis, pending the outcome of those proceedings.
Mr Watson e-mailed a copy of the summons to the Lord President’s Private Office on Saturday 14 February.
On Monday 16 February the Lord President considered the matter. Having been shown the summons, the Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
Mr Watson was therefore duly suspended from office on Monday 16 February 2015.”
The Scottish Sun previously reported on a dossier handed to prosecutors which focussed on Glasgow-based Mathon Ltd – which Watson was a director of - from 2007 to 2011.
Mathon was linked to the failed £400m Heather Capital hedge fund run by Gregory King.
The collapsed hedge fund Heather Capital – run by lawyer Gregory King is now the subject of a Police Scotland investigation and reports to the Crown Office. Gregory King is named along with three others – lawyer Andrew Sobolewski, accountant Andrew Millar and property expert Scott Carmichael in a police report.
The Gibraltar-based investment scheme was launched in 2004 and some of the cash was loaned by Mathon to bankroll developments across Scotland. But many of the Mathon-funded plans did not happen — and some of the cash was never repaid.
A judge in the Isle of Man has said it is likely that "fraudulent conduct exists”.
Proposals currently under investigation by the Scottish Parliament call for the creation of a single independently regulated register of judicial 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 current list of recusals published by the Judiciary of Scotland website : Judicial-Recusals - Judiciary of Scotland
24.3.2014 Livingston Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Edington:
Sheriff drew to the parties’ attention a possible difficulty, namely the wife of one of the other resident Sheriffs was the author of a report contained with the process. The Sheriff asked parties if they wished him to recuse himself. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse himself, which he then did.
8.4.2014 Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Veal:
Sheriff personally known to a witness
10.4.2014 Selkirk Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Paterson:
Sheriff had previously acted for a client in dispute against Pursuer
23.4.2014 High Court (Criminal) Lady Wise:
Senator had previously acted for a relative of accused
16.4.2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cathcart:
Sheriff personally known to a witness
13.5.2014 Haddington Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Braid:
Known to pursuer's family
14.5.2014 High Court (Criminal Appeal) Judge MacIver:
Conflict of Interest
20.5.2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Matthews:
Senator personally known to a witness
19.6.2014 Dingwall Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff McPartlin:
Sheriff presided over a trial involving the accused, where the issue to which the new case relates was spoken to by a witness
20.6.2014 Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Raeburn QC:
Accused appeared before Sheriff as a witness in recent trial relating to same incident
24.6.2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Crozier:
Sheriff personally known to proprietor of premises libelled in the charge
26.6.2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord President:
Relative of Senator acts for the respondent
27.8.2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Brailsford:
Senator personally known to husband of the pursuer
28.8.2014 Oban Sheriff Court (Civil & Criminal) Sheriff Small:
Sheriff personally known to a party
22.10.2014 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cowan:
Sheriff drew to parties’ attention that she was a member of the RSPB before commencement of a trial as the case involved an investigation carried out by the RSPB and many witnesses were RSPB officers. She invited parties to consider whether she should take the trial. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse herself, which she then did.
8.12.2014 Alloa Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Mackie:
Contemporaneous and overlapping proceedings comprising an appeal and a referral from the children’s hearing relating to children from the same family.
16.12.2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lady Clark of Calton:
Senator personally known to parties of the action.
22.01.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Extradition) Sheriff MacIver:
Sheriff involved in case at earlier stage of procedure
30.01.2015 Dumfries Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Jamieson:
Sheriff had previously dealt with the issue under dispute
06.02.2015 Greenock Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Fleming:
Previous professional relationship between Sheriff's former firm of solicitors and the defender
09.02.2015 Glasgow High Court (Criminal) Lady Scott:
Due to a previous ruling made by the Senator in relation to a separate indictment against the accused
10.02.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Jones:
Due to a previous finding by the Senator in relation to an expert witness whose evidence is crucial to the pursuer's case
13.03.2015 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cowan:
Accused known by the Sheriff as a regular observer of court proceedings from the public gallery
17.03.2015 Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Di Emidio:
Sheriff personally known to a witness
18.03.2015 Lerwick Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Mann:
Circumstances may give rise to a suggestion of bias
16.04.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Arthurson QC:
Personally known to a party of the action
12.05.2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Boyd of Duncansby:
Senator was Lord Advocate when a successful prosecution was brought against one of the respondents
4.05.2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff McColl:
Sheriff personally known to a party of the action
38 comments:
Colin Boyd and Lockerbie.There is a sentence in its own right!
However - despite the fact Scotland’s judges take home a whopping £30.6 million pounds a year in judicial salaries and other perks - not one judge has revealed or declared a financial related conflict of interest.
That's because they are corrupt!
Writing their own rules so they don't need to declare.
In a nutshell - corruption! and we all know it!
Complete details of these cases must be published if that list is to have any credibility.If not the whole thing could be a pack of lies from the judges.
How does corroboration go again? something about verifying a piece of evidence from two independent sources?
Well then Lord Gill and whoever follows you print the entire story and not just a snippet and then we can see for ourselves why judges are standing down in court and who is all involved in these cases.
Just imagine how many recusals do not happen or are refused also why are there no details of cases if the judge refuses to step down?Very fishy as we have come to expect from our judges now they are in the spotlight.
I bet there is some dodge where they still get paid for a case even if they do step aside haha what a load of crooks no wonder they are fighting your petition!
£30.6 million spent on judges and all they do is tell people to sod off after lawyers have milked them for a few years before getting to court well what a bloody cheek and why the hell is Nicola Sturgeon supporting this lot of cheaters?
"When asked by the Sunday Mail newspaper why he did not recuse himself at the time, Lord Osborne claimed he forgot."
Maybe he would wisen up a bit if he was thrown in the jail and then ten years later he says to the warden, should I still be in here and the reply he got was, 'Oh, I must have forgot'
Not an acceptable answer never mind an excuse.
This is the standard of Judge Scotland gets when they come from a thoroughly rotten profession in Scotland, where the Law Society of Scotland allows Scottish lawyers to commit crime with impunity and then keeps them out of jail?
Do not pass Go.
Go straight to jail!
In case you missed it the sheriff in the Glasgow bin lorry crash inquiry had to recuse after suddenly remembering he knew the family of one of the deceased.
The explanation sounds about as dodgy as the inquiry itself.Here is the story from the Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sheriff-overseeing-george-square-bin-lorry-fai-steps-down.1432895139
Sheriff quits George Square bin lorry FAI after realising he knows victim's family
Victoria Brenan
Friday 29 May 2015
A NEW Sheriff has been appointed to oversee the fatal accident inquiry into the bin lorry crash after it emerged his predecessor realised he knew one of those killed.
Sheriff Principal Craig Scott QC has appointed Sheriff John Beckett to replace him on the inquiry, which is due to be held on July 22.
No details of which of the six people it was that Sheriff Principal Scott knew but information from the Judiciary of Scotland today said he had "since become aware he was acquainted with one of the deceased and is known to their family."
The statement said: "This was not initially apparent due to the manner in which the deceased was designed in the original application to the court."
"In the circumstances, Sheriff Principal Scott has taken the immediate decision to recuse himself from the inquiry and has appointed Sheriff John Beckett QC to replace him."
The next preliminary hearing into the fatal crash in the city centre last December is due to take place on June 18 at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
Nice to see another big hitter caught by your recusal register.
I must find out who had the guts to ask Boyd to recuse:)
Highly suspicious that Gill resigned so suddenly at the same time as the FIFA elections.
Maybe Sepp Blatter has nominated Gill has his most suitable successor?
After all, several months ago Gill went on a State Visit to Qatar where he spent 5 days in the sun but he did arrange for the forthcoming International football fixture between Scotland and his new friends Qatar, which shows that he has other skills than just being a Scottish Judge.
Another recusal to add to the list sounds like a cover up like the rest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-32933996
Bin lorry crash sheriff withdraws from inquiry
Six people were killed and 10 others injured when the council bin lorry crashed in the centre of Glasgow just three days before Christmas
The sheriff overseeing the inquiry into the Glasgow bin lorry crash which killed six people has withdrawn after realising he knew one of the victims.
Sheriff Principal Craig Scott will be replaced by John Beckett QC.
The Judiciary of Scotland said Sheriff Scott had "become aware that he was acquainted with one of the deceased and is known to the deceased's family".
Six people died when the bin lorry crashed into pedestrians in Glasgow city centre on 22 December last year.
A statement from the the Judiciary of Scotland said the link between the sheriff and one of the victims was not initially clear because of the way the victim was named in the original court application.
It added: "In the circumstances, Sheriff Principal Scott has taken the immediate decision to recuse himself from the inquiry and has appointed Sheriff John Beckett QC to replace him."
Sheriff Principal Scott had presided over two hearings ahead of the beginning of the inquiry on July 22.
The next preliminary hearing will go ahead on 18 June at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
Scotland's second most senior law officer, Solicitor General Lesley Thomson QC, will lead the inquiry.
It will look at the council driver's medical background and his fitness to hold a licence.
Not much of a return on offer for all that money is it and regarding Lockerbie well the entire Scottish judiciary are bought and paid for but everyone knows this anyway.
This has been going on for years and only now we are able to see a little of how judges are involved with other people and what they do.
They must be a tight bunch to keep all this to themselves although in the end I do not think they can resist a register of interests given the attention this issue is attracting.
Keep up the good work.
Problem with this list is no information on what kinds of cases are causing judges to step aside.It is not enough to say a judge has recused because he knows someone's dog or is related to whoever appears in court we also have to be told what the case concerns and at the very least who the legal teams are.
I suspect much of this is being kept from us because it will show a pattern and probably some other links between lawyers judges and litigants which have not been revealed yet.
One judge recluses and what does he do? Ask the judge replacing him to do him a favour. Judges reclusing themselves will not change the outcome of cases which affect their interests.
And every judge on that list had to give their name and stand aside because of you and the parliament investigation.
You will be popular!
A full and complete Register of Scottish Judges and Sheriffs Interests is required immediately.
Anything less is treasonable.
@ 29 May 2015 at 21:01
Money, influence, power and court backing go together with ...
@ 30 May 2015 at 11:26
Not such a "tight bunch" given reports one member of the judiciary appears to be claiming he collated files on the personal lives of his colleagues ... presumably in an effort to use later on if something does not go to plan.
Lord Gill must know given his position and power ... although perhaps he forgot to watch his friends and colleagues as much as watching the media and trying to control transparency.
@ 30 May 2015 at 12:41
This has already been drawn to the attention of the Judicial Office however the Lord President refuses to publish any details of the cases where recusals have occurred.
The Judicial Office have also refused to publish any details of cases where recusals have been requested and the judge refused to recuse.
@ 30 May 2015 at 14:32
Outcomes of inquiries are mostly decided before they are heard no matter which judge falls off the magic roundabout of Scotland's judiciary to be replaced with another.
The only other constant in such cases is millions of pounds of taxpayers money thrown at prosecutors, lawyers and the legal establishment list of expert witnesses ... justice bought and sold, and public authorities exonerated from blame no matter the evidence.
"Outcomes of inquiries are mostly decided before they are heard no matter which judge falls off the magic roundabout of Scotland's judiciary to be replaced with another.
The only other constant in such cases is millions of pounds of taxpayers money thrown at prosecutors, lawyers and the legal establishment list of expert witnesses ... justice bought and sold, and public authorities exonerated from blame no matter the evidence."
Exactly.And every time there is any kind of public inquiry no one ever gets the blame and even if they do they are packed off somewhere with a lump sum to keep quiet.
The real victims at the bottom of the ladder never get anything and lawyers rake in the millions just as you say.The judges are protecting their business by keeping everything secret.
I hope the blackmailing judge gets some decent headlines when time allows.
So the judges are working against each other just like everyone else and there is Gill protecting them to the very end in the McTitanic movie.
Your last comment Amen to that!
Going to court is a mugs game encouraged by greedy lawyers who quickly become your enemy when things dont go their way
Are you talking about the same judge who hangs around politicians and records audio of his meetings with them?
A judge collating files on his colleagues (presumably on the bench?) hmm reminds me of someone who likes to be seen with certain politicians and bent coppers
The Scottish Judges do not wish or intend to give up on their power to do what they like and to make sure they benefit in cash terms?
It is my understanding that the Scottish Judges are protected by Scottish lawyers Nicola Sturgeon and the Crown Office and are made immune to prosecution because if the Scottish Public were to find out what has being going on behind their backs, that it would result in the Scottish Public completely mistrusting the Scottish Judges?
So, it is thought to be preferable to keep allowing the Scottish Judges to do as they please because they cannot prosecute them because of the damage that this would do to the 'Reputation' of the Scottish Judiciary?
All of the Scottish Judges who are convicted felons should be named and shamed by the new Lord President to try to gain a modicum of the Scottish Public's trust?
Outcomes of inquiries are mostly decided before they are heard no matter which judge falls off the magic roundabout of Scotland's judiciary to be replaced with another... Yes DOI of course you are right and as for the expert witnesses you refer to they have legal privilidge so can say what they want even when they know it is lies. It is all an arrangement to keep money within this groups pockets no matter how much someone has suffered a stitch up from start to finish. This setup has nothing to do with justice.
and every single judge on this list will know exactly why they now have to recuse and who made it possible (you!)
good one mate!
How ridiculous is that?They tell us they stood down in a case and refuse to say what the case is about and what happened in court!
Too much to hide me thinks!
Anyone with half a brain is now bound to wonder why this list only came about in 2014 and what happened in the thousands probably millions of cases before last year where judges just wormed their way through court hearings having a laugh while their wallets and share portfolios got fatter and no one bothered asking anyone to recuse.
In a way quite scary to read this because it confirms what you have been on about all along regarding dishonesty in the courts system and judiciary.Some of the reasons given almost dont make sense, as if one reason has been substituted for another and there is no source to confirm it.
We really do need this register of judicial interests.
Judges have refused to recuse - I have been in court and saw it for myself.You can see how visibly contorted their face becomes when cousel dares mention it.You dont need to be a mathematician to work out how this affects people trying to get justice and legal teams who end up taking the blame for what the judge has under his robes.
Anonymous said...
In a way quite scary to read this because it confirms what you have been on about all along regarding dishonesty in the courts system and judiciary.Some of the reasons given almost dont make sense, as if one reason has been substituted for another and there is no source to confirm it.
We really do need this register of judicial interests.
2 June 2015 at 23:11
------------------------------------------------------
Look, we know Scotland is largely run by the Law Society of Scotland, who have infiltrated all parts of our Society and we know they are liars?
We also know that the Law Society of Scotland have created a system of professional liars?
So, should we really be surprised because Judges are Scottish lawyers too, so it stands to reason that deals are being done and corruption is rife because Scottish lawyers have been nurtured in a system that allows them to commit crimes against the public, where they are protected from prosecution?
They are haters of the Scottish Public and are only interested in sucking the lifeblood out of Scotland's neck?
Good to link up yesterday,thanks.
I see you have everything covered.kutgw :)
I am not surprised to read judges are refusing to declare their financial fiddles given their boss Lord Gill wanted everything kept quiet on interests and so on
"However - despite the fact Scotland’s judges take home a whopping £30.6 million pounds a year in judicial salaries and other perks - not one judge has revealed or declared a financial related conflict of interest."
£££££££££££££££££££££££
It has not escaped my attention that this is statistically impossible.
Proving that you are once again correct, that Scottish Judges have their thumbs, fingers and toes in every pie in the pursuit of self enrichment, at the expense of the Scottish Public?
Where are these Scottish apologist MSP's now who said that the Judiciary were trustworthy and because of their Judicial Oath there was no need to keep a check on them?
What an absolute Crock-of-Shite that has turned out to be?
The statistic's show that Scottish Judges cannot be trusted ever again to 'do the right thing' because they are too busy chasing the cash that they have lost the fundamental good judgement to enable the to do their job's properly?
Once a lying Scottish lawyer - always a lying Scottish lawyer?
Scotland's £30,600,000.00 a year Judges!
Here's an idea for John Swinney MSP to combat the £170M of cuts.
Scotland could save at least £15,000,000 by halving these gravy slurpers' vastly inflated salaries?
If our police were not completely controlled by Scottish lawyers then you would think that one of them would have the moral backbone to investigate these Scottish lawyers for bringing the Scottish Judiciary into disrepute by completely abandoning the basic principles of any Judiciary, that is truth and transparency and jail the ones who have broken the law.
Your investigative article shows that Scottish Judges are involving themselves in a myriad of 'Outside Interests' to the extent that these 'Outside Interests' are conflicting with and having an impact on their ability to preside over a court case before them?
This categorically demonstrates that the Scottish Judges being forced to Recuse themselves have by their own actions shown that they are involving themselves in matters other than being Scottish Judge, which has reached such a serious level of breach that it has undermined and interfered with their core responsibility as a Scottish Judge, which is to be impartial?
These Scottish Judges have chosen to undermine their authority as a Judge by taking up numerous outside interests which are all incompatible with what a Scottish Judge is?
Therefore, all of these Scottish Judges who have brought the Scottish Judicial System into disrepute and into a state where Scottish Judges cannot be trusted to be independent and impartial on any matter, then it follows that they have disqualified themselves from being a Scottish Judge because of their unnecessary outside interests?
Afteral, Scottish Judges are paid exorbitant salaries precisely to compensate them from having outside interests because it is recognised that any outside interests would conflict with their core function of their Job Specification?
The police need to look into this now and weed out the Scottish Judges who have brought shame upon the Scottish Justice System by ignoring the rules, with the only resolution possible being that all of these offending Scottish Judges are sacked because they have demonstrated by their own actions that their judgement is corrupted and that they are no longer fit to be a Scottish Judge and that until this happens, the Scottish Judiciary will continue to be acting ultra vires?
Lots of rumours going round a judge caught out in a big case,lawyers now refusing to ask for recusal and witnesses targeted to shut them up know anything about it?
Quite an achievement regardless of the lack of financial detail disclosed.
There are few around from outside the judiciary who manage to change rules within it.
Post a Comment