Scottish Minister refused to disclose secret legal advice on judges interests. A SCOTTISH Parliament Committee has been asked to recall Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse to face questions on secret legal advice commissioned by the Scottish Government on proposals to create a register of interests for the judiciary.
The existence of the secret legal advice - compiled while Lord Brian Gill was head of the Scottish judiciary – and effectively head of the entire justice system - came to light after details obtained via Freedom of Information legislation were handed to MSPs.
The request to recall the Legal Affairs Minister to face questions from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee comes after Paul Wheelhouse refused to discuss or disclose the content & provider of the secret legal advice - with MSPs who are investigating Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
The judicial transparency proposal calls for the creation of a publicly available 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.
Responding to a written request from the Petitions Committee to disclose information on the secret legal advice, Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse told MSPs: “In line with the long standing position under successive Ministerial Codes including the most recent version (2015 edition), other than in exceptional circumstances, the Scottish Government does not comment on the source or content of its legal advice, including why legal advice was sought, nor does it provide specific dates about when legal advice was provided.”
Mr Wheelhouse continued: “I am sorry not to be more helpful in this regard but I am sure you can appreciate the good reasons for this guidance which we follow. Paragraph 2.30 of the Code requires Ministers and officials to ensure that their decisions are informed by appropriate analysis of the legal considerations, and that the legal implications of any course of action are considered at the earliest opportunity. Therefore the Committee can be assured that the Government draws on oral and written legal advice as appropriate from its lawyers, from Counsel and from Law Officers.”
While the content of the legal advice is currently unknown – it is thought to have played a role in the Scottish Government’s efforts to undermine MSPs investigations into plans to require judges to declare their vast wealth, links to big business & other interests.
There are concerns as to why the Scottish Government commissioned the secret legal advice on a petition calling for a register of judicial interests, and then failed to mention the existence of the advice during letters from Scottish Ministers including former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill - to the Public Petitions Committee during MSPs investigation of the petition.
The existence of the secret legal advice was also concealed by Scottish Ministers during a full Parliamentary debate on the petition at Holyrood last October 2014 – reported with video footage of the debate, here: Debating the Judges.
And, Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse did not reveal the existence of the key legal advice on judicial interests during an evidence session he attended at Holyrood in December 2014 – in which the Minister claimed gangster threats meant there could be no register for judges.
An investigation by the Sunday Herald newspaper later established the Legal Affairs Minister misled the Committee, and no such gangster threats Mr Wheelhouse referred to in evidence, were ever made.
Writing to the Petitions Committee, the petitioner has now sought the recall of Mr Wheelhouse.
The petitioner said: “The content of the legal advice and what it says with regards to the application of equivalent levels of transparency & declarations of interest to the judiciary - as exist with others in public life, is sufficiently important to be debated in public.”
MSPs on the Public Petitions Committee requested details relating to the legal advice after they were handed details obtained via Freedom of Information legislation - revealing the Scottish Government had secretly commissioned legal advice on the petition.
The subject of the Scottish Government’s legal advice was discussed during an evidence session at Holyrood on 23 June 2015 where MSPs heard from Scotland’s current Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) Gillian Thompson OBE – who told MSPs she fully supports the creation of a register of judicial interests.
Voicing support for the petition, Ms Thompson told MSPs: “I do not see that there is a reasonable argument to be made against people who are in public service—I might go further and say, in particular, people who are paid by the public pound—providing information, within reason, about their other activities.”
After taking evidence from Gillian Thompson, Petitions Committee member & Independent MSP John Wilson called for “clarification of when that legal advice was sought and why the Government felt it necessary to seek that advice”.
Since the Petitions Committee asked to see the Scottish Government’s legal advice on judicial interests, it has now been established via an on-going Freedom of Information investigation that Lord Gill may also have taken legal advice on the petition.
Given the legal advice obtained by the Scottish Government was compiled while Lord Brian Gill was head of the Scottish judiciary – it would be surprising if the provider of the legal advice disagreed with Lord Gill’s policy of opposition to the petition and any increase in judicial transparency & accountability.
After the top judge suddenly retired in May 2015, quitting office after he gave 30 days notice, Gill (73) remained bluntly opposed to any moves to compel judges to declare their interests.
The top judge – who spent two of his short three year term as Lord President leading a bitter campaign against plans to require the judiciary to declare their vast wealth & business interests - wrote a series of terse letters to MSPs lobbying against the judicial transparency proposal.
Lord Gill – branded “Lord No-No” for refusing to give evidence at Holyrood – lashed out in letters at the media, litigants, court users & the public, describing all as “aggressive” – in an attempt to shut down an investigation by Holyrood MSPs of judicial vested interests and calls for highly paid judges to register their interests like all others in public life.
At one point, Gill implied he may have to consider restricting the judiciary’s interaction with Scottish Parliamentary Committees. And, in the same letter, the Lord President claimed judges could not be hauled before the Scottish Parliament due to loopholes in the Scotland Act .
Justice Diary recently revealed Lord Brian Gill emerged from his brief summer retirement - taking up an appointment as a supplementary panel judge at the London based UK Supreme Court.
Lord Gill has now finally agreed to give evidence at Holyrood, next month, reported here: U-TURN, M’LORD: Top judge Lord Gill to appear before Scottish Parliament to face questions on judicial transparency & calls to create a register of judges’ interests
NO REVIEW OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS REVIEWER:
In a double blow to judicial transparency, Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse also told MSPs he did not think four years was long enough to conduct a review of the role of Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR).
The Legal Affairs Minister said in his letter: “I agree, in principle, with the proposal for a review of the JCR role. However, I am not minded to commission a review at this stage given the relatively short period of operation of the office and the fact that the role is to be extended by the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014.”
“In the circumstances I would propose to consider a review of the role once the office holder is exercising the new functions under the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014. The review could then look comprehensively at the role and remit of the JCR, including assessment of the workload, capacity matters etc across the full range of functions carried out by the JCR.”
The Minister’s refusal to commission a review of the office & powers of JCR comes after the current JCR Gillian Thompson called for a review of the role.
JCR Gillian Thompson told the Committee in her evidence: “I have said to the Scottish Government that we are four years into the role and I am the second person in the role so it is probably time to start thinking about the possibility of reviewing whether what was originally envisaged under the primary legislation, which was passed in 2008, is what is still required.”
“As a former civil servant, I am always supportive of the idea that, if we have a policy and a concept and the Parliament has agreed to legislation, once it has been in force for a while, at some point or another—a three or four-year period seems not unreasonable—we should go back to have a look at the legislation to see whether it still meets the requirements.”
Gillian Thompson’s predecessor - Moi Ali resigned from the role of Judicial Complaints Reviewer in 2014 after describing the job as “window dressing” during an evidence session held at Holyrood in September 2013
VESTED INTERESTS INTERVENTION:
Earlier this year it emerged a secret meeting was held in February between Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse and Lord Gill during February - to discuss joint efforts between the Scottish Government and senior judicial figures to undermine proposals for increased judicial transparency.
Some weeks after the meeting, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon issued a letter of intervention declaring she felt judges should be able to conceal their interests and other activities – activities which now extend from shareholdings in corrupt businesses to lobbying for fracking interests to tax avoidance and more. The Scottish Government’s attempt to thwart a register of judicial interests was reported in the media here: INTERESTS INTERVENE: First Minister joins top judge in bid to block register of judicial interests
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations on judicial interests 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
30 comments:
Sounds remarkably the same as the membership of EU legal advice that never was;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10367759/Alex-Salmond-spent-20000-keeping-secret-non-existent-EU-legal-advice.html
Scottish ministers published figures showing they spent £19,452.92 going to court to appeal a ruling by the Freedom of Information (FOI) Commissioner that they had to disclose whether they had sought advice from their law officers on the issue.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, suddenly announced the case was being dropped last year because “no specific legal advice” existed, but it was not previously known how much public cash had been wasted.
Incredible.
They take legal advice on a petition calling for judges to declare their interests.
Minister only admits existence of advice when msps ask after finding out from an FOI.
Given the ferocity of the debate it would not be too much of a leap to suggest judiciary are aware of the contents of the advice or were in some way able to influence it.
Whoever the author of the advice is, would he/she author an opinion saying a register can go ahead, thus challenging Lord Gill and the judiciary who say No.
Probably not.
Peter there is more detail in your posts/blog than on Hansard!!
Four years not long enough to review a statutory office says Paul Wheelhouse.
Nonsense.The man has no clue.
Everything with the Scottish Gov is we will look again at this in ten years.
Gillian Thompson knows better and she says so.Good for her and good support for you.
What if the advice says there is nothing to stop a register for judges going ahead???!
Agrees in principle for a review then says wont do it,typical politician ploy proving he and his nats are no different from others
Strange how the hallowed judges in all their red robes and silly wigs fell down the hole as soon as you asked about their interests.
Now we know how they feel about us the judiciary do not deserve the respect they demand.
You have a point.If the Scottish Government had the legal advice all long why not reveal it unless of course there is something wrong with it..perhaps not in their favour
The effort they are going to in order to stop your petition proves on it's own a register for judges interests should exist and from a long while back.
Actually I must confess I always assumed judges did register their interests so your petition and all this is an education to me!
Keep up the good work
He's giving born liars a bad name!
get him back in for questioning!
JCR Gillian Thompson told the Committee in her evidence: “I have said to the Scottish Government that we are four years into the role and I am the second person in the role so it is probably time to start thinking about the possibility of reviewing whether what was originally envisaged under the primary legislation, which was passed in 2008, is what is still required.”
“As a former civil servant, I am always supportive of the idea that, if we have a policy and a concept and the Parliament has agreed to legislation, once it has been in force for a while, at some point or another—a three or four-year period seems not unreasonable—we should go back to have a look at the legislation to see whether it still meets the requirements.”
Yes,precisely.
The Petitions Committee can always quiz their own colleague Kenny MacAskill - he was Justice Secretary for long enough and probably during the time they gathered the legal advice.
The cryptic reference in the letter from Wheelhouse saying "nor does it provide specific dates about when legal advice was provided" is probably there to take the heat off MacAskill.
Kenny needs to come clean on the legal advice now he is part of the Petitions Committee and hearing your petition.
There is an up side to this.
Anyone protecting the judges is bound to be a crook and probably has a lot of dirt going on in the background needs looking at including those Scottish ministers lining up to sit with the judges to hide their ill gotten gains.
Without revealing my name I had a petition at the Scottish parliament which I now suspect was closed down after similar legal moves by the Scottish government because I see the same wording in some letters they sent about your petition so how do I find out if there was legal advice taken by the nasty minister who buried my petition?
Nice to see another of those heavily detailed articles with all the twists and turns you manage to weave through and present in a manageable format.The other comment about Hansard is spot on!
Seriously Peter I like your blog.You are one of a few in Scottish media who tell the truth about the legal mafia and the judiciary.
14 October 2015 at 13:58
Whether legal advice exists on a petition calling for transparency in the judiciary, or if the Scottish Government made it up, hopefully the Scottish Information Commissioner will find out ...and order the public interest be served by full disclosure.
@ 14 October 2015 at 15:35
The judiciary give the impression they do, via oaths and rules, however there is nothing to require judges to declare their interests.
The judiciary saw to that as they write any rules relating to themselves. As demonstrated by Lord Gill himself, the judiciary are willing to go to any lengths against transparency when it is called to be applied to their interests.
The fact is judges do not always recuse over an interest.
@ 14 October 2015 at 16:53
A good idea ...
@ 14 October 2015 at 18:18
Ask the Scottish Government via FOI for any information relating to legal advice consulted or taken in relation to your petition and publicise the results.
Interesting article AND discussion.
What I gather from this is Scottish Gov are using legal advice to demolish petitions and most certainly private members bills unless sponsored by the ruling one party state of course.
Perhaps anyone with a petition should now be doing as you suggest and make Freedom of Information requests to find out how involved the lawyers are in their petitions and what kind of legal advice is being dished out or lobbied for or against.
I'll mark your blog as a favourite.
Another underhanded twist by vested interests in what is a straightforward petition.Again proving this register of interests must come into being.
re the first comment
A certain law firm was asked to provide a cover story for the non existent legal advice.They refused.Subsequently cut out of Scotgov business,never looked back since!
I understand LSoS have all the details tucked away for a rainy day.
@ 14 October 2015 at 14:46
Given what has already been said by both JCRs, a full review of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer should be undertaken along with evidence sessions at the Scottish Parliament.
@ 14 October 2015 at 22:37
Also it is one way of the legal fraternity making sure anything they do not like goes nowhere or is amended beyond recognition.
The current watered down Land Reform proposals are a good example, the 'off the record' legal advice and lobbying from vested interests on land reform must be through the roof.
Where there is land, titles and money, the judiciary and legal fraternity are just around the corner.
@ 15 October 2015 at 11:31
Sounds good, send in some details.
"Therefore the Committee can be assured that the Government draws on oral and written legal advice as appropriate from its lawyers, from Counsel and from Law Officers."
Gill already said No so Wheelhouse and the SNP are just following orders from the real power who run Scotland - the judiciary the landowners and the lawyers
Maybe he will rename it to Scottish Judicial Complaints Reviewer of Scotland and claim it is a whole new thing (with the same old no powers)
Does anyone remember when we were asked to come up with names for PoliceScotland and someone wrote Scottish National Police on the whiteboard and the drunk went for it until his adviser pointed out the obvious connection?
Haha those were the days
MacAskill should have come clean at the earlier committee hearing when Jackson Carlaw had a go at him about the legal advice.The silence proves there is something not right.
As MacAskill sits on the committee they should ask him outright and get him to declare.If he is there to hear your petition he should tell all about this secret legal advice from the government he was once part of.
pssst Lockerbie spin today was supposed to be out weeks ago wonder why they saved it for this week
They make odd bedfellows the hierarchy of the SNP and a bunch of bent judges there must be something in it for someone
@ 15 October 2015 at 13:15
Gill was clearly their master ... now over to a new Lord President to see if there is any change or just another set of excuses and dodging against transparency and a register of interests for Scotland's judges.
@ 15 October 2015 at 18:39
Good idea, one the former Justice Secretary should follow up.
@ 15 October 2015 at 20:56
Lord Advocate's attempt at grabbing the weekend headlines.
The Crown Office spend over £1/2m of taxpayers cash on PR every year, the true figure probably much higher as there appears to be a general dishonesty in most of what the Crown Office admit, from calling dead witnesses in court to prosecutor's expenses claims & criminal records.
must be a lot of bungs and arm twisting going on in the background
Presumably they consulted Gill before and after taking the legal advice!
Actually I must confess I always assumed judges did register their interests so your petition and all this is an education to me! 14 October 2015 at 15:35
So did I until someone dropped the bomb on it.
Yes this blog is an education.Much more so than you can lean from certain law lecturers currently under investigation for touching up male students and the same Uni offers LLB certs to prevent complaints going ahead.
A funny way to gain a Scottish legal qualification!
Replying to the comment about the uni,I've seen and heard worse but it appears the papers dont want to cover it instead preferring to run shock horror stories about female students running their own escort services.Lets not do a feature on the law lecturers and professors right?
Post a Comment