Lord Carloway to face questions on judicial register. A THREE YEAR Holyrood probe on proposals to require judges to register their interests is to be continued into the next Parliamentary session – with a call to invite Scotland’s latest top judge – Lord Carloway – to give evidence on plans to bring the judiciary into line with transparency rules which apply to all other branches of Government.
The decision to call in the Lord President – who is on record opposing proposals to require judges to declare their interests – came last week after MSPs sitting on the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee heard further evidence and submissions on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
Speaking in favour of continuing the petition, Petitions Committee Convener Michael McMahon MSP (Scottish Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill) said: “We have written to the new Lord President, whose position is no different from that of the outgoing Lord President. However, we invited the outgoing Lord President to come to the committee to discuss the petition; does the committee want to extend the same invitation to the new Lord President, so that we can explore the issue?”
Mr McMahon continued: “There is still a live debate on the matter, and I would certainly be reluctant to close the petition without having exhausted the discussion and examined the issue—almost to destruction, I think. There are serious questions to ask.”
Committee member Kenny MacAskill MSP (SNP, Edinburgh Eastern) asked for the petition to be placed in the Committee’s legacy paper for the next Petitions Committee - which will come into being after the elections to the Scottish Parliament on 5 May 2016.
The former Justice Secretary - who is set to publish a book revealing more on his decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988 – also hoped the next Petitions Committee would consider the process of selecting a new judge for the US Supreme Court to fill the vacancy after the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Mr MacAskill said “It would also be up to the future committee to consider what will be on-going in the United States of America, where judicial declarations go to an extreme that we might not wish to emulate—I am thinking of the replacement of Justice Scalia.”
John Wilson MSP (Independent, Coatbridge North and Glenboig) agreed with moves to keep the petition open, and backed calls to contact the Lord President, and a University of Strathclyde Law Professor who has researched judicial interests.
Mr Wilson said: “The petitioner has suggested that the committee write to Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde, who has apparently done some independent academic research on the subject. It might be as well writing to the Lord President and asking him to consider whether he would appear before the committee. That might also be something for the legacy paper. We should also suggest that the committee invites Professor Alan Paterson to give some independent academic scrutiny of what has been requested in the petition.”
Mr Wilson also revealed former Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) - Moi Ali, had recently written to The Scotsman newspaper, urging the establishment of a register.
During an evidence session held at Holyrood in September 2013 – Ms Ali backed the creation of a register of judicial interests - providing MSPs with a powerful first hand, honest and highly detailed account of the workings of Scotland’s judiciary and lack of judicial transparency & accountability.
Current Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson also backed plans to require judges to declare their interests, during an evidence session of the Public Petitions Committee held in June 2015.
The cross party supported proposals - debated at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 - call 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.
Video footage & transcript of Public Petitions Committee debate:
Petition PE1458 Register of judicial interests Scottish Parliament 23rd February 2016
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458) 23 February 2016
The Convener: PE1458, which was brought by Peter Cherbi, is on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.
We have written to the new Lord President, whose position is no different from that of the outgoing Lord President. However, we invited the outgoing Lord President to come to the committee to discuss the petition; does the committee want to extend the same invitation to the new Lord President, so that we can explore the issue? There is still a live debate on the matter, and I would certainly be reluctant to close the petition without having exhausted the discussion and examined the issue—almost to destruction, I think. There are serious questions to ask.
Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP): There is clearly still debate about the matter. It was the Judicial Complaints Reviewer who initially indicated a change in tack, which was upheld.
Where we can take the matter and whether it should be this committee that pursues it, I am not sure. Lord Carloway, the new Lord President, has made his position quite clear. It seems to me that the question is whether anyone else wants to pick the issue up. We could ask the new Lord President the same questions that we asked of the former Lord President, but given that we have his response in writing, I do not know where that would take us.
The question is whether the Justice Committee or the Scottish Government wants to pursue the issue. My recollection is that it is about six months since we heard from the minister but there was no indication of any change in perspective.
The Convener: There are still issues to be debated and it would be useful to get the new Lord President’s views on the record. The question is whether we, as an out-going committee, extend that invitation or put it in our legacy paper so that the new committee can pick it up and run with it.
Kenny MacAskill: I would be inclined to leave it in the legacy paper on the basis that we have had a reasonably full letter from Lord Carloway. If we were to squeeze him in within the next fortnight, I am sceptical as to what we could get from him that we have not already had in writing.
John Wilson: The petitioner has suggested that the committee write to Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde, who has apparently done some independent academic research on the subject. It might be as well writing to the Lord President and asking him to consider whether he would appear before the committee. That might also be something for the legacy paper. We should also suggest that the committee invites Professor Alan Paterson to give some independent academic scrutiny of what has been requested in the petition.
I spent half an hour this morning trying to get the updated register of interests of judicial members of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. I am assured that it is on the site somewhere, but although I tried for half an hour this morning, it was impossible to find. The latest register of interests that I have comes from last year and so is not up-to-date enough to include Lord Carloway. I know that he registered no interests when he was Lord Justice Clerk.
We have been told that there are safeguards in place, but it would be useful to know how the general public get the information that they are looking for. If it is difficult to get the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service judicial service register, it raises other questions about where we are going and whether we are making it more difficult for people to find out judicial interests.
The former Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, has recently written to The Scotsman, urging the establishment of a register—just as she did when she gave evidence. The current Judicial Complaints Reviewer has also said that it would be helpful to have a register of judicial interests.
I would like to think that the future Public Petitions Committee could take the issue forward and invite Lord Carloway and others to come and give evidence, perhaps answering some of the questions that arise further down the road.
The Convener: The suggestion is that we put it in our legacy paper and write to Professor Paterson, as John Wilson suggested, so that his response would be available to the new committee, which could take it into consideration. Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Kenny MacAskill: I am fine with that. It would also be up to the future committee to consider what will be on-going in the United States of America, where judicial declarations go to an extreme that we might not wish to emulate—I am thinking of the replacement of Justice Scalia.
The Convener:It is interesting to watch what is happening there and compare it.
Writing in the Scotsman newspaper, Moi Ali said :
“I hope that when the Scottish Parliament’s petitions committee reconsiders a proposal to implement a register of interests for the judiciary next Tuesday, it does not accept the Lord President’s advice to throw out this petition.”
“When I was Scotland’s first independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I gave evidence to the committee in support of a register of interests. I am a ministerially-appointed board member in Scotland, where I am rightly required to complete a register of interests to provide assurance to the public that my dealings are above board. For the same reason, the judiciary should also complete such a register.”
“The judiciary can take away people’s assets, separate families, and lock people away in prison. Given this position of power, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity – but crucially, that they are seen to be beyond reproach.”
“A register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case – financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way.”
“Conversely, the refusal to keep a register of interests creates public suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. Thus, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”
JUDICIAL BLOCK: Transparency on judicial interests not welcome in my court – Lord Carloway.
Last month, Diary of Injustice reported on written evidence provided by Lord Carloway to the Public Petitions Committee on plans to require judges to declare their interests.
Lord Carloway (real name: Colin Sutherland) told MSPs: “The proper administration of justice could be inhibited by the disclosure of the judiciary's otherwise confidential financial arrangements. In that connection, there is the possibility that an individual judge may be the subject of misconceived criticism, deriving from the disclosure of personal financial information, where those interests are tangential and de minimis.”
The move by Scotland’s latest Lord President to undermine the Scottish Parliament’s efforts to increase judicial transparency follows a bitter three year campaign against the petition - led by Carloway’s former boss – Lord Brian Gill – which culminated in an ‘aggressive’ evidence session with the former top judge at Holyrood in November 2015.
Responding to Lord Carloway’s letter, the petitioner told the Committee: “Lord Carloway presents the same view of his predecessor Lord Gill in that a register of interests for the judiciary is unnecessary or undesirable. Similarly, as Lord Gill has already inferred, Lord Carloway speaks of constitutional problems if the judges are asked to declare their interests.”
“In reality, there are no constitutional issues created by this petition, nor is there an impediment to the creation of a register of judicial interests. Such a register already exists for the Scottish Court Service and Tribunals Board, of which Lord Carloway and others declare their interests.”
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
33 comments:
Whatever has the US justice system done to Scotland to deserve such disdain?
After snide remarks from Brian Gill on the quality of judicial selections now we have Kenny MacAskill pillorying judicial declarations for the US Supreme Court..
Will Carloway do a Lord No No like his old boss?
Had a look on the Scottish Court website myself cannot find these judicial interests anywhere.Get them to put a link direction to your blog as all the info is here!
Oh dear.Did not go according to plan.We were all told it was going to be closed.Now his nibs is going to show up and make a fool of himself advocating keeping the judiciary's secrets top secret.Good on you Peter.
No declarations from Carloway?Very interesting!
Mr MacAskill said “It would also be up to the future committee to consider what will be on-going in the United States of America, where judicial declarations go to an extreme that we might not wish to emulate—I am thinking of the replacement of Justice Scalia.”
Miaow!! lol
I watched the video clip and good to see msps get this proposal.Full marks to John Wilson for taking on the judges over their absurd stance.They must declare like everyone else!
Very good letter from Moi Ali in the Scotsman
Nice to see all the support you have for this petition hope this becomes law as it should already be.
There may be some out there thinking Carloway is trapped by Gill and his own fight against your petition but lets not forget all the while Gill was Lord President Carloway was his deputy and could have spoken out against his boss just as he did on Corroboration.
The fact is the judiciary are concealing their interests and there appears to be real fear on the part of judges that if the public find out they are in bed with big business and tax avoidance then faith will be lost in the justice system.
Well Lord Carloway the fact is faith in the justice system was lost a long time go and personally I doubt the public will be surprised to learn a small group of the most powerful people in the land are up to their necks in riches and bankers.
If not,this register would have been created a long time go long before even this petition surfaced and people started talking about the interests of judges.
Just imagine judges walking through customs at some airport and saying nothing to declare because I am a judge and the law does not apply to me and then demanding someone carry their bags and pay for it.This is almost the same thing Carloway is saying against the parliament.
Had a look through the courts site tonight and also can confirm no link to any register for judges interests.
There always has to be a regulating body in all walks of life and now it seems to me that the House of Lords needs to be regulated by a higher power as they will not make a register of interest the Law as they all more than likely have shares in companies which many of them have jailed the directors of.
You couldn't make any of this up man.
Three years!How much did the judges stash in their mattresses during three years?!It didn't take three years to reform MP expenses so why is it taking all this time to apply the same rules to judges?Get it moving!
I am guessing Lrd No Way wont be chuffed at the outcome
This debate will not go away and more importantly after all this time and the headlines something more than the recusals webpage will have to come out of this.
As you said to the committee the SCTSB register can easily be applied to the wider judiciary with some enhancements.
Keep up the good work Peter!
@ 3 March 2016 at 17:59
Heard that too ... If the judiciary expended as much effort in the courts as they are currently using against what are not very complicated proposals to expand judicial transparency for the benefit of all, the courts would go a lot faster and vested interests may not always be on the winning side as has historically been the case in the Scottish courts.
@ 3 March 2016 at 19:35
Yes, fantastic letter from Moi Ali.
Readers should watch Ms Ali's excellent video evidence to MSPs in the link posted within the article.
One of the best insights into the closed world of Scotland's judiciary ever.
@ 3 March 2016 at 20:02
Asking the judiciary to declare their interests rather than mandating declarations via legislation is a bit like asking bankers if they want to declare their bonuses and tax dodging.
However it is good see people understand the argument for transparency as opposed to the aggressive anti-transparency position of the judiciary ...
@ 4 March 2016 at 00:01
Agreed. Regulators within the legal system and financial world are more often than not rubber stamps, for rubber stamps.
A completely new approach to regulation must be implemented across the board, if the public are to have faith in public bodies and institutions - and the judiciary have no right to be exempted from change and reform.
@ 4 March 2016 at 09:17
Yes, exactly - this register could easily be updated to include all members of the judiciary in Scotland, however a completely new set of rules and oversight would have to be applied, as there are too many let out clauses in the current Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service Board register - which does not include any declarations of property values, land ownership, hospitality, outside earnings, links to professions etc ...
"Yes, exactly - this register could easily be updated to include all members of the judiciary in Scotland, however a completely new set of rules and oversight would have to be applied, as there are too many let out clauses in the current Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service Board register - which does not include any declarations of property values, land ownership, hospitality, outside earnings, links to professions etc"
With knowledge like this you should be on the petition committee writing up the judges register!
regulators are rubber stamps for rubber stamps - good one!
Maybe you should suggest the Petitions committee can visit the nomination hearings for the US Supreme Court.
That way MSPs can see for themselves how judges face questions on their views and interests instead of taking in the sneering remarks from Gill and his cronies on our hallowed Scottish justice system best in the word waffle..
Yes I did watch the video clip with Moi Ali.Very powerful indeed and admirable someone from within the system can tell the truth.
Why are we asking judges if they want to be declared?Surely this is a matter of parliament making a law and requiring the judges to do it just like on every other law.
Not going to get very far in life if we keep asking tax dodgers and the rich if they want to be forced to do something in law are we because every time they all say No!
Register!!
I wouldn't be surprised if this is like the company tax thing where facebook only paid £4000 tax last year and no one knows what these companies really have or how they operate just like the judges want to keep all their stuff secret and go after anyone who inquires after it
We don't need any lessons from Scotland on our judicial declarations.Not that your judges can give any by the sounds of it.
As for going too far - releasing terrorists and mass murderers on "compassionate grounds" qualifies much higher up the scale.
Lockerbie.I could say more.You get the picture.
Delighted to see your petition still going and people asking questions of judges instead of doffing their caps!!Good work as always!!
Good use of video in your posts and like the way you publish the full record of debates and committees.Better than the telly!at least you give us the full story not halfers like the bbc!
@ 4 March 2016 at 16:36
Good idea ... thanks!
@ 4 March 2016 at 18:34
Yes .. agreed.
@ 5 March 2016 at 01:24
There is a significant amount of tax avoidance within the judiciary on all things from property to offshore finances ... also financial links and associations to big business who are in the same boat ...
How does someone on £200,000 a year have nothing to declare?
Someone should be asking how did they get away with it for so long just completely unacceptable really
Can you imagine the lobbying going on against you over this petition?Judges lawyers First Minister herself all the dubious crowd with lots to hide wont want judges being the focus of attention because the judiciary are used to back up the swill forced on us by Sturgeon and her mob
Yes M'Lord declare it all and dont leave anything out!
Seriously is it not about time this register of yours becomes law?????
We know they are at it otherwise why all the fear and loathing from Gill Carloway and the rest!
References to the American system of judicial appointments is obviously nothing more than spoiler tactics by McRaskill. Clearly he, 'Nikla' and the SNP will only be content if the status quo remains in place - any sensible proposals will no doubt be criticized as 'excessive'..........(i.e. not the way we do things on this side of the pond).
Your petition is already having an effect as my now former law firm recently helped a sheriff sell off his buy to let portfolio to a newly formed company supposedly run by his sons in what you might call a front.all very hush hush we were told until one of the partners made a mess of the titles.
@ 7 March 2016 at 11:36
No need to imagine the lobbying against the petition, it is very real ... an indication of what the judiciary are concealing from public view.
@ 7 March 2016 at 21:15
True, judicial transparency not good for Scotland, given the amount of daily fiddles going on in the Courts ...
@ 10 March 2016 at 08:32
The good thing about the debate on judicial interests is the intel emerging on the judiciary ... if you would like to share what you know please contact the blog or journalists directly.
Post a Comment