On Thursday, 22 March 2018, the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament held it’s 25th hearing to discuss Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
Members of the Committee concluded that such a register should be introduced into law – and cast aside arguments put forward by two top judges that such a register was “unworkable
Petitions Committee Convener Johann Lamont MSP (Scottish Labour) said: “In the course of our consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred—most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide, or be requested, to decline to hear a particular case. “
“The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information that is captured in the register. However, the core action that was requested by the petition was the establishment of a register of financial interests.”
“We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken those arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of this committee that such a register should be introduced.”
Deputy Convener Angus MacDonald MSP (Scottish National Party) added: “This is another long-running petition, having been live since December 2012—for as long as I have been on the committee. It was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn.”
“Along with a wide range of back benchers from across the political spectrum, I spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests during a debate in the chamber in the previous session. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life as well as ensuring that people can have confidence in those holding public office. I believe that a register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that.”
“The petition has already secured a result, which you have referred to, with the introduction of a register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. You also referred to the fact that the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals.”
“I would be keen for the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland to do some further work on the introduction on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested as possibly being the way forward, in the first instance we should refer the petition to the Justice Committee to allow it to move the issue forward.”
The Petitions Committee have since written to the Justice Secretary Michael Matheson, and Lord Carloway.
When responses are received, MSPs will consider further action.
Video footage and a transcript of the Public Petitions Committee hearing follows:
Petition PE 1458 Register of Judicial Interests Public Petitions Committee 22 March 2018
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458):
The Convener: The next petition, PE1458, calls for the introduction of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. As members will recall, we have previously agreed to write to the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and have considered a draft letter at previous meetings. The petition has received much consideration since it was lodged in 2012. I express my gratitude to the petitioner for raising the issue and to all those who have engaged in discussions on the issues that are raised in the petition, including the Lord President, Lord Carloway, and his predecessor, Lord Gill.
In the course of our consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred—most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide, or be requested, to decline to hear a particular case. The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information that is captured in the register. However, the core action that was requested by the petition was the establishment of a register of financial interests. We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken those arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of this committee that such a register should be introduced.
In reaching that view, the committee is very clear that it does not consider there to be a basis for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland’s judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making. Rather, it is the view that we have reached, based on the principles of transparency and openness in public life. While that is the view of this committee, we also understand that the Lord President and the Scottish Government have indicated they do not support the introduction of a register.
Would it be appropriate for us to invite the Justice Committee to consider the petition in light of our recommendation? Would members be content to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration? Do members have any comments?
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP): This is another long-running petition, having been live since December 2012—for as long as I have been on the committee. It was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn. Along with a wide range of back benchers from across the political spectrum, I spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests during a debate in the chamber in the previous session. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life as well as ensuring that people can have confidence in those holding public office. I believe that a register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that.
The petition has already secured a result, which you have referred to, with the introduction of a register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. You also referred to the fact that the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals.
I would be keen for the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland to do some further work on the introduction on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested as possibly being the way forward, in the first instance we should refer the petition to the Justice Committee to allow it to move the issue forward.
Rona Mackay: I broadly agree with what my colleague has said. That is a natural way forward for the petition. I do not think that we can take it any further, given the history that we have just heard. I think that it is sensible to send it to the Justice Committee for its consideration.
The Convener: Do we agree to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration?
Members indicated agreement.
Decision: PE1458 by Peter Cherbi on Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out its view that a register of interests should be introduced and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, under Rule 15.6.2 of Standing Orders, for its consideration.
The judicial interests petition – filed at Holyrood in October 2012 and first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, 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.
A full report containing video footage of every hearing, speech, and evidence sessions at the Scottish Parliament on Petition PE1458 can be found here: Scottish Parliament debates, speeches & evidence sessions on widely supported judicial transparency petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland's judiciary.
MSP at Holyrood have previously heard over sixty two submissions of evidence, during twenty one Committee hearings, and a private meeting between two MSPs and a top judge, and two private meetings since early December 2017 to decide a way forward on their six year investigation.
Cross party support for the Petition at the Scottish Parliament saw fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate spanning from 2012 to 2018.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support, is widely supported in the media and in public debate as a result of media coverage.
The petition secured early support of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali, and her successor - Gillian Thompson.
Moi Ali – who served as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) - appeared before the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament in a hard hitting evidence session during September of 2013, giving early backing to the proposals calling for the creation of a register of judicial interests.– reported here: Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life.
Scotland’s second Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson OBE also supported the petition and the creation of a register of judicial interests during an evidence session at Holyrood in June 2015.
A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.
Video footage and a full report on Lord Brian Gill giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament in November 2015 can be found here: JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth & interests - Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill’s evidence as “passive aggression”
Video footage and a full report on Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) giving widely criticised evidence to the Scottish Parliament in July 2017 can be found here: REGISTER TO JUDGE: Lord Carloway criticised after he blasts Parliament probe on judicial transparency - Top judge says register of judges’ interests should only be created if judiciary discover scandal or corruption within their own ranks
Dear Lord Carloway,
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand’s Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.
As you may be aware, the above petition was lodged in December 2012 and has been considered by the current Public Petitions Committee and its Session 4 predecessor. Over this period MSPs have taken on board the arguments for and against a register of interests and the nature of the interests that might be covered in such a register. This letter sets out the conclusions that the Public Petitions Committee has reached on the petition.
In setting out these conclusions, I would emphasise that the Committee absolutely recognises that an independent and well-functioning judiciary is, and must be, an essential part of our system of government.
I also make clear that the Committee’s consideration of the petition, and the views set out in this letter, reflect our viewpoint that there is no basis for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland’s judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making.
The Committee has reached its views based on the wider contemporary picture of transparency and openness in public life wherein preventing the perception of any undue influence is important in ensuring confidence in those holding public office.
Register of recusals
One of the welcome developments in the course of this petition has been the introduction of a register of recusals. The Committee notes that this register was brought into effect in April 2014 directly as a result of the petition and a meeting between the then Lord President, Lord Gill, and representatives of the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee. In recent discussions with the Committee, and the petitioner, you agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals. As a result, the register will now ensure transparency about recusal across courts and tribunals in Scotland. The Committee very much welcomes these measures.
In doing so, we note that this addresses one of the arguments made against a register of financial interests - that it would not capture those instances where consideration of any potential conflict in a case was based on a social or personal connection that may not be known about prior to a case coming to court.
The Committee agrees that the practicalities are such that it would not be possible or proportionate to require advance registration of personal connection with parties that may at some point be relevant within a particular case. However, we do consider that public transparency of such connections is vital and the register of recusals is the tool that strikes an appropriate balance in this regard.
We would also observe that the value of collating information about recusals is that it enables analysis to be undertaken of the way the recusal systems operates and for this analysis to inform ongoing thinking about the administration of justice through the Scottish courts.
Register of financial interests
Turning now to the core question of a register of interests, the Committee’s most recent consideration of the petition focussed on seeking to understand and explore some of the arguments put forward against the introduction of such a register.
These arguments have included—
• a risk of online fraud due to retribution from dissatisfied litigants (which, it was argued, may have an inhibitory effect on the administration of justice if judges start to decline roles on public bodies such as the board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service) and,
• the possibility of the existence of a register of interests having a damaging effect on recruitment.
Members do, of course, have an understanding of the practical operation of a register of interests given the duties that apply to elected members. However, in considering the arguments put forward, we have not considered the role of judges as analogous to the role of elected members or had in mind any particular model for a register of interests that might be appropriate for judges.
Instead, our consideration has been based on an understanding of the expectations that apply to all holders of public office, whether elected or unelected, in relation to disclosure of financial interests. As we noted above, such disclosures not only allow for demonstration that decision-making is not influenced by personal interests but also prevent the perception of the influence of interests on decision-making.
Having considered these arguments and the thinking behind them, the Committee has not been convinced that a register of interests is an unworkable idea and it is the view of the Committee that such a register should be introduced.
Recognising that the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland have indicated that they do not support the introduction of a register, the Committee today agreed to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, inviting that Committee to consider the petition further, in light of our recommendation.
Yours sincerely: Johann Lamont MSP Convener
The National reported on the success of the six year petition calling for a register of judicial interests, in the following articles:
Martin Hannan Journalist 23 March 2018
IT’S taken nearly six years and 25 hearings but as The National predicted yesterday, a register of interests for all Scottish judges is set to become law.
The petition for a register by legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi will now go the Justice Committee at Holyrood with a recommendation that the register becomes law.
The current and previous Lord Presidents, Lord Carloway and Lord Gill respectively, both strongly opposed the register which they feel will make it difficult for judges to be recruited.
Committee chair Johann Lamont said: “The committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable and it is the view of the committee that such a register should be introduced.”
She said the committee’s view had been reached with regard to “the principles of openness and transparency in public life”.
Having achieved his success after years of work, Peter Cherbi told The National: “I am delighted to hear the Public Petitions Committee support the creation of a register of interests for judges, and applaud their work on this petition.
“From filing the petition in 2012, being a part of the process to submit evidence, report on hearings, and observing witness evidence, I am very impressed that Holyrood followed this through from committee, to a full debate in the main chamber in October 2014, where the petition gathered overwhelming cross party support, to now, with the decision to recommend the creation of a register of judicial interests.
“Key evidence from Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali in September 2013 was, I believe, the turning point and a key moment where the proposal for register of judicial interests gathered steam.
“MSPs were able to hear for themselves from someone within the justice framework how a register of interests for judges would not only benefit transparency, but also bring back much needed public trust and respect to the justice system and our courts.
“My sincere thanks to MSPs Angus MacDonald, David Torrance, current Convener Johann Lamont, ex-convener David Stewart, Jackson Carlaw, particularly Alex Neil who asked key questions several times in the process, former MSPs Chic Brodie and John Wilson and all members of the Public Petitions Committee past and present who have given their considerable time, effort and input into this petition, have taken the time to study the evidence, and arrive at the conclusion transparency in the judiciary is a good thing, and not as Lord Carloway and Lord Gill claimed ‘unworkable’.”
This is a good day for the Scottish Parliament and for transparency.
The Sunday Mail print edition reported on the Petitions Committee backing for legislation to require judges to declare their interest, and also featured a report on Alex Neil MSP – who supports the judicial transparency proposals and is prepared to bring in a Members Bill to create a register of judges’ interests:
Sunday Mail 25 March 2018
Ex-minister Alex Neil will defy Nicola Sturgeon with a bill forcing Scotland's judges to declare their interests.
Holyrood's petitions committee have asked the Government to legislate for a register which may include details of financial, professional and personal connections of judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace.
Sturgeon is expected to reject the committee's recommendation. But Neil believes there is enough cross-party support to raise his own bill, in a rare act of SNP backbench rebellion.
He said: "If no bill is brought forward by the Government, I would intend to do so myself, as there is significant support from other MSPs."
Former health secretary Neil backs the register after representing constituent Donal Nolan, who took Advance Construction to court over a land dispute.
It later emerged that judge Lord Malcolm sat on the case despite his lawyer son Ewen Campell acting for the construction firm.
Neil said: "If the committee decide to recommend a bill, it is absolutely necessary as I have seen from cases such as Nolan v Advance Construction where there were undeclared interests."
The Scottish Sun print edition also reported on the Petition Committee’s backing for a register of judicial interests and Alex Neil MSP’s plan for a Member’s Bill:
JUDGE LIST IS BACKED
Scottish Sun 23 March 2018
MSPs defied Nicola Sturgeon yesterday by calling for judges to list their financial ties.
Holyrood's cross-party Public Petitions Committee backed a register of interests for the judiciary.
Its convener Johann Lamont said the move was based on "principles of transparency and openness in public life".
Top judge Lord Carloway claimed the register would hit recruitment and the Government has said it was "not needed".
Last night Nats MSP Alex Neil warned if plans for the list are not backed he is "prepared to do it as a Member's Bill".
A further report in The National newspaper:
Martin Hannan Journalist 22 March 2018
AFTER nearly six years and 25 sittings of evidence and debate on the petition to create a register of judges’ interests, The National has learned that the Holyrood Petitions Committee is set to recommend legislation to the Scottish Government.
The petition lodged by legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi in 2012 called for a Register of Pecuniary Interests Bill and when it meets later today, the Petitions Committee will have a draft letter before it suggesting the Scottish Government brings in such a register.
Cherbi’s petition has been strongly supported by MSPs such as Alex Neil and equally strongly opposed by members of the judiciary led by the current and former Lord Presidents, Lords Carloway and Gill respectively, who said it could be harmful to judges and their recruitment.
Cherbi said last night: “Everyone apart from the judiciary, and apparently those with a desire on becoming a judge, gets the idea that judges should declare their interests in a register, just like everyone else in public positions.
“For the judiciary to have stalled this transparency proposal on their reasoning that judges should be given a pass from transparency just because they are judges does not fit in with modern life or expectations by the public of openness in government and the justice system.
“Two top judges have given evidence. Both adopted overwhelmingly aggressive positions to the idea that the same transparency which exists across public life, and which they are charged with enforcing in our courts, should be applied to them.
“Yet amidst their inferences that justice would shut down, judges could not be hired, and the world would stop turning, neither Lord Carloway nor Lord Gill could make a convincing case against creating a register of judicial interests.
“Prosecutors, police, court staff, even the legal aid board – all key parts of the justice system have registers of interest. Therefore there can be no exclusion from transparency for the most powerful members of the justice system – the judiciary itself.
“Who would have thought judges would have been so fearful of transparency and disclosing their own interests, that it would have taken six years for the Scottish Parliament to reach this stage of recommending legislation? Time now to take openness forward for our judiciary, which will ultimately help regain a measure of public confidence in the courts.
“This is a win win for Scotland. We as a team, petitioners, the media, Judicial Complaints Reviewers, those in our courts and even the legal profession who back this move – changed the judiciary’s expectations of openness and requirements of transparency.”
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.
What is needed is a heavy hitter to step forward and raise a motion in the chamber for a binding vote on the immediate introduction into law of the petition, thereby bypassing vested interests as represented by Nicola Surgeon, Kenny MacAskill et al.
ReplyDeleteStep forward Alex Ross MSP.
MSPs defied Nicola Sturgeon yesterday by calling for judges to list their financial ties...........Sturgeon should be kicked out of Parliament, the woman in not fit to be First Minister. I saw her once in a Gorbals church during the Gorbals fair where she was speaking to people some of whome were in awe of her. I looked at them all and thought wee Nicola would show every Scot the door if any one you asked her to help against a crooked lawyer. Shame on you Sturgeon, you should resign now. Go work at the Law Society of Scotland where your heart is.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY4WlxO6i0
ReplyDeleteSee rrom 3.12 minutes onwards the owners control the courts and everything else. Carlin was right.
I am not surprised the judges attitude was aggressive. These men that is all they are, stink of the usual hypocrisy we see. For them transparency is fine as long as it does not apply to them. I had a motorcycle accident last yesr. My machine was slightly damaged, I was fine and yet the phone calls I have had one wanting me to go to my GP and say I have problems due to the accident. I was examined at the scene of the accident by an NHS paramedic who said what I knew at the time, I was fine.
ReplyDeleteI told the lawyer on the phone, I do not know you but I detest you and all lawyers. Take the crooked lawyer to court I dealt with I said. They told me go to the Law Society. I told them to go to F**k. Yes they taught me one brutal lesson, and that lesson convinced me never to trust another one. They pester people when they can make money, but don't want to know when one of their kind are crooked, therefore they are all crooked. Never again will I deal with lawyer scum, never.
Don't imagine for a moment that the war is over, it has now just begun in earnest. The powers that be - Sturgeon, McAskill and the vested interests they represent - will now do their utmost to limit the 'damage' and water down any proposals until we are left with just another piece of 'window dressing' designed to cover the back of the legal profession in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone doubts this just refer them to the Gill report which, despite the unanimous opinion of the judiciary that the reforms required to be applied in full if they were to be effective, were then 'cherry picked' by politicians and rode roughshod over.
Lord A tells Lord B I cannot oversee on this case the defendent is related to me. Lord B that is fine I will find the case in your favour.
ReplyDeleteThese Judges have been doing what they want as a group for centuries. I often think of systems and training which must shape individual and collective attutudes to the jobs they are going to do. But of all the subtle influences that shape people's perceptions of what is reasonable none must be more influential than self regulation. Try and change that and there will be a battle which is why the Judges were hostile. They certainly think the public have no right to know what interests they have. Good on you Peter Cherbi for your petition. These things go for so long until someone starts to stand up to them. I always tell people to read A Diary of Injustice, to become aware of how the system protects legal professionals to the detriment of the public. I will never trust any lawyer again, and I am happy with that. They destroy people because they can, better to be aware than hope for kind power. The only think they know and care about is protection for themselves.
ReplyDeleteFear of transparency is all the evidence we need. It amazes me that people who are meant to be intelligent are so hostile, what is their hostility other than a deep seated fear they will be found out. Yes the big corporations have the judges in their back pockets.
ReplyDeleteEx-minister Alex Neil will defy Nicola Sturgeon with a bill forcing Scotland's judges to declare their interests..........Sturgeon should be sacked the woman is not interested in Scotland's people when a legal mafia drunk on their own omnipotence can stitch them up in the courts. It's a big club Nicola and you are in it, the Law Society and Judicial Office big club. These unelected people are who you represent, not those who voted for you.
ReplyDeleteSturgeon knows the Judicial Oath is worthless but is happy to see this continue because she is happy with Judges being a law unto themselves.
Checking in to see how is Scotland fairing under the First Dictator and her clique of weirdos
ReplyDeleteHave Carloway & Sturgeon been on the lobbying to stop your petition going any further up the ladder?They must hate the fact all this is out in the open thanks to you.
Keep up the good work also I do like your tweets they must be most unsettling to the greedy lawyers and judges who prey on the public 24/7.
All the best for future reforms!
These Judges must have a lot of secret money, shares and other financial interests in corporations etc and that is why they are so utterly hostile to anyone investigating their activities. It is simple the Private Sector own the courts but do not pay for them because they own the Judicial Process where their agents on the bench Lord this Lady that make sure cases are found in their favour. I told a lawyer recently on the phone hell would freeze over before I would trust her and I learned my lesson, stay clear. I cannot emphasize enough how much I utterly detest this so called profession and everything they stand for. I urge all people to avoid a profession who use phrases such as 'borrowing without consent'. Their Law Society is a criminal union who receive complaints and bury them and the crooked lawyer keeps his job. Just like the Judges want their interests kept buried. It is secrecy in all they do that prevents them collapsing totally. If people really knew what was happening no one would ever enter a lawyers office.
ReplyDeleteSix years well seen it is not the War Cabinet.
ReplyDeleteThe Judicial Oath is a lie. The Law Society protecting the public is a lie. Law Society hating clients is the truth especially the ones who complain. A lawyer telling you they are regulated is a lie. There is no complaints system against lawyers irrespective of the position they hold in the lawyers faction. Remember that there is no complaints system and the people who will throw up their hands in horror and claim clients are protected from crooked lawyers are the people who have the most to lose with truly independent regualtion. That's why they shout the loudest. And the way it is is the way our dear First Minister wants to keep it because she cares not one jot about the Scottish people. She cares about her own profession lawyers like her who love working in secrecy in their law firms. Ask the victims of lawyers hos this sham works and you will get the truth. The problem for the Law Society and his Lordships is that too many people are fighting back after being ruined and finding themselves in the lawyers web, where they protect each other and never help people who are ruined.
ReplyDeleteI would never write to the Law Society because I know 100% they would bury what the crooked lawyer had done. The crooked lawyer is one crook. The bastards in Edinburgh, the Law Societies complaints department will do nothing to help you clients. Stay away from this human trash.
George Carlin said about the American Capitalist System. 'I am talking about the real owners the big wealthy business interests that control all things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice, you don't, you have no choice. You have owners, they own you, they own everything, they own all the important land, they own and control the corporations they have long paid for the Senate Congess, they got the judges in their back pocket. And they own all the media so they control information. They got you by the balls.
ReplyDeleteJust like this Law Society control everything as far as justice is concerned. They want to keep total power over the Scottish people and so do the Judges. Clearly there are parallels between the American system and what we have here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
The current and previous Lord Presidents, Lord Carloway and Lord Gill respectively, both strongly opposed the register which they feel will make it difficult for judges to be recruited.......................This is simply tripe, they want to operate in secret not surprising really considering they have had it their way for centuries. No doubt the Judges are bought and paid for that is the real reason for their hostility to a register.
ReplyDeleteThe position of Lord President – with a salary of £220,655 a year, including perks, international travel and unrivalled power to challenge even the Scottish Parliament - is responsible for leadership of the entire Scottish judiciary in addition to chairing the Board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Lord President is the most senior judge in Scotland, with authority over any court established under Scots law, apart from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom......................All that power and they reject a register. Clearly they don't want any diminishing of their dictatorial judicial power. Because that is what this is a form of dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteSix years should have been enough to allow the greedy old corrupt judges to make off with their cash you would thing but maybe they have so much the amounts are difficult to move!
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway how can anyone trust Sturgeon and her baying mob after the fracking case this week with the qc for the mediocre Scottish govt told judges there is no fracking ban!
How does no ban compute with all the mouthing off from greens and others there is a ban when now there isnt!
And why do the judges sit there like idiots saying nothing about it maybe pretending they dont even know what fracking is all about!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44072425
Energy firm Ineos astonished over government's stance on fracking
Petrochemical firm Ineos said it was "astonished" to hear that the Scottish government had not banned fracking.
The statement was made outside the Court of Session where the company has been challenging the moratorium in Scotland on the controversial practice.
Ineos and Reach CSG claim ministers acted illegally in announcing the block in October 2017.
Government lawyers told the court a ban was not in place and that a final position had yet to be adopted.
Tom Pickering, who is operations director for Ineos Shale, said that that claim represented a "staggering U-turn".
He explained: "The position of the Scottish government that has now been stated in court represents a staggering U-turn on the policy direction announced by the energy minister during parliamentary debate in October last year and by the first minister when she said in parliament 'Scotland should welcome the fact that fracking in Scotland is banned'.
"The Scottish people and parliament may find this revelation barely believable when the government has repeatedly told Holyrood that there is an effective and immediate ban."
The Scottish government announced a moratorium - or temporary halt - on fracking in 2015 while it sought the opinions of experts and the public on whether the controversial oil extraction technique should be allowed in Scotland.
After considering the evidence for two years, ministers concluded there was "overwhelming opposition" and announced what was described at the time as an "effective ban", enforced via planning powers. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon later told the SNP conference that "fracking is now banned in Scotland".
According to papers lodged at the Court of Session, Ineos argued that the October announcement represented a change of policy by the government.
They want Lord Pentland to declare that the government acted unlawfully by doing so, and also want the court to declare that it is unlawful for ministers to use planning powers to prohibit fracking in Scotland.
'Not yet adopted a position'
James Mure QC, acting for the Scottish government, told the court that ministers had actually only announced their "preferred position", saying the ministerial statements about an "effective ban" were a PR "gloss".
He said: "It is the language of a press statement. What they have done is to announce a preferred position on the issue.
"They have not yet adopted a position. Any position which the government will take has to undergo an environmental and strategic assessment.
"The court should therefore allow the policy-making process to go to finalisation which is expected in October this year."
Speaking following the conclusion of arguments at the court on Thursday, Mr Pickering said: "Sadly we seem to have reached the Alice in Wonderland situation where a business has to go to the Scottish courts to establish whether announcements in Holyrood can be taken at face value."
A Scottish government spokesman declined to comment further on the legal case.
Environmental groups have weighed in on the side of the government, with lawyers for Friends of the Earth contending that a ban is lawful and necessary to meet Scotland's emissions targets.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteafter: YOUR SIX YEAR BATTLE and Scottish Parliament investigation of a petition calling for the creation of a register of interests for judges has received the backing of a powerful Holyrood Committee - who have concluded the proposal to increase judicial transparency - should become law.
What has become of you lately, are you on hiatus or presently being silenced by the bods in power and wish to redact your achievements?
There is still more to do, so kindly keep going in exposing the dairy milking of an unjust legal system inundated with too many greedy solicitors/Advocates with their noses stuck firmly to SLAB handouts and ripping of 'clients'.
Keep on ploughing the fields of injustice so that the Public can reap your endeavours.
I for one have no doubt that the integrity and honesty of the Scottish Judiciary can easily withstand the scrutiny of a Judicial Register of Interests.
ReplyDeleteAny refusal by the Scottish Parliament to make this petition law would merely serve to undermine that belief.
Doesnt it bother you the BBC boycotted your petition?
ReplyDeleteTo follow up my question on the bBC boycotting your petition you may want to read the following
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thenational.scot/news/16240549.BBC_is_failing_in_its_duty_to_Scotland__SNP_tell_watchdog/
Exclusive
22nd May
BBC is failing in its duty to Scotland, SNP tell watchdog
Exclusive by Kathleen Nutt @kacnutt Journalist
The SNP submission to Ofcom says the BBC is failing in its duty to Scotland
THE BBC is failing to deliver on its Charter’s commitment to “reflect, represent and serve” Scotland, according to a SNP submission to the broadcasting regulator.
Nicola Sturgeon’s party has given its views to Ofcom which is consulting on the licensing of a new BBC Scotland channel, due to launch next February. The SNP said the new channel must address these vital “public purpose” concerns.
It said: “A key public purpose in the BBC Charter states that the corporation must ‘reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom’s nations and regions and, in doing so, support the creative economy across the United Kingdom.’
“We believe the BBC currently fails to deliver on this public purpose in Scotland, and the new channel must address and reverse this shortcoming. This has also been noted by industry professionals.”
The document said that the BBC’s news coverage in Scotland falls short by not comparing how public services north of the Border compare with those in the rest of the UK. It also said there was a “disparity of focus” in BBC Scotland’s news coverage which concentrated on “negative” coverage and scrutiny of business at Holyrood and not sufficiently on the impact on Scotland of decisions and events at Westminster.
“The people of Scotland were told, repeatedly during the referendum campaign, that Scotland has two governments and two parliaments. And yet BBC Scotland’s news focus – particularly so with Reporting Scotland – is predominantly focused on negative aspects of matters concerning devolved powers. Conversely, the coverage of reserved matters including the impact of UK Government decisions on the people of Scotland is given far less space and coverage,” it stated.
The new channel’s £32 million a year budget was a further concern as was insufficient coverage given to Scotland on the network despite the appointment of a Scotland editor.
“In 2015/16 the BBC raised [more than] £320m from the licence fee in Scotland but only spent 54.6% of this revenue on programming in Scotland,” said the submission, pointing out Wales got 95% and Northern Ireland 75%.
Blair Jenkins, former head of news and current affairs at both STV and BBC Scotland told The National he had been very concerned about the budget for the new channel from the beginning.
He said: “The view inside BBC Scotland is to get it up and running, show that it works, and then make the case for more investment. But the new channel has to be very ambitious and very innovative from the start, with programmes that get talked about and win large audiences. That costs more money than they seem to have available.
“It is a concern that the level of funding is so much less than the budget we proposed in the Scottish Broadcasting Commission 10 years ago. Like the SNP, I want to be cautiously optimistic, but no one should be under any illusions about how hard it is to launch a new channel.”
Hey Peter hope you are okay havent seen anything from you in awhile on the blog I do follow your tweets but remember the blog is more important and powerful than twitter!
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work man hope to see you reporting again soon because you are one of the few true journalists we can believe!
@28 May 2018 at 11:21
ReplyDeleteNot really.Their absence worked out well for the petition as the BBC tend to destroy an issue in 30 mins or less which people have worked on for years. Just another big vested interest really with ties to the judiciary & legal profession. Carefully crafted closed interviews with judges & lawyers, and agreed questions with top judges do not really count for accurate reporting.
@28 May 2018 at 11:37
Although the problem with this is, neither does the current Scotgov cabinet serve anyone's interests other than their own. Time for fresh faces at the heart of Scotgov and a completely new cabinet if the country is to develop as we should, and transparency, accountability & scrutiny be valued along with prioritising the electorate over £120K a year spin doctors & seedy secrets.
@28 May 2018 at 18:16
Fine thanks, other equally headlining & perhaps even more important issues relating to justice have been worked on during the past few weeks, normal service will resume, although it never really stopped.Noting your comments re Twitter, agreed to a certain extent...
Re the remaining comments - Thanks for your support on the petition and other matters, more to come soon.
Re the unpublished comments - Details provided are being looked into for further investigation, thanks for the input.
You cannot be prosecuted or struck off for a crime where the decision makers are all for the lawyer no matter how much evidence a client has, or what rules are there to protect the client. The hostility of these judges is systemic, and individual. The Law Society made the SLCC a repackaged Law Society and their primary objective was to minimise damage by keeping everything secret. But the long term damage will drive clients away from lawyers, the more damage they do to their clients the greater the public distrust will be in lawyers full stop. The harsh reality is that these Judges are driven to stop your petition Peter, they believe they have the right to maintain their power and loathe anyone who dare challenge it. Good on you Peter and the DOI team, I read your blog all the time and I tell other people to read it. I say do you want all your money stolen by a lawyer, after the inevitable no I say you better start reading A Diary of Injustice.
ReplyDeleteWelcome back Peter.
ReplyDeleteI did wonder why bbc Scotland omitted all six years of your petition now I understand from the comments above.
Also one of your msp friends messaged me today of your return to Scotland.
Keep up the good work!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDoesnt it bother you the BBC boycotted your petition?...........As a reader I am glad they boycotted the petition, what have they ever done before to fight crooked lawyers?
Great to see you 'back in the saddle' - thanks for all your prodigious work enlightening the Scottish Public..........and with FACTS, not simply opinion.
ReplyDeletenever seen Scotland in such a shambles as under Nicola Sturgeon and her mob we are now a third world country while the judges and crooked police and everyone else in the govt help themselves to remaining cash
ReplyDeleteI see there is mention of the Petition in an interview with Russell Findlay (at 17' 25") author of the book Acid Attack. You can find it at;
ReplyDeletehttps://theferret.scot/russell-findlay-journalist-acid-attack/
My own experience with the bbc Scotland
ReplyDeleteAbused in care homes for many years and I have posted about this on forums I was approached by bbc Scotland who wanted to include my story in some report.Long interview I tell them what happened lots of questions I am also asked if I have been to a lawyer I said no because I dont have any faith in the system and they are part of it then three days later I get a call from a lawyer from Glasgow who tells me they are representing abuse victims and they want to visit me I say no money they say they can sign me up for legal aid straight away and will bring the forms out to me I keep saying I am not interested in suing and the woman says I could be paid millions of pounds and look what happens in America then I say we are not in America and they pay peanuts here she keeps me on the phone for nearly an hour asking all kinds of questions as if she knows my case and same questions as the bbc people asked me so obviously someone was talking about my interview.I then say I dont want anything more to do with it and she says she will call again to check up on me. On the Monday of the next week the lawyer sends me a four page letter explaining everything she said to me on the phone with legal aid forms there is no mention in the letter of the millions she said I could be paid for what happened to me and in the letter she said she would be in my area on the Thursday and would visit my house at a certain time.I do not reply to the letter or call her to say I received it.She then comes round on the Thursday at the time she said I do not answer the door she calls my phone I do not answer she then sits outside for at least half an hour and then goes away.She has set me three extra letters asking to meet me at my home says I can have legal aid for this case and in her last letter she says someone told her about my case and she says if I allow her firm to represent me ''this will put my life back on track' the exact words in the letter.so I call her up and we talk she says nothing to be worried about legal aid will pay for everything and the abuse inquiry is going to run and run and the judge is keen on victims being paid out when everything is finished I ask how long this will take and she says the inquiry could go on for 6 years.Long conversation she wants me to sign these legal aid forms and some papers what should I do?
I dont want to mention the firm of lawyers she works at but they are in almost every abuse and claims story on bbc Scotland so there must be a connection and I have heard the exact same has happened to other care home abuse victims I know who post on forums so the lawyers must have turned our abuse experiences into a money racket.Can I send you the papers and you could look at them for me and please publish my comment maybe someone else with the same happening to them will read this and get in touch.Thanks.
@ 30 May 2018 at 15:35
ReplyDeleteThanks, The time away from the blog has been spent looking at new information in relation to the judiciary & assisting other cases during the past few weeks, normal blog reporting service to resume this coming week.
@ 1 June 2018 at 11:38
Thanks for bringing this to readers attention - I recommend readers buy the book (there is a link to it on the blog side column.
Acid Attack is an unsurpassed, excellent read of what really goes on in the Scottish justice system.
@ 2 June 2018 at 11:20
Thanks for your comment, and the details of happened to you.
If the same law firm is involved which I have heard from similar cases, this does fit a pattern which ends up more profitable for the law firm involved than clients and victims of whichever cause the firm claims to represent that particular week.
Please send the material in via the blog email address for further study and if you haven't already done so, would urge you report your experiences to the Scottish Abuse Inquiry along with identifying persons alleged to have abused you - and at the same time send a copy to this blog or another journalist along with the names of persons etc so any material can be properly investigated and perhaps lead to those who have committed crimes to be dealt with appropriately.
@ 2 June 2018 at 11:20
ReplyDeleteIn addition I would suggest not filling out the legal aid forms at this time, consider what has occurred first and if you do want to write of your experiences to the Scottish Abuse Inquiry I suggest you do so.
I appreciate what has happened to you is a horrendous experience, but the alleged abusers and related institutions should be exposed and the justice system & public scrutiny applied to their actions - in order to obtain justice for yourself, and to help protect others from falling victim to the same abuse & mistreatment.
If you do wish to consult a solicitor, a law firm without apparent connections to broadcasters can be recommended.
Take your time, you can do this, and help others.
DOI I will read your blog and comment on it until my last breath. Aa Peter said it is a team effort. I had an ambulance chaser (for want of a better term) on the phone again about my motorcycle accident where I was not injured, my bike is now fixed. I said are you calling from a law firm? I told them I detest lawyers. An NHS paramedic attended the accident and confirmed what I knew, I was fine. And still they want to help me get damages. I don't want a penny because I got my Yamaha fixed and what I hate the most is that these rats phone when they can make money. They would spit on me if I asked them to represent me against a lawyer who ruined me. Fk lawyers they are an evil money grabbing cartel who close the doors to justice for those who their colleagues ruin. STAY AWAY FROM LAW FIRMS FOLKS, didn't mean to shout.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGeevtdp1WQ
ReplyDelete43.06 elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy what Yanis Varoufakis was told. Is Capitalism Devouring Democracy?Another example of how power is viewed.
What else can you expect from journalists who introduce themselves as "award wining journalists" from the Jimmy Saville Broadcasting Corp
ReplyDeleteThe bbc will have to keep in with the judiciary because of all the abuse cases and claims against itself.Easy to spot if you know where to look.