Writing in a letter to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – Ms Ali said she was moved to contact MSPs after reading a letter from Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to MSPs, claiming complaints rules for judges make a register of judicial interests unnecessary.
Moi Ali wrote: “In 2014 when I was Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I wrote to the Public Petitions Committee in support of the Register.”
“I was moved at that time to write in response to the then Justice Secretary’s submission to the Committee that such a register was unnecessary.”
“He cited the complaints rules as being one of the three safeguards that made a register unnecessary.”
“Today I have been prompted to write this letter having seen the current Justice Secretary’s almost identically-worded submission to this committee.”
“It is simply not the case that the complaints rules offer protections such that a register of interest is not required.”
Ms Ali ends her letter by telling MSPs: “I hope that the committee will see that requiring the judiciary to meet the same standards of transparency as others in public life will in no way compromise their independence.”
Moi Ali also submitted a letter she wrote during her term as Justice Secretary, in response to previous end erroneous claims by Kenny MacAskill to MSPs which have since been repeated by Humza Yousaf.
In her letter to the Public Petitions Committee, Ms Ali states: “I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.”
“The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people's assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.”
“Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity - but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity. Again, 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 institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”
Humza Yousaf’s letter to Margaret Mitchell MSP, Convener of the Justice Committee – repeated the claims by former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill that complaints rules for the judiciary meant there was no requirement to create a register of interests for judges.
The letter from the Justice Secretary to Holyrood’s Justice Committee was reported in depth here: COPY MINISTER: ‘Copied’ content from ex Minister sent by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to Holyrood MSPs - Public must rely on judges judging judges for transparency, Scottish Government will not create register of judges’ interests
In the letter, Justice Secretary – Humza Yousaf – told Holyrood’s Justice Committee that judges should be allowed to judge themselves, and the public must rely on judicial oaths & ethics – written and approved by the judiciary - instead of transparency in the courts.
The judicial register petition - 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.
The judicial register of interests would contain 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.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support, backing in the media, and crucial support from two of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewers – including Moi Ali
Moi Ali – who served as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) - appeared before the Public Petitions Committee in a hard hitting evidence session during September 2013,and gave her 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.
The lengthy Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests has generated over sixty two submissions of evidence, at least twenty one Committee hearings, a private meeting and fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate and has since been taken over by Holyrood’s Justice Committee after a recommendation to take the issue forward from the Public Petitions Committee in March 2018.
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.
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.
Holyrood’s Justice Committee are due to consider Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary on Tuesday 28 May next week.
Moi Ali’s full letter to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee reads as follows:
The following submission is for the consideration of the Justice Committee when it meets on 28 May 2019 to discuss a register of interests for the judiciary.
In 2014 when I was Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I wrote to the Public Petitions Committee in support of the Register.
I was moved at that time to write in response to the then Justice Secretary’s submission to the Committee that such a register was unnecessary.
He cited the complaints rules as being one of the three safeguards that made a register unnecessary.
Today I have been prompted to write this letter having seen the current Justice Secretary’s almost identically-worded submission to this committee.
It is simply not the case that the complaints rules offer protections such that a register of interest is not required.
Rather than repeat the arguments again, I have attached the letter I wrote in 2014. It remains as relevant today as it did at back then.
I hope that the committee will see that requiring the judiciary to meet the same standards of transparency as others in public life will in no way compromise their independence.
Yours, Moi Ali
The following is the letter sent by Moi Ali in her capacity as Judicial Complaints Reviewer, to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament, who were considering the petition to create a register of judicial interests:
Consideration of Petition PE1458
I understand that the Committee is due to consider this petition again shortly. In view of this, and in response to the Cabinet Secretary's letter of 22nd April 2014, this is an opportune time to pull together the reasons why the Judicial Complaints Reviewer believes that a register of interests for the judiciary is essential.
I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.
I think it likely that the number of complaints against the judiciary would fall were there to be a published register of interest for judicial office holders. I have received complaints about perceived conflicts of interest that have come to light after court proceedings. A register of interests would allow issues to be dealt with at the time, thus averting the need for a complaint. That would be good for the judiciary and for the public.
The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people's assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.
Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity - but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity. Again, 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 institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice states that there are sufficient safeguards already in place, citing the complaints rules as one of these safeguards. As the person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary to review complaints handled under these rules, I can say from experience over nearly three years that the rules are not fit for purpose. I have attached a document I prepared in December 2013, following consultation with members of the public who had made complaints under these rules, to support this assertion.
The Judicial Office's published statistics demonstrate either that judicial conduct is exemplary, and the public vexatious or unable to understand the rules; or they show that the rules are not fit for purpose. I suggest that it is the latter. For the first year in which the Rules were operational (a 13-month period to 31st March 2012), 107 conduct complaints were made to the Judicial Office and 98 were completed during that year. With one exception, all of them were dismissed without investigation. Only one investigation was carried out, following which the complaint was dismissed as "unsubstantiated".
The latest statistics have yet to be published, but year two figures (to March 31st 2013) show that 114 complaints were made (plus the 9 carried over from year 1). Of 116 concluded during the year, only 11 were investigated. Four of the 11 were still underway at year-end, meaning that 7 investigations were completed in Year 2. Of the 7, one was withdrawn; 2 resolved informally; and 4 were reported to the Lord President. Of the 4 reported to the Lord President, 3 were deemed to be without substance, unsubstantiated or vexatious. For the one remaining complaint, an apology was offered by the judicial office holder and the Lord President deemed that no further action was required.
In summary, in the first 25 months of the new complaints regime, the Judicial Office's published statistics show that of 221 complaints there were 12 investigations, one judicial office holder apologised for his or her conduct and no judicial office holders were disciplined.
My experience in this office leads me to the conclusion that the rules are not a sufficient safeguard. But even if they were, particularly when combined with the judicial oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics, why not go further in enhancing transparency and accountability?
There are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent members of public boards from acting inappropriately - such as robust audit committees, external scrutiny and regulation, board meetings held in public and a rigorous appointments process. Nevertheless, such members are still required - and rightly so - to complete a publicly accessible register of interests in order to demonstrate transparency and accountability. It is right that public appointees and elected politicians are required to do this, and it is also right that the judiciary should too. Registers of interest are the norm now and the judiciary is out of step with standard practice. This undermines their standing with the public.
For all of the above reasons, it is in the interests both of the judiciary and of the public for there to be a register of interests.
I have been frank about my views in this letter, and I hope that I have not given the impression that I do not have a great deal of respect for the judiciary and the difficult work that they undertake for the greater good of society. Their work is essential, their independence vital. An independent judiciary underpins a civilised society. But with independence goes accountability, and a register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability.
I will be standing down from my role as JCR in the summer, but until that time I am happy to provide further information to the committee if that would be helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Moi Ali, Judicial Complaints Reviewer
TOP SCOTS JUDGES FAIL IN HOLYROOD TRANSPARENCY PROBE:
Both of Scotland’s recent top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for judges – even after both Lord Presidents attempted to press home the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by – judges.
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
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.
Very good!
ReplyDeleteHere is a lady prepared to speak truth to power. My God, I wish there were more like her.
ReplyDeleteThis part from Moi Ali's letter if I have copied and pasted correctly sums up the whole issue with judges and why they have to be held to account along with everyone else.
ReplyDelete“The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people's assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.”