The attempt to close down Petition PE 1458 was led by the now former MSP Justice Committee Convener – Adam Tomkins of the Scottish Conservatives – who launched blistering criticism on questions around judges’ interests during several hard edged statements to fellow members of the Justice Committee.
However, since these events took place on 2 March at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – the Scottish Government has since indicated they will create the register of judges’ interests as asked for in the petition - Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
Petition PE1458 was originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012. The Petition calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all 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.
Confirmation the judicial register will now move forward, was reported in the media: SNP Government moves forward with register of interest plan for judges
The Daily Record article reports: Now Keith Brown, who was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon to be the new Justice Secretary, has confirmed the Government is taking it forward.
He said: “It was a manifesto commitment of the SNP to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system. “Now that the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced and take forward the work needed to achieve this manifesto commitment.”
The Record further reports support for the petition from MSPs and the Scottish Government: SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said: “I support the commitment from the Scottish Government to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Members of the judiciary, like any other public servant in receipt of public funds, must disclose interests that could influence their decisions or give the perception of doing so”.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Introducing a register of interests for members of the judiciary will increase transparency and trust in the justice system. The Scottish Government will now begin work to engage with stakeholders to consider how best to bring forward this justice reform.”
An additional blog report will publish more detail around the latest events relating to the petition and the creation of a register of judges’ interests – which the Scottish Government confirmed will occur.
Back to the events of March 2021 – Adam Tomkins – the now former Justice Committee Convener after having retired as an MSP at the 2021 election - was joined in the well organised effort to shut down the judicial register debate by Annabelle Ewing – who is now the current Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, and MSP Rona Mackay – formerly of the Petitions Committee.
However, Justice Committee member John Finnie who has since stood down as an MSP launched a scathing rebuttal of the Tory Convener’s concerted effort to shut down debate on Scottish judges interests and demanded the petition be kept open. Mr Finnie was joined in support by MSPs Rhoda Grant (Scottish Labour), Liam Kerr (Conservative) Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat) & Shona Robinson (SNP).
In response to Tomkins & Ewing’s praise for judges, and their expressed agreement with the Lord President to shut the petition, John Finnie said in response: “I will follow on from the convener’s comments about the separation of powers. Of course, in any liberal democracy, it is absolutely right that we have an independent justiciary. I accept that. However, we are talking about one individual the Lord President.”
“I do not know that individual and I have no axe to grind one way or another, but I will paraphrase the previous exchanges with him. He said, “No, I don’t want it.” The committee decided to write to him again, and he said, “I’ve already told you that I don’t want it, and I’m telling you again that I don’t want it.” There were discussions about his coming to give evidence and even about whether it was appropriate to ask him to come to give evidence. He said, “Well, I could come and give evidence but, as I’ve told you and I’ll tell you for a third time, I don’t want it.” To be perfectly honest, that does not seem to me like a functioning liberal democracy.”
“What is there to fear from disclosing the information that is being asked for? Examples of other jurisdictions have been given where that is done without a problem. Should we be surprised that a Government of whatever persuasion wants to be in accord with the Lord President and does not want to dissent from the Lord President’s position? Perhaps not.”
I am not persuaded by either of those arguments, but there is a more compelling reason why we must keep the petition open. I am supportive of the intention of the petition. As always, the devil will be in the detail, but the detail that has been shared with us is that we are being urged to commission the work that we had already decided on. It is very clearly unfinished work for the committee. We undertook to do things in relation to the petition; we have not done those. For that reason, we must pass it on to our successor committee to pick up on that work, and it will be for it to decide how to proceed thereafter. The petition should be kept open.”
Justice Committee members Shona Robison, Liam McArthur & Rhoda Grant also agreed to keep the petition open.
The Scottish Conservatives Liam Kerr also agreed, to keep the petition open.
A planned motion to close the petition was apparently scrapped at this point and discussions aimed at shutting down the petition - which took place outside the realms of the Justice Committee prior to the hearing - have since been made available to journalists.
Instead – The Tory Justice Committee convener Adam Tomkins managed a final spat at the TEN YEAR probe of judges interests and plans to create a register – displaying visible concern that Justice Committee members had kept the petition open
A very animated Adam Tomkins ended the terse, at times bitter hearing on the petition by stating “I will close by saying that just because it is appropriate for elected members in the legislature to have a register of interests, that does not mean that it is appropriate for members of the judiciary to have a similar register of interests. The function of the separation of powers is to treat different branches of government differently, according to their institutional function.I hope that that is a fair summary albeit with a gloss from me at the end of the committee’s decision.”
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary – originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all 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.
Video coverage of the Justice Committee meeting of 2 March 2021 and discussions relating to the register of judicial interests petition can be viewed here:
Register of Judges Interests Petition PE 1458 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee 2 March 2021
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458) Tuesday 2 March 2021
Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow): The second of the petitions before us is PE1458, which concerns a register of judicial interests. The petition, from Peter Cherbi, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a register of pecuniary interests of judges bill or to amend the present legislation to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and information on any hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests. I refer members to the relevant papers, which include submissions from supporters of the petition.
As with the previous petition, the committee has had PE1458 before it for a long time the petition was lodged in December 2012. The last time that the committee considered the petition, it agreed to seek further information on other potential conflicts of interest relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish judicial system and to hold a round-table session on the matter with constitutional and academic witnesses. I am afraid that the pressures of competing work have meant that we have not been able to organise a round-table event on the subject, so that remains undone.
I open the discussion to members. As with the previous petition, we need to decide whether to close the petition or to keep it open for session 6. If we take the latter course, we need to justify our decision.
Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath): I am mindful of the fact that I should probably have waited for my colleagues to indicate that they wished to speak first, because that might have been more appropriate, given that I am a newish member of the committee. In any event, I have read the clerk’s note and have been peripherally aware of the petition over the course of several years.
I cite a few points. First, as far as I can see, the statement of principles of judicial ethics is a comprehensive set of requirements. The idea that there is nothing in place is a fallacy. Secondly, I note that additional safeguards have been put in place during the time that the petition has been open. I cite the register of recusals and the publication of judicial expenses and overseas travel. Thirdly, and most importantly, I was struck by the letter from the Lord President and the key point about the need for the independence of the judiciary, which is not comparable to any other profession. The independence of the judiciary of the country is a fundamental tenet of our laws and our society. I agree with the Lord President on those matters, so I do not support the continuation of the petition.
Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow): Thank you, Annabelle. The Official Report will not show this, but I was nodding vigorously as you commented on the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary as a tenet of the separation of powers. That is the principle that should be front and centre when we consider questions such as this one.
For a register of judicial interests to be created, either the Lord President would need to set that up or Parliament would need to legislate to do so. As Annabelle Ewing has just said, the Lord President has said that he does not see the need for such a register. That is also the view of the current Scottish Government, which has said that it does not support a register.
Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Scottish Conservative): For complete transparency, I make the usual declaration that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland.
I listened carefully to Annabelle Ewing and the convener, who spoke very persuasively. It is an interesting debate. I have not, as yet, heard a convincing argument against the proposal. I think that there is something in what Annabelle Ewing and the convener said, but I need to hear more. Some of the recent debates that the convener and I have been involved in give me pause for thought about the petition.
The convener prefaced his comments by saying that the committee was previously interested in obtaining more information on the issue, and that we talked about having a round-table session. I want to hear and learn more about the issue before I decide what I think about a register of interests. For that reason, I am inclined to think that we should keep the petition open with a view to me or whoever has the privilege of coming back and being on the committee looking at the issue again in the cold light of day of the new session of Parliament.
Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow): Annabelle Ewing has asked me to remind members that, like Liam Kerr, she is a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although, again, like Liam Kerr, she has never been not yet, at least on the bench. Thank you, Annabelle.
Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands): I have no such declaration to make. I agree whole-heartedly with what you said, convener, and with what Annabelle Ewing said in opening the debate. It is indisputable that steps have been taken to address at least some of the principles of the concerns that were raised in the petition.
The point where I am slightly anxious here, I refer back to Annabelle Ewing’s comments on the earlier petition about the value and benefits of consistency is that, having sisted the petition previously on the basis that the committee would hold a round-table session to solicit wider views from stakeholders, but then not having done so, it would be difficult to make an argument for closing the petition. Again, that argument seems to be for administrative neatness. We made a commitment as a committee. If, after the election, the incoming committee does not feel that it needs to be beholden to that commitment, that is a decision for it, but it would be passing strange for us to abandon, simply because of the prospect of an election, the conclusion that we reached when we considered the petition previously.
On that basis, as with the earlier petition, I am minded to suggest that we keep this one open until the next session.
Deputy Convener Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden): I was on the Public Petitions Committee when the petition started its journey before it came to the Justice Committee, and I am supportive of it I am on record as saying that. However, given that the Lord President and the cabinet secretary have made their views clear on it several times, at this stage, we should close it, with the knowledge that the petitioner can bring it back in the next session of Parliament if he wants to carry on with it.
I do not think that that would be inconsistent. The petition is different from the previous one, which we decided to keep open, because the circumstances are different. At this stage, my preference is to close the petition, and the petitioner can always bring it back. However, I am sympathetic to the subject.
John Finnie (Scottish Green Party, Highlands & Islands): I will follow on from the convener’s comments about the separation of powers. Of course, in any liberal democracy, it is absolutely right that we have an independent justiciary. I accept that. However, we are talking about one individual the Lord President.
I do not know that individual and I have no axe to grind one way or another, but I will paraphrase the previous exchanges with him. He said, “No, I don’t want it.” The committee decided to write to him again, and he said, “I’ve already told you that I don’t want it, and I’m telling you again that I don’t want it.” There were discussions about his coming to give evidence and even about whether it was appropriate to ask him to come to give evidence. He said, “Well, I could come and give evidence but, as I’ve told you and I’ll tell you for a third time, I don’t want it.” To be perfectly honest, that does not seem to me like a functioning liberal democracy.
What is there to fear from disclosing the information that is being asked for? Examples of other jurisdictions have been given where that is done without a problem. Should we be surprised that a Government of whatever persuasion wants to be in accord with the Lord President and does not want to dissent from the Lord President’s position? Perhaps not.
I am not persuaded by either of those arguments, but there is a more compelling reason why we must keep the petition open. I am supportive of the intention of the petition. As always, the devil will be in the detail, but the detail that has been shared with us is that we are being urged to commission the work that we had already decided on. It is very clearly unfinished work for the committee. We undertook to do things in relation to the petition; we have not done those. For that reason, we must pass it on to our successor committee to pick up on that work, and it will be for it to decide how to proceed thereafter. The petition should be kept open.
Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East): I do not have strong views on the petition. I have some sympathy with Annabelle Ewing’s comments about the additional safeguards, and I think that we all agree on the independence of the judiciary. However, I also have some sympathy with what John Finnie has said, in that we should be consistent if we feel that there is some unfinished business for our successor committee to take forward, even if that is just the holding of a round-table session and the gathering of further evidence, it might be in a better position to make a definitive call on whether there is more that should be done here.
I hope that we can reach a consensus. I would be content for the petition to be included in our legacy report as something for our successor committee to consider further.
Rhoda Grant (Scottish Labour, Highlands & Islands): I agree with what John Finnie said and proposed.
Convener Adam Tomkins) Scottish Conservative, Glasgow: I am grateful to colleagues for what has been a very helpful debate. My sense of the discussion is that members of the committee do not feel as strongly about this petition as they did about the previous one. Some modest and minor disagreement has been expressed about whether to keep the petition open or to close it. However, I think that the balance of opinion is in favour of keeping it open, if only because there is a sense of unfinished business. However unfinished the business is, though, I think that everybody who has expressed a view on the matter is clearly of the view that that business needs to be transacted subject to and in the light of the fundamentally important principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.
I think that the body of opinion is that the petition should not be closed at the moment, but that our successor committee in session 6 should be invited to consider the matter, if only to hear views and perhaps to explore a little why the Lord President is opposed or why the judiciary, who are represented by the Lord President, are opposed to the creation of such a register.
I will close by saying that just because it is appropriate for elected members in the legislature to have a register of interests, that does not mean that it is appropriate for members of the judiciary to have a similar register of interests. The function of the separation of powers is to treat different branches of government differently, according to their institutional function.
I hope that that is a fair summary albeit with a gloss from me at the end of the committee’s decision.
A reference in the Justice Committee’s Annual report for 2020 to 2021 states the following: Petition PE1458 - is a petition by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.
The Report states the Petition, and another will be kept open for the next session of the Scottish Parliament: At its meeting of 2 March 2021, the Committee considered these two petitions for the final time this session and agreed to keep both petitions open for a new committee to consider in session 6.
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT JUDICIAL INTERESTS PROBE:
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.
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.
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.
The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee has consistently supported calls for a judicial interests register over multiple hearings – where MSPs have spoken out on Scottish judges involvement in the Gulf States, reported here: JUDICIAL REGISTER: Justice Committee to hear evidence from ex-Judicial Investigator, top judge on judicial interests register, MSP says Scottish judges should not be involved with Gulf States implicated in unlawful wars, mistreatment of women's rights
A report on the Justice Committee’s consideration of the Judicial Interests Register Petition in May 2019 – where MSPs backed the petition - can be found here: JUDICIAL REGISTER: Justice Committee investigate approach to judges’ interests in other countries – MSPs say ‘Recusals register not comprehensive enough’ ‘Openness & transparency do not contradict independence of the judiciary’
A report on the Justice Committee’s consideration of the Judicial Interests Register Petition in February 2019 – where evidence in relation to Scottish judges swearing dual judicial oaths and working for Human Rights abusing Gulf States dictatorships - can be found here: JUDICIAL REGISTER - MSPs urged to take forward SEVEN year petition to create a Register of Judges’ Interests as Holyrood Justice Committee handed evidence of Scottish Judges serving in Gulf states regimes known to abuse Human Rights
UNCONVINCING TOP SCOTS JUDGES WHO REFUSED TO BE TRANSPARENT:
Scotland’s most recent two top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for Scotland’s judiciary
Former Lord President Brian Gill, and current Lord President Lord Carloway consistently argued the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by judges negate any requirement for further transparency in the judiciary.
However, both the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee – who investigated the judicial interests petition for six years, and the Justice Committee – who have considered the petition since 2018, found the judiciary’s arguments against transparency to be “unconvincing”.
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
Earlier reports of how the Justice Committee handled Petition PE1458, and evidence which emerged in relation to the Judicial Office and Court Service instructing Justices of the Peace and judges to falsely not record recusals, can be found here: INJUSTICE OF THE PEACE: Judge admits Scottish Courts concealed conflict of interest recusals - Justices of the Peace were told by Court staff any cases where JP judges decided to step down from court hearings - would NOT be recorded in official register of judicial recusals
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
Well done Peter.
ReplyDeleteYour dogged determination gets results!
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-government-moves-forward-register-24317365
SNP Government moves forward with register of interest plan for judges
Justice Secretary Keith Brown said the policy contained in the SNP manifesto is aimed at improving transparency and trust in the justice system
Paul Hutcheon Political Editor, Daily Record 15 JUN 2021
Judges will have to declare their financial interests under SNP Government transparency plans.
Ministers are pushing ahead with the openness scheme despite fierce opposition from the judiciary.
Unlike politicians and quango board members, judges and sheriffs are not required to publish details of any directorships or shares they hold.
Critics believe the lack of public disclosure could lead to hidden conflicts of interests.
The issue was raised nearly ten years ago by campaigner Peter Cherbi, whose Holyrood petition called for a register of interests to be introduced.
Lord Gill, who at the time was Scotland’s most senior judge, blasted the idea by saying it could encourage “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.
His successor as Lord President, Lord Carloway, also claimed the policy would be “detrimental” to justice in Scotland.
However, MSPs across the political spectrum back the principle of a register and a commitment was made by the SNP during the Holyrood election.
Now Keith Brown, who was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon to be the new Justice Secretary, has confirmed the Government is taking it forward.
He said: “It was a manifesto commitment of the SNP to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system.
“Now that the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced and take forward the work needed to achieve this manifesto commitment.”
Judges currently recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest in a case and such instances are recorded online.
A Judicial Communications spokesperson said: “Judges are obliged to declare an interest where there is any real or perceived conflict in a court case before them. If there is a conflict, they will step down from the case (called a recusal) and it will be heard by a different judge.
“There is a register of recusals published on the Judiciary of Scotland website which shows when a motion for recusal has been made. The Lord President’s position was made clear in his evidence to the Public Petitions Committee that an additional, mandatory register of interests is not necessary or beneficial.”
“The big question now is exactly what will it look like. A properly structured register could enhance public confidence which is in everyone’s interests.”
Cherbi, whose campaign sparked calls for the move, said: “Rules of declarations of interest for the judiciary should at least equal those applied to elected politicians - to ensure all links to professions, business, industry, wealth, roles in other walks of life and any other link, should be in the publicly available register for court users, litigants, the media and public to scrutinise.”
SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said: “I support the commitment from the Scottish Government to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Members of the judiciary, like any other public servant in receipt of public funds, must disclose interests that could influence their decisions or give the perception of doing so”.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Introducing a register of interests for members of the judiciary will increase transparency and trust in the justice system. The Scottish Government will now begin work to engage with stakeholders to consider how best to bring forward this justice reform.”
You must be one of few people alive to take on the judiciary against their founding principles of secrecy, oaths and ethics and win the argument same oaths and ethics exist to protect judges instead of public.
ReplyDeleteOn the video you posted the display from the Conservatives feels very wrong and deeply sinister.What ignorance from an MSP to suggest judges are exempt from transparency in 2021.
Very good to see you stand up against the judiciary and their thug politician supporters.
ReplyDeleteOf course your readers will understand the Boris dictatorship need the judiciary on-side to push through their grim inhuman Conservative Party laws to scrap pension protections and kill off the National Health Service while giving themselves huge tax breaks and corrupt PPE contracts.
Having read your blog for a long time I feel more educated on how Britain and Scotland's crooked judiciary sway with each government and do their bidding in the courts.
Bedroom tax WASPI women pensions crippling benefits cuts bedroom tax denial of medication you name it the Tories have done and killed it with judges on-side to make everything legal.
For the record Starmer and his alleged opposition are helping the Conservatives deliver death destruction and greed to the UK in a scale never seen before.
My phone suddenly flood with messages about your long awaited blog update
ReplyDeleteCongratulations for your petition success and the work effort and headlines of judges trying to steer everyone away from their ill gotten gains.
How much does Lord of the Pies make from selling Justice?
ReplyDeleteI bet m'luds make the full lamb chop with mint sauce from snoozing in court while Scottish lawyers throw custard pies at each-other for legal aid!
Cherbi, whose campaign sparked calls for the move, said: “Rules of declarations of interest for the judiciary should at least equal those applied to elected politicians - to ensure all links to professions, business, industry, wealth, roles in other walks of life and any other link, should be in the publicly available register for court users, litigants, the media and public to scrutinise.”
ReplyDeleteSNP MSP Michelle Thomson said: “I support the commitment from the Scottish Government to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Members of the judiciary, like any other public servant in receipt of public funds, must disclose interests that could influence their decisions or give the perception of doing so”.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Introducing a register of interests for members of the judiciary will increase transparency and trust in the justice system. The Scottish Government will now begin work to engage with stakeholders to consider how best to bring forward this justice reform.”
Well done everyone! Nice to see your campaign and writing credited as it should always be!
So happy to see you writing again Peter your blog is always the best for anything about the law.
ReplyDeleteYou tell the real truth instead of what lawyers want us to believe and publish the evidence.
Best wishes and good luck!
Anne 🥰
This is a shocking video clip and your petition only survived due to the intervention of John Finnie and others.
ReplyDeleteThe rant against your petition from the pro judiciary politicians is hostile, very aggressive and concludes with a very personalized attack aimed at you.
One of the worst personal attacks by politicians against a journalist with the appearance of a joint effort I have witnessed in years save the daily diatribe from the former Trump administration.
Very bitter and horrible.
This is also in the Times I will post the copy when I go home
ReplyDeleteWELL DONE SUPER CONGRATS + HUGS TO PETER!!!!!
A friend of yours told me he listened to call with Baktosh G. former Judicial Office PR man for judges regarding a statement on your petition when Carloway was giving evidence to the Public Petitions committee.
ReplyDeleteContent is on same level as Tomkins judges fanboy rant in the videoclip.
Maybe good to remind your readers Tomkins accused the Crown Office of corruption in the Rangers malicious arrest case statement in late February at Holyrood a few days before this Justice Committee meeting on your petition however he changed his tune for the judiciary because obviously judges can be as corrupt as they want to be and no scrutiny is good for the Tories as we already know from history.
I see BBC Scotland managed to miss the story again!
ReplyDeleteThe Law Society of Scotland is also carrying a version of the story and quotes you.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I suspect the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates helped out significantly with the TEN YEAR delay to your petition because the judges could not have delayed their register without help from the usual quarters.
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/register-of-interest-plan-for-judges-moves-closer/
Register of Interest plan for judges moves closer
15th June 2021 | professional regulation
Judges in Scotland will have to declare their financial interests under the SNP Government's transparency plans.
Ministers are pushing ahead with the openness scheme despite opposition from the judiciary. Unlike politicians and quango board members, judges and sheriffs are not required to publish details of any directorships or shares they hold.
Critics believe the lack of public disclosure could lead to hidden conflicts of interests. The issue was raised nearly ten years ago by campaigner Peter Cherbi, whose Holyrood petition called for a register of interests to be introduced.
Lord Gill, who at the time was Scotland’s most senior judge, criticised the idea by saying it could encourage “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.
His successor as Lord President, Lord Carloway, also claimed the policy would be “detrimental” to justice in Scotland.
However, MSPs across the political spectrum back the principle of a register and a commitment was made by the SNP during the Holyrood election. Now Keith Brown, who was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon to be the new Justice Secretary, has confirmed the Government is taking it forward.
He said: “It was a manifesto commitment of the SNP to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system.
“Now that the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced and take forward the work needed to achieve this manifesto commitment.”
John Finnie said “What is there to fear from disclosing the information that is being asked for? Examples of other jurisdictions have been given where that is done without a problem. Should we be surprised that a Government of whatever persuasion wants to be in accord with the Lord President and does not want to dissent from the Lord President’s position? Perhaps not.”
ReplyDeleteHonestly I wonder if the judiciary and legal mafia as you call them have been blackmailing the Scottish Government and MSPs against creating your register for judicial interests.
Ten years is too long a time for such a powerful clique of mostly elderly white males holding back a very necessary reform to the courts and the justice system.
As anyone with experience of lawyers can attest the blackmail principle is a well known way courts and lawyers work - they make themselves useful then indispensable and almost impossible to sack without damaging your own interests because lawyers tend to vacuum up all the details of their clients to then use against them when the time and money is right.
Those in legal profession are the most dangerous of people, liars, blackmail artists and scammers never to make friends, never worthy of any trust, always looking for the edge to pick on anyone to make a fast buck.
Was there ever someone so intent on shutting down your judges petition when they failed they ended up slavering away at the end of the clip screaming judges dont need to declare their interests the same as politicians do.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is thank GOD the Conservatives will NEVER be the Scottish Government.
Why 10 years for a petition and how much dirty money in justice did the judiciary sell during this ten years?
ReplyDeleteWhat a thought having to put up with judges running an entire country
Why even bother holding elections if the judges are going to block any law already applying to others they fear will reveal their own riches and corruption.
What dangerous dictator calls himself a "Lord President" in 2021?
ReplyDeleteHe isn't even elected so what is he actually President of? His own little empire of bullsh*t and bullying?
F*ck I read your blog more and discovered Carloway isn't even his real name!
So is he Lord Fakey President of the Fakey Court or what?
You guys really need to break with the past!
Great blog btw when covid is over I will travel to Scotland and do a judge cosplay in Edinburgh!
The Justice Committee hearing has to be one of the most biased days at Holyrood.Listen and watch how Tomkins does not give a toss about his 'fellow' Conservative Liam Kerr almost as if LK's comments are known before he wavers on closing your petition.Adam Tomkins and Annabelle Ewing want your petition closed as does Rona Mackay and she tries to say you can always bring a new petition! after 10 years of this one???? is this by any chance to wait another 10 years???
ReplyDeleteRotten to the core! You were lucky others stood up for your petition in the hearing otherwise the Tory/SNP alliance would have killed the petition stone dead.Obviously the other msps were similarly taken aback!You should have posted this video earlier so we could see for ourselves how rotten the Tories are!
Anyway another hurdle over and I am curious to see what the Scottish Govt do with your petition you better make sure they stick to what you asked for and everything is in the judges register!!!
WELL DONE FOR PUTTING UP WITH ALL THE KNIVES IN THE BACK TO KEEP YOUR PETITION GOING!!!
How interesting even the Law Society of Scotland ran the story
ReplyDeleteMaybe Lawsoc should make up for all the damage LSoS did to everyone for years
'Modern day' Scotland in a nutshell
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
Why 10 years for a petition and how much dirty money in justice did the judiciary sell during this ten years?
What a thought having to put up with judges running an entire country
Why even bother holding elections if the judges are going to block any law already applying to others they fear will reveal their own riches and corruption.
4 August 2021 at 00:43
You and the petition and Moi Ali are in The Times
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-must-register-financial-interests-to-ensure-transparency-bfzpm789m
Judges must register financial interests to ensure transparency
Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor
Wednesday June 16 2021, 12.01am, The Times
Judges will be forced to register their financial interests after SNP ministers confirmed they would push ahead with the transparency scheme.
At present all judiciary in UK jurisdictions have a duty to declare any relevant interest in cases before them such as shareholdings, directorships and memberships but they are not required to register any before a case arises, unlike in some other countries.
This means the rules are different for judges and sheriffs when compared with politicians and public board members, who have to publish details of any directorships or shares they hold.
Senior legal figures have voiced opposition to the plans but Keith Brown, the justice Secretary, has confirmed the “openness scheme” will go ahead.
“It was a manifesto commitment to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system,” he told the Daily Record.
“Now the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced.”
Judges in Scotland have argued that such scrutiny could put their personal and financial security at risk from criminals, expose them to scrutiny by “aggressive media” and deter lawyers from
seeking a career in the judiciary.
Lord Carloway, the lord president, who is the most senior member of the Scottish judiciary, previously claimed the policy would be “detrimental”. He also declined to appear before Holyrood’s justice committee when it investigated the idea in 2019 as he felt that it would simply “go over old ground that has already been covered extensively”.
In a letter to the committee, he again raised the prospect of a register deterring prospective judges. MSPs went on to back the principle of a register.
This argument has previously been dismissed by Moi Ali, a former board member of the Scottish Police Authority and now the independent assessor of complaints for the Crown Prosecution Service in England, as “the baseless claims of a backward judiciary seeking to defend an opaque system that is open to nepotism and bias”.
The transparency row was sparked nearly ten years ago by Peter Cherbi, the campaigner and legal blogger, who submitted a petition to Holyrood calling for a register to be introduced.
“Rules of declarations of interest for the judiciary should at least equal those applied to elected politicians,” he said.
In Norway, judges must complete a register of interests listing honorary posts, investments, memberships of political parties, companies, religious communities and charities among
others.
A Judicial Communications spokesman said: “Judges are obliged to declare an interest where there is any real or perceived conflict in a court case before them. If there is a conflict, they will step down from the case (called a recusal) and it will be heard by a different judge.
“The lord president’s position was made clear in his evidence to the Public Petitions Committee that an additional, mandatory register of interests is not necessary or beneficial.”
STINKS OF CORRUPTION!
ReplyDeleteHow much were politicians paid to delay the judicial register for TEN YEARS???
The British reasoning behind paying judges millions of pounds in salaries is supposedly to act as a deterrent from corruption in the judiciary.
ReplyDeleteHowever the fact is more money only made British and Scottish judges more corrupt and more hungry for power.
I think I am correct in saying judicial salaries are decided by Westminster and judges get what they ask for - doubtless over fear if the money stops flowing the judiciary take the sitting Government to court and win as they did in the pensions action when greedy judges added themselves to a pension case and their judge friends on the UK Supreme Court gave them a £1 Billion pounds win while lining their own pockets with a fat judicial pension.
https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Govt-faces-1bn-pension-bill-as-judges-win-court-case.php
Govt faces £1bn pension bill as judges win court case
By Jack Gray 17/12/19
The government could be facing a pension compensation bill of up to £1bn after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of part-time judges that were initially denied pensions.
Judges that moved from part-time into full-time work were denied pension payments for their part-time work, which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled as “unequal treatment”.
Law firm Browne Jacobson, who acted on behalf of the four lead appellants, said that it predicts that over 1,000 judges could be entitled to pension compensation, costing the Ministry of Justice up to £1bn.
Browne Jacobson senior associate, Caroline Jones, commented: “The appellants are delighted by the judgment and that equal treatment has finally been achieved.
“This judgment means that fee-paid judges who were subsequently appointed full-time salaried members of the judiciary will now be entitled to pensions in respect of their former part-time service.”
The four lead appellants each held one or more positions as a fee-paid part-time judge and moved between fee-paid and/or salaried judicial roles.
However, each appellant lodged their claims more than three months after the end of at least one of their part-time appointments, which was out of time under the part-time workers directive.
These judges had been denied a pension for their fee-paid service on the basis that time runs from the ending of each fee-paid appointment about which a complaint is made, even if they transferred into a salaried appointment.
However, they argued that their claims were not made out of time if the less favourable treatment continued up to and including the point of retirement and instead argued that the correct question to act on was when did the less favourable treatment finally occur.
Previously, part-time fee-paid judges had not been eligible for the judicial pension scheme, unlike their full-time and salaried counterparts.
In 2013, part-time judges won the right to a pension, but part-time fee-paid judges that moved into full-time salaries roles were subject to a three month deadline to claim their pensions under the new rules.
The Supreme Court overturned the employment tribunal's finding that the three months started to run from the end of any part-time appointment and found that neither the Upper Tribunal nor Court of Appeal had given the matter substantive judicial consideration.
Cloisters barristers, Robin Allen QC and Rachel Crasnow QC, who represented the appellants in court, added: “While our submissions were always based on the law as we understood it, it has also seemed to us deeply unfair to hold that where a person suffers a pension regime which discriminates against part-time workers, they should have to bring proceedings before they actually retire and claim their pension.
“We are delighted that Lord Carnwath giving the judgment of the Supreme Court agreed saying that it was indeed “common sense” that such claims could be made at any time up to the end of the primary time limit of three months from the point of retirement.
“Browne Jacobson is to be congratulated for supporting these judges over such a long period of litigation all the way to the Supreme Court and ensuring that common sense prevails.”
Agree on the comments about the Parliament video clip what a vile ending very bitter very personal and very aggressive
ReplyDeleteI recall a letter from Lord Carloway accused the press, journalists, litigants, public and everyone else except judges of being aggressive because we all want to know what judges have to hide.
Well Lord Carloway whose real name is Colin Sutherland if you are reading this comment today you will now have to add your politician judge fanboys to your list of aggressive everyone else.
We also saw display of aggression from the judges when they visited the Petitions committee and couldn't answer questions on why they wanted to kill the petition and target the journalist petitioner.
Peter am I correct in stating another Conservative wanted to close your petition when the Petitions committee worked on the judicial register?
Thanks again Peter for writing and hopefully more updates soon on your exemplary blog.
Well done on what must be one of your greatest successes by taking on the judiciary!
ReplyDeleteA friend told me you are also helping out on environmental green news. Are you going to keep the blog going after this or follow some other line? Would be sorry to see you go but you definitely have a major effect on the law in Scotland and deserve huge credit for all your work and help to people over the years.
For anyone on Twitter this is Peter's take on the judiciary and his work to bring in a register of interests for the judges
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/PeterCherbi/status/1422906715339730945
Maybe if the media were even half as brave as Peter and his colleagues write and exposed the judiciary and courts as he did we all wouldn't be in such a mess on just about every single issue everyone has to deal with every day!
Apologies I could not paste your tweet into my comment please publish!
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/PeterCherbi/status/1422906715339730945
10 years watching Judges @JudgesScotland @JudiciaryUK
dodge taxes
do politics
act for gov. in policy/overseas trips
conceal conflicts of interest
take £Ms junkets
give jobs to pals
Register of Judges' Interests good move by @Scotgov
https://t.co/xMcaSwRNHN
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-government-moves-forward-register-24317365
I agree with other comments about this Justice Committee and the bias for judges to do as they want.
ReplyDeleteSurely this report on how the Conservative friends tried to scupper your petition at the last minute deserves a full feature in the newspapers?
Anyone anywhere near a court or a lawyer needs to read your blog and understand justice being sold by judges and lawyers to the most corrupt!
@ 3 August 2021 at 20:07
ReplyDeleteMost judges are elderly white, right wing males so being on the same side as the Conservative Party should not come as a surprise to anyone - however ... the ways in which the Judicial Office (of both Scotland & England, Wales & NI go to promote, PR, spin & manipulate media on the myths & goodie goodie judiciary) - need to be addressed and the public take a more closer inspection of those who set themselves up in judgement upon the rest of us - and make no mistake, some members of the judiciary relish their power, the abuse of power, and their ability to conceal what in any other walk of life would be massive financial scandals, domestic violence, criminality and other serious cases within the legal profession and the judiciary itself.
@ 3 August 2021 at 20:43
More work required to see the Register of Judicial Interests through to formation and regular updated publication - along with independent oversight - and I mean completely independent oversight - not some lawyer, relative of a judge or other weird pro-judiciary poodle with a suitcase full of scandal & public purse junket pocket lining dodgy career ...
@ 3 August 2021 at 21:01
Thanks Anne. Spread the word & information to help others!
3 August 2021 at 21:30
Journalists are used to this behaviour from politicians with a motivation ...
@ 3 August 2021 at 21:59
Thanks!
@ 3 August 2021 at 22:16
Thanks .. I have heard a version. Where is BG now? last I heard he was doing media for Scotparl after JOFS post, and previously for Scottish Legal News ...
@ 3 August 2021 at 22:45
They usually do, and a good thing too. tbh has been refreshing not to have the meddling hands of BBCScotland on the petition.
@ 3 August 2021 at 23:12
Interesting, thanks ... altho Lawscot has played a significant role in delaying the petition, and several attempts to close it incl. notes on a briefing passed to journos, and some other weirdness along the ten year hike to Holyrood ...
@ 3 August 2021 at 23:23
John Finnie and other members of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee ensured the petition lived to fight another day, thus ensuring survival to now be taken up by the Scottish Government.
Appreciation for this effort and standing up for values of transparency.
@ 4 August 2021 at 00:12
Noted ... notes & discussions around the attempt to close the petition, and comments from certain MSPs who appear motivated against the petition are currently being looked at by journalists ...
@ 4 August 2021 at 00:43
In a sense, yes .. ten years is a long time - however the intel value of watching judges arrange their assets to tax dodge, fiddle the books, influence companies in court & arbitration cases, use their shareholdings for other influence ... and many other very interesting issues including large sums transferred around the world to tax avoidance jurisdictions .. made it worth doing.
Conclusion - the judiciary use their argument of judicial independence to prevent any scrutiny of their personal financial transactions, personal wealth building, ability to influence legislation, government policy in Scotland, UK and overseas jurisdictions ... what makes it even more interesting is the size of what could effectively be called a judicial business .. and that tax authorities the world over appear to have been told to look the other way since the lack of detection and enforcement is all too obvious.
Judges must be required to register all their interests, assets, links to business, law firms, everything and anything which could influence a decision in court - and no amount of pro judiciary PR will diminish this requirement.
@ 4 August 2021 at 10:16
ReplyDeleteThis has been a long investigation ... lots of obstruction, harassment, even targeting of journalists over the course of this investigation and the Scottish Parliament's consideration of the petition.
It should come as no surprise the judiciary and legal profession in Scotland are able to deploy their favoured politicians - at any cost - to halt any move to bring scrutiny to the judiciary.
@ 4 August 2021 at 11:47
No, rather we can expect from the Law Society of Scotland - more obstruction, lobbying & protection of the judiciary in exchange for favours, public cash for lawyers & other perks such as court backing for unjust legislation or crippling access to justice for anyone who dare speak out or raise an issue.
@ 4 August 2021 at 15:44
Thanks and perfectly phrased as per your comment.
Another case of follow-the-money where the most powerful, least accountable judiciary use their power to barge through anything in their own cause - and ensure governments tow the line on allowing judges a free hand and no scrutiny.
@ 4 August 2021 at 20:20
Yes, agree .. and one thing to note - there is nothing like a retired Lord President shaking his fists at Jackson Carlaw in the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Evidence session of 2015 - when Brian Gill was asked questions he did not want to hear ...
Unusual for a journalist to take on the entire judiciary and win!Congrats!
ReplyDeleteCredit due to you however I suspect this judicial register of yours will only be any good if you are somehow involved in keeping an eye on the content.Make sure when you hear from Keith Brown or the Lord President you keep us all informed on progress and what comes next
ReplyDeleteAnd keep the blog more regularly updated if possible.
From the Convener's antics and the scripted dialogue between the Tory and two nats your petition only narrowly escaped their plot to shut down the register.
ReplyDeleteMackay is visibly laughing as she says you can bring the petition back again after she agrees with the Tory and her boss Ewing.
Nice to see you made this public and the written transcript for everyone to see what really goes on in the Scottish Parliament.
The last gasp of judicial "gloss" from the Tory convener says it all.
Good one Peter.Keep going.You are a true champion for people and very far above these types in Holyrood who tried and FAILED to silence your debate on the judiciary,
Good job and well done Peter!
ReplyDeleteThis from a year before the meeting video clip where the Justice Committee were supporting you.I wonder why Margaret Mitchell was swapped for Adam Tomkins.Was it solely to remove your petition?After watching the clip I believe the Conservatives were and most likely still are intent on closing down your petition.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18293126.battle-scottish-judges-register-interests-court-cases/
Battle for Scottish judges to register interests in court cases
By Martin Hannan 10th March 2020
ALMOST eight years since it was registered, a public petition to the Scottish Parliament calling for a system in which judges must register their financial and other interests reaches a crunch point today.
Journalist and law blogger Peter Cherbi first registered his petition in 2012 and it has been supported by both the Petitions and Justice Committees at Holyrood.
It is the latter committee which will meet today to discuss comprehensive refusals to start such a register made by both Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf and Scotland’s most senior judge and head of the judiciary, Lord Carloway, the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General.
The latter’s predecessor, Lord Gill, agreed in 2014 that a register of judges’ recusals – when a judge stands aside because of a perceived or actual conflict of interest – would be kept.
The National can reveal, however, that this register has NOT been kept for Scotland’s 250-plus Justices of the Peace (JPs) despite assurance by the Judiciary Office that it would be. According to a leading JP, that’s because they don’t have to.
In a letter to the Justice Committee, Dennis Barr, secretary of the Scottish Justices Association states: “If I may use myself as an example, I have recused myself on three separate occasions sitting in the JP courts in Glasgow over the past ten years, as I have personally known the accused.”
Barr goes on: “We have been advised by Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) staff, that in instances where the JP has initiated the recusal themselves, it is treated as an informal administrative decision not to sit in a particular case, and as such is not recorded.”
Peter Cherbi commented: “I was assured in 2017 that such a register would be kept. The register of recusals was created in April 2015 by the then Lord President – Brian Gill – in an attempt to persuade MSPs to drop their investigation of a proposal to create a fully published register of judges interests. However, Lord Gill deliberately excluded all Justices of the Peace.
“To this day, no convincing explanation has been offered as to why a significant number of members of Scotland’s judiciary were allowed to keep all their conflicts of interest secret from the public during court hearings.”
Cherbi is adamant that a register of interests is necessary and is hopeful the committee will carry on with it despite Humza Yousaf ‘s opposition. Yousaf says that it is “not necessary”, while Lord Carloway stated: “I remain of the view that, from the constitutional perspective, the extent of any monitoring of judicial conduct, including judges’ interests relative to the performance of their duties, should remain a matter for the Judiciary and not for Government or Parliament.”
Cherbi told the Committee in a letter: “While noting the Lord President’s repeat of his earlier comments in relation to issues involving the Council of Europe, and the Judicial Council in Scotland, Lord Carloway has not provided any convincing argument against creating a register of judicial interests. It is also very clear from Lord Carloway’s letter, the judiciary continue to maintain resistance to the very notion of a register of judicial interests, and will not create one on their own.
“I urge members to take the petition forward and advance PE1458 to primary legislation, to ensure all members of Scotland’s judiciary declare and register their interests in the same way as all others in public life, including all 129 MSPs of the Scottish Parliament.”
Thanks for the additional published & unpublished comments, the content of which is noted.
ReplyDeleteA link to video footage of the Justice Committee hearing, and a short commentary was posted in a previous article earlier this year, however the full transcript and video which appears in this article was only recently posted as events prior to the SP Justice hearing and subsequent issues form part of an ongoing media probe.
For the avoidance of any doubt, blog journalists were alerted to the attempt by the Convener to close the petition, and discussions in relation to such a move - prior to the hearing SP Justice hearing of March 2.
A decision was taken not to run the full report on the hearing until now, to enable journalists to probe the attempt to close down the petition, and trace who was involved, for what motive, and which political & legal orgs backed the move, as expressed by the now former MSP & ex Convener of SP Justice.
Issues in relation to these events will be published in a future report, meanwhile DOI journalists will always support the public interest in ensuring a Register of Judges' Interests is created - with the same, perhaps increased, fully comprehensive detail of all declarations of interest which are required of all elected representatives in Scotland and the UK, and similar requirements which are required of all members of public services and public bodies throughout the UK.
It is also the case - transparency in court applies to all courts, all members of the judiciary - in every country of the world.
Readers who have contacted this blog with regards to campaigning to create a Register of Judges' Interests in non-UK jurisdictions - the work on this blog, the issues relating to judges in Scotland & the UK which have been revealed, including secret undeclared wealth, the extent of dark money influence within the judiciary, judges doing political favours for Governments, politicians, business, banks & billionaires - these issues are common to all judiciaries, as are the same conflicts of interest, mostly hidden by judges due to fear the public will perceive these conflicts of interest as a form of bias, prejudice - and in some cases - corruption.
DOI journalists welcome the use of any & all material on this blog by others to ensure courts are transparent and the judiciary are held accountable to the same laws, accountability and transparency which judiciaries [sometimes, but not always] hold everyone else accountable to.
The work is here, the documents, news articles & findings are published in articles - those of you who seek to do so - use this material to ensure judges in your own country register, publish and declare their interests - and also - register, publish and declare their recusals and conflicts of interest.
Good campaigning, everyone - and keep this blog updated on your work.
Good to read your petition will become law.
ReplyDeleteYour Twitter is very good and at least I read advice you give to others although personally I prefer your blog where you post the evidence and do the proper research for your articles.
I realise all journalists, lawyers, politicians and such use Twitter however I feel there is little to be learned from the few intelligible exchanges between people who know what they are talking about only to have the debate hijacked by persons with a grudge or false identity Twitter accounts used by whichever political faction to make the other look bad.
Don't you find Scottish Twitter to be a mainly false line of exchange?
Most of those who claim to be of one political persuasion or another take whatever topic and make it SNP or whoever else bad for their own ends.There isn't really much of a debate on Scottish Twitter instead resembling a shouting match with mostly false claims and fake news.
I'll give you a further example.
Before the last election in May politicians walking round saying they were big on Twitter and said this and that made zero impression on most people I know because few in the real world care who says what to who on Twitter or any other social media.
More blog and less Scottish Twitter may be a good thing for all of us!
Keep up the good work Peter!
"Petition PE1458 was originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012. The Petition calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all 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."
ReplyDeleteIsnt it frightening judges were able to stop this from happening for over 10 years?!!
and in doing so we now know the court and judiciary are corrupt and are so afraid of publishing their assets they (the judges) are threatening harm against anyone who will force them to publish everything
Well this is a significant step forward and a long overdue result. That said I would keep an ear very close to the ground as this is when the backtracking by the powers will begin. For example the Record article quotes a Scottish Government spokesperson said "The Scottish Government will now begin work to engage with stakeholders to consider how best to bring forward this justice reform.”
ReplyDeleteAnd just what has been happening over the last 10 years?
I hope I am wrong, but expect more prevarication.
You are not going away right? you will keep an eye on the judges for us Peter?
ReplyDeleteThe video clips you posted of Lord advocate James Wolffe confessing in Parliament to arranging the malicious prosecution of Rangers accountants are F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C
ReplyDeleteThe details of what really happened to your petition are all round holyrood and I know you knew this in march because someone made certain you were aware.I am fine with you publishing the following because details are widely known.
ReplyDeleteDays before the meeting a certain political party bragging they plan to destroy your petition and msps openly saying in emails 'game over'.
Msp tells a researcher to prepare statement for arranged newspaper story condemning and attacking you personally and petitions committee msps who ordered gill and carloway come to holyrood.
The statement turns the whole petition anti snp anti scottish government.
The statement is backed by a certain political party, demands closure of holyrood petitions system
A researcher admits the subtext of this statement and newspaper story is to support an unpublished uk gov plan to cancel westminster petitions and go after websites promoting petitions such as change.
A researcher admits these events and the justice committee delay to work on your petition were carefully arranged at a meeting between a certain judge and a certain political party msp months ago.
Before the hearing a certain msp messaging all reminding everyone to watch the session.
Email to many claims the lord president will be watching and listening to the debate live so they can cheer when the justice committee close your petition.
The plot to close your petition fails after the msps who were not in on the deal and probably found out what was going on began to speak up.
A meeting arranged between certain political party msps and a certain judge for an afterparty was cancelled after your petition remained open.
@ 10 August 2021 at 14:55
ReplyDeleteTwitter has an interesting role to play in debates however as you indicate this is limited to those who converse on Twitter - and like all debate is subject to the usual spin & PR from the Judicial Office, Courts & public bodies throughout the UK - who dislike people communicating and sharing experiences or learning from journalists & others.
@ 10 August 2021 at 17:22
The perceived fear of the judiciary at revealing their assets, links to business & all relevant interests is an indication of the scale of what judges, their relatives and others linked to the judiciary have been engaged in building for years - basically - a private dark money finance empire free of scrutiny and opposed to any form of accountability.
@ 10 August 2021 at 20:47
Further work will be required to ensure judges, their relatives and everything linked to the judiciary is registered and declared - and that no judge accidentally forgets their interests in off the books property rental empires, tax havens, banks, international business, secret trusts, etc ...
@ 10 August 2021 at 22:08
Eternal vigilance is required of the courts and judiciary ...
@ 11 August 2021 at 01:31
Thanks. Also worth a reminder the Crown Office will not change under the new Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain - or any Lord Advocate.
@ 11 August 2021 at 12:09
Yes, was made aware of these events ... a Twitter post contained a short commentary and the clip of John Finnie's defence of the petition.
No one should be surprised a UK govt ruling party as mired in corruption as this wants to undermine, restrict and delete public petitions and public interest debate.
Really amazing you managed all this on your own!
ReplyDeleteThanks for publishing my comment about Twitter.
ReplyDeletePersonally I find Twitter to be very anti-Scottish in content.
I am not an active supporter of the Scottish National Party however I can see many accounts on Twitter actively campaign for the Conservatives and any journalist of standing is regularly forced to contend with thousands of Tory followers launching mass Twitter attacks on journalists tweets.
As I said in my earlier comment you blog contains the evidence and analysis of whatever story you write and I find this more valuable.
Keep up the good work Peter.
I read the comment on what happened to your petition at Holyrood and asked a friend today to read it.They said it was much worse and lots of name calling by the Tories.
ReplyDeleteThe Tories are trying to hurt you Peter if you need any help let us know on your blog!
"The perceived fear of the judiciary at revealing their assets, links to business & all relevant interests is an indication of the scale of what judges, their relatives and others linked to the judiciary have been engaged in building for years - basically - a private dark money finance empire free of scrutiny and opposed to any form of accountability."
ReplyDeleteThis is why you should be put in charge of the judicial register given all your work and obvious understanding of what judges should declare in their interests
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI agree with other comments about this Justice Committee and the bias for judges to do as they want.
Surely this report on how the Conservative friends tried to scupper your petition at the last minute deserves a full feature in the newspapers?
Anyone anywhere near a court or a lawyer needs to read your blog and understand justice being sold by judges and lawyers to the most corrupt!
5 August 2021 at 12:49
How the newspapers coincidentally missed the antics of the Tories in the videoclip then waited months to report the "SNP Government" are to force judges to declare their interests when it should be "Scottish Government" is a story on its own which I suspect no one will ever get to the bottom of unless you write it up.
Why Tomkins and the Scottish Conservatives have not been taken to task in the press for his comments in the videoclip is beyond me and definitely not accidental or because someone forgot to watch the coverage.
Never for one minute have I believed the Scottish Conservatives ever supported your petition and this goes back to your reports of October 2014 when Jackson Carlaw has a go at the petition during the debating chamber hearing.
However I suspect Carlaw was taken aback when his retired ally Lord Gill pitched up at the Public Petitions Committee interrupted Carlaw's speech and belted out with his waving fists a demand Carlaw ask Gill questions approved by the judge.
If you watch this videoclip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq6kcS7i8jI
the impression I get is Brian Gill breaks Jackson Carlaw's broadly sympathetic praise of the judiciary and demands Carlaw to ask questions Gill is expecting almost as if they were prearranged.
Says a lot about the judiciary doesn't it, Peter. You were right all along to bring this petition and see it though to a result.Well done!
Your Twitter is showing up in a Scottish lawyers whatsapp group tonight many worried and threatening comments against you!
ReplyDelete@ 11 August 2021 at 17:55
ReplyDeleteTwitter can eek out info not previously held - such as from a tweet re Lord Gill & his stance on fracking - the audio of Gill's speech was kindly sent ... quite interesting to hear a top judge making the case for lawyers, judges and courts to serve the interests of global warming by making sure fracking takes place and they profit from it - on the same day a Scottish Minister announced an [albeit fake, with no legal basis] moratorium on fracking.
Re. the pro Conservative Twitter lobby - a list of false accounts and pages of DMs was provided to journos some weeks ago - blocked around 250 Twitter accounts using false identities linked to a pro-Union campaign group which is in-turn linked to a Consulting firm employing members of the Law Society of Scotland.The individuals within the 'Consultancy' list their identities on the Company website and their Lawscot membership.
@ 11 August 2021 at 19:54
This will be a task more suited to a fully independent Office of Transparency and Accountability - which could regulate, update and ensure Registers of Interests including the Register of Judges' Interests are kept updated in the public interest - and of course - to prevent judges forgetting their own interests when it becomes convenient for judges to do so.
The Register of Judicial Recusals also requires independent oversight - given the Justices of the Peace revealed in evidence to the Justice Committee they were instructed by the Judicial Office and Court Service to mislead on judicial recusals.
@ 11 August 2021 at 20:27
Yes, agreed. The video footage of Lord Gill telling Jackson Carlaw to ask the questions he wanted to hear is a good reminder of what the judiciary are all about and depicts very well the aggression of Scotland's former top judge (and current top judge Lord Carloway) to the issue of judicial transparency and accountability.
@ 11 August 2021 at 20:48
Thanks.Good to know.
"This will be a task more suited to a fully independent Office of Transparency and Accountability - which could regulate, update and ensure Registers of Interests including the Register of Judges' Interests are kept updated in the public interest - and of course - to prevent judges forgetting their own interests when it becomes convenient for judges to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe Register of Judicial Recusals also requires independent oversight - given the Justices of the Peace revealed in evidence to the Justice Committee they were instructed by the Judicial Office and Court Service to mislead on judicial recusals."
Have to disagree with your response Peter.
The only way this works is if you are part of it.
You have demonstrated experience on understanding the judiciary and how they work through the ten years of investigating Scottish judges.You said yourself you accumulated a lot of material so you know how they work and view the world.
For any judicial register to come into effect and on the recusals issue you must be a part of it whether you like it or not!
Yes good Twitter posts of James Wolffe on video ordering msps not to ask any questions about Rangers decisions!How did we get to this stage of Lord Advocate judicial dictatorship in Scotland?
ReplyDeleteIf you watch this videoclip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq6kcS7i8jI
ReplyDeletethe impression I get is Brian Gill breaks Jackson Carlaw's broadly sympathetic praise of the judiciary and demands Carlaw to ask questions Gill is expecting almost as if they were prearranged.
HAHA look at Jackson Carlaw squirming after Gill cuts him off.
PRICELESS CARWASH!!
Finally the chance to read through your excellent blog !
ReplyDeletePC doesnt hold back!
ReplyDelete"Re. the pro Conservative Twitter lobby - a list of false accounts and pages of DMs was provided to journos some weeks ago - blocked around 250 Twitter accounts using false identities linked to a pro-Union campaign group which is in-turn linked to a Consulting firm employing members of the Law Society of Scotland.The individuals within the 'Consultancy' list their identities on the Company website and their Lawscot membership."
I know about this group and where they are getting the money from.
They are using false names and bios claiming everything including fatal illness and hospital to gain sympathy.The accounts claiming to be women are probably men and many of the false profiles are used by Tory MSPs to give the impression their unionist bile comes across as popular in Scotland.
Their funding source is also paying for fake polls and advertisements.
Tory party in Scotland actively assisting online trolls and one particular MSP name cropped up may shock if you are not already aware.
Story in Courier you may want to read https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/2333863/exclusive-senior-tory-councillor-unmasked-as-man-behind-anti-snp-troll-account/
A senior Tory councillor has finally admitted he is the man behind an anonymous anti-SNP troll account fashioned after the Lady Whistledown character in the popular Netflix series Bridgerton.
The (Lady Whistledown) AngusFreeofSNP profile was scrubbed on Wednesday night around an hour after Arbroath East and Lunan councillor Derek Wann, who had repeatedly denied running the account, was told the last two digits of its registered phone number match his own.
The profile – which shares the nom de plume of an anonymous newsletter columnist on the hit show – had been used to dish out targeted abuse at local politicians and content described by opposition councillors as “misogynistic and transphobic”.
Mr Wann repeatedly rubbished any suggestion he was involved with the account, including after being contacted by us just after 4pm on Thursday with fresh allegations, but issued a statement just over an hour later apologising for his actions.
This cheered up my day LOTS!!!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
If you watch this videoclip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq6kcS7i8jI
the impression I get is Brian Gill breaks Jackson Carlaw's broadly sympathetic praise of the judiciary and demands Carlaw to ask questions Gill is expecting almost as if they were prearranged.
HAHA look at Jackson Carlaw squirming after Gill cuts him off.
PRICELESS CARWASH!!
12 August 2021 at 01:10
Things I like about your blog
ReplyDeleteYou write up the analysis and back up what you say
You publish all the evidence and material
No demand for readers to fund your blog
You allow people to have their say within the rules of acceptable moderation given the topics you write about and investigate
Your main story and the comments end up cracking open another 100 scandals!
You have the courage to write all this and stick to your beliefs and see whatever it is through to the end as with the judicial petition
Judges should not be allowed to resist or lobby against such a petition calling for a register of judicial interests and this 10 year outrage deserves a full investigation and sackings in the judiciary
ReplyDeleteThrilling and brilliant move waiting to publish this story.
ReplyDeleteThe Tories opposition to your register petition has unmasked their double dealing and a list of right wing funded fake campaigners linked to members of the Law Society of Scotland.
Agree!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
"This will be a task more suited to a fully independent Office of Transparency and Accountability - which could regulate, update and ensure Registers of Interests including the Register of Judges' Interests are kept updated in the public interest - and of course - to prevent judges forgetting their own interests when it becomes convenient for judges to do so.
The Register of Judicial Recusals also requires independent oversight - given the Justices of the Peace revealed in evidence to the Justice Committee they were instructed by the Judicial Office and Court Service to mislead on judicial recusals."
Have to disagree with your response Peter.
The only way this works is if you are part of it.
You have demonstrated experience on understanding the judiciary and how they work through the ten years of investigating Scottish judges.You said yourself you accumulated a lot of material so you know how they work and view the world.
For any judicial register to come into effect and on the recusals issue you must be a part of it whether you like it or not!
11 August 2021 at 22:10
The video of Carloway flailing in front of the Petitions Committee is also worth attention https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L33BZAu6L0Y
ReplyDeleteAlex Neil has him over a barrel Carloway cant answer one single question LOL
https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/06/register-to-judge-lord-carloway.html
I sent you an email this morning with a video of my phone and also screenshots of the whatsapp messages group of solicitors discussing and threatening harm against you please answer my email and please public the attachments I can meet you with my phone so you can see for yourself and if you want to take this further I can be a witness.All talking about you have their photos and phone numbers at the top of the message so you can see exactly who they are.Scroll down the screenshots to see who makes a reply.I wrote all their names next to their numbers in the email for you
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% correct about the Lord Advocate,
ReplyDeleteHe went after the administrators of Rangers because he is the law and just like you said on Twitter the Judges and Police did for him in return.
https://twitter.com/PeterCherbi/status/1425487689936216081
Noting political spin on Lord Advocate's £100M malicious prosecution of Rangers Admins
Truth is - @COPFS conducted malicious prosecution - because Scots legal mcmafia run their own show
& Scots justice @PoliceScotland @JudgesScotland regularly used as their display of power
Also correct 100%
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/PeterCherbi/status/1425776052807290880
True to form @COPFS under latest Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain - offer Charles Green £6.9M incl legal fees mins before case heard by Lord Tyre @JudgesScotland
PR & Spin of new top law officer is lame - brand new Lord Advocate is as bad as the old
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/former-rangers-ceo-charles-green-24727741
Former Rangers CEO Charles Green receives £6.4 million from the Crown Office for wrongful prosecution
Lawyers acting for the Lord Advocate offered the businessman a total of £6,393,046 moments before his case was due to start at the Court of Session.
ByChris McCallDeputy Political EditorJames Mulholland
10 AUG 2021
Former Rangers chairman Charles Green has accepted a £6.39 million settlement from prosecutors for being wrongfully prosecuted.
Lawyers acting for the Lord Advocate offered the businessman a total of £6,393,046 moments before his case was due to start at the Court of Session.
Green's legal team were due to begin an eight day hearing at the court to determine how much their client should receive for being the victim of a malicious prosecution.
He and several other men were arrested as part of a doomed probe into allegations of wrongdoing at the Scottish champions.
All men were acquitted and Green received an apology from previous Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC for what happened to him.
However, lawyers acting for Scotland’s most senior prosecutor Dorothy Bain QC agreed to settle the action and also pay Green’s legal costs which weren’t disclosed.
The settlement follows a multi million pound settlement which was made earlier this year to business experts David Whitehouse and Paul Clark who were also arrested during the investigation.
On Tuesday, Green’s lawyer, Garry Borland QC told judge Lord Tyre that his client could still claim more money from the Crown Office.
Borland also said a forthcoming public inquiry on the probe and failed prosecution would want to examine the circumstances surrounding Green’s arrest.
He said: “Mr Green was the victim of an egregious wrong at the hands of the prosecuting authorities.
“The proof this morning was fixed to deal with the quantification of claims against the Lord Advocate.
“Last night my lord, the Lord Advocate made an offer to settle this case in the form of a judicial tender in the amount of £6,393,046 plus payment of Mr Green’s legal costs by the taxed process of expenses to date.
“That offer of settlement by the Lord Advocate which was made overnight my lord, is something I took instructions on this morning and Mr Green is content to accept that settlement offer and I therefore move the court this morning to grant decree in favour of Mr Green.
“Therefore, I move for decree against the Lord Advocate in favour of Mr Green in the amount of £6,393,046 plus the expense of process to date.
“My lord there maybe questions about the scale of expenses and an application of an additional fee but I am content to simply reserve my position on those matters for the time being and if the applications are made they can be dealt with by the court at a later date.
“In conclusion, at this stage it will be for the public inquiry to examine how this malicious prosecution of Mr Green could possibly be allowed to happen.
“But at this stage, I would simply thank this court for its handling of these civil proceedings.”
The 67-year-old businessman was arrested with several other men following a police probe into the sale of the current Scottish champions to businessman Craig Whyte.
Green was part of a consortium which acquired the business assets of Rangers in 2012 and later became the club’s Chief Executive Officer - he stepped down the following year.
Scottish judges selling justice to fill their pockets!
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Record article reports: Now Keith Brown, who was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon to be the new Justice Secretary, has confirmed the Government is taking it forward.
ReplyDeleteHe said: “It was a manifesto commitment of the SNP to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system. “Now that the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced and take forward the work needed to achieve this manifesto commitment.”
The Record further reports support for the petition from MSPs and the Scottish Government: SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said: “I support the commitment from the Scottish Government to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Members of the judiciary, like any other public servant in receipt of public funds, must disclose interests that could influence their decisions or give the perception of doing so”.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Introducing a register of interests for members of the judiciary will increase transparency and trust in the justice system. The Scottish Government will now begin work to engage with stakeholders to consider how best to bring forward this justice reform.”
WELL DONE PETER!
@ 12 August 2021 at 12:27
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the funding of the false Twitter accounts - please email the blog with further details and thanks for the reference article re. the Councillor.
@ 12 August 2021 at 18:26
Thanks, however the material cannot be published - there are recognisable identities of solicitors who talk to newspapers and a Criminal Defence Advocate in those messages. This will not be reported as PS/COPFS cannot be trusted and intel too valuable to waste. Thanks for providing the info, any further on this by email only.
@ 12 August 2021 at 19:05
Interesting to note which opposition political party in Scotland is trying to PR/Spin for new Lord Advocate ...the Crown Office cannot be changed no matter who is in charge - and incidentally Bain was not first choice for Lord Advocate - there is a list of three male candidates who all refused the job due to the toxicity left by the former Lord Advocate & continuing revelations in the Rangers malicious prosecution case.
@ 12 August 2021 at 20:24
Thanks ... now the wait is on to see what form the Register of Judges' Interests will take - will be pushing to ensure any such register is at least as comprehensive as MSPs and Scottish Ministers - however as judges are effectively the most powerful and least accountable branch of the Executive - a Register of Judges' Interests should have more declarations and independent oversight of content.
Strange how the English newspapers appear to have been muzzled on the fact Scotland is to get a register for judges and nothing for us in England anyway congratulations on your effort I hope your register is made into law and for all British courts.
ReplyDeleteWhitehouse Green and co in the Rangers debacle rolling in money for the malicious prosecution but where are the names of the LAWYERS and the money paid to them???
ReplyDeleteThis is public money going to lawyers so why are the papers not publishing all the names of the lawyers?????
Public are not stupid.
ReplyDeleteJudges taking half a million a year salary for 10 years while your petition raged equals £2,5 million each on top of everything else they earn and so on.
If any judge claims poverty and says nothing to declare instantly know they and anyone who supports their secrecy are corrupt.
Come to think of it anyone who supports judges keeping their interests secret IS corrupt and has something to benefit from helping the judges keep their dirty secrets.
Reading the comments on the WhatsApp lawyer groups and what I imagine you have now read you would be well advised not to publish any messages.These online groups have existed for some time and both the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates are aware of but have not acted on the content.
ReplyDeleteI can send you screengrabs of any number of messages such as one from a QC who wrote "* should be taken outside and shot in the head" which was met with countless replies of agreement and colleagues upping the ante to the use of "chainsaws" and "burned out of their homes" yet Scotland's press barons will not publish.Indeed I understand the editor of a Scottish newspaper is a member of one of the online groups and has given information to solicitors about his own journalists.
I am not sure if you wish to publish my comment, however this may give your readers a taste of what you, your colleagues and many others have been up against for years
@ 13 August 2021 at 00:10
ReplyDeleteGiven this is essentially a Scottish issue as Scotland has it's own legal system - perhaps the English newspapers did not wish to more widely report these matters.
However, with the creation of a Register of Judges' Interests for Scotland - and the existence of a Register of Judicial Recusals for Scotland's judges since 2014 - an imbalance in the rights of UK citizens exists ... and therefore rUK - England,Wales and Northern Ireland should be brought into line with these reforms, ensuring all judges declare all their interests, and all recusals.
@ 13 August 2021 at 01:06
Good point ... all law firms, all QCs who were paid for their legal services to the wrongly accused Rangers Admins - should be listed by name, law firm and full amount of payment from public funds.
@ 13 August 2021 at 08:48
Yes, the accumulated salaries, including accumulated wealth, influence, extra jobs, dark money investments and more over the ten year span of the petition is significant - brought in lots of intel and should be declared in any register.
@ 13 August 2021 at 12:55
Kind of have to wonder why in this age of total surveillance do so many solicitors and senior figures of Scotland's legal profession write such content - seemingly with impunity and their lobby orgs such as Lawscot & Facultyscot stand back in silence, effectively supporting what goes on.
Good to have the material, confirms a lot of other issues looked at over years ... now in safe hands for further study and publication if later required.
Indeed I understand the editor of a Scottish newspaper is a member of one of the online groups and has given information to solicitors about his own journalists.
ReplyDelete13 August 2021 at 12:55
By any chance is this the same editor referenced in a well known book who gave the personal details of one of his journalists to a lawyer who represents hitmen who are now in jail for the same hit?
Will Carloway now write a letter to the Parliament admitting his own world leading Scottish legal profession colleagues are going around making threats to everyone?
ReplyDeleteand why does Mr Tomkins feel so warmly towards the judiciary as to display such anger in the Justice committee video
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteStrange how the English newspapers appear to have been muzzled on the fact Scotland is to get a register for judges and nothing for us in England anyway congratulations on your effort I hope your register is made into law and for all British courts.
13 August 2021 at 00:10
Easy to silence or buy off journos in Boris Britain
One day your blog fills up with comments about a lawyers messaging group and the next day messages deleted and missing members :)
ReplyDeleteReading the above comments no surprise editors mix it up with crackpot lawyers and their online death threats whoever the editor is and paper deserves to be named and no surprise to learn whichever paper is a lawyer supporting rag mixing in sponsored news begging for public to walk through their doors and then be ripped off in the process while their editor friend guarantees no coverage for complaints!
ReplyDeleteThese alliances are what killed newspapers and news industry.
Do not expect to cosy up to the devil and readers not notice!
Does a top lawyer claiming he "controls a recently minted msp" merit any attention?
ReplyDeleteI suspect the first thing the powers that be will review is the need for judges to reveal any potential conflicts which might arise from family businesses or association. N o doubt the line will be 'this is contrary to the HR Act, everyone hs the right to a private family life.
ReplyDeleteResult? - expect more occasions in which a son or daughter appear repesenting a client in from of 'mummy' or 'daddy' sitting on the bench.
"
ReplyDeleteGiven this is essentially a Scottish issue as Scotland has it's own legal system - perhaps the English newspapers did not wish to more widely report these matters.
However, with the creation of a Register of Judges' Interests for Scotland - and the existence of a Register of Judicial Recusals for Scotland's judges since 2014 - an imbalance in the rights of UK citizens exists ... and therefore rUK - England,Wales and Northern Ireland should be brought into line with these reforms, ensuring all judges declare all their interests, and all recusals."
You have a talent for pointing out the obvious yet your 2nd para never occurred to me.Make sure you bring the judges interests and registers to England!
Very cool how you post clips of judges lying their asses off in your legislature!
ReplyDeleteHave you heard if any judges or even Carloway himself are in these online message groups?
ReplyDeletePC is a good journalist to talk to.He does not burn his sources and what you give him appears across the front pages.
ReplyDeleteStay good PC.
Reply to the following comment:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
Indeed I understand the editor of a Scottish newspaper is a member of one of the online groups and has given information to solicitors about his own journalists.
13 August 2021 at 12:55
By any chance is this the same editor referenced in a well known book who gave the personal details of one of his journalists to a lawyer who represents hitmen who are now in jail for the same hit?
13 August 2021 at 14:52
The editor you refer to gave "personal details of one of his journalists" to a Sheriff who is a serving member of Scotland's judiciary, not a "solicitor" or "Lawyer" as your comment states.
The Sheriff in question represented or has ties to an underworld figure who paid for the "same hit" and is suspected of passing the personal details and location of the journalist to a figure who was found guilty of the "same hit" and sent to prison.
The Judicial Office were made aware of members of the judiciary who represent gangland figures.However the person in charge of Judicial Office Media Relations at the time responded saying it was a matter for members of the judiciary who they chose to represent.
Convener Adam Tomkins) Scottish Conservative, Glasgow: I am grateful to colleagues for what has been a very helpful debate. My sense of the discussion is that members of the committee do not feel as strongly about this petition as they did about the previous one. Some modest and minor disagreement has been expressed about whether to keep the petition open or to close it. However, I think that the balance of opinion is in favour of keeping it open, if only because there is a sense of unfinished business. However unfinished the business is, though, I think that everybody who has expressed a view on the matter is clearly of the view that that business needs to be transacted subject to and in the light of the fundamentally important principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.
ReplyDeleteI think that the body of opinion is that the petition should not be closed at the moment, but that our successor committee in session 6 should be invited to consider the matter, if only to hear views and perhaps to explore a little why the Lord President is opposed or why the judiciary, who are represented by the Lord President, are opposed to the creation of such a register.
I will close by saying that just because it is appropriate for elected members in the legislature to have a register of interests, that does not mean that it is appropriate for members of the judiciary to have a similar register of interests. The function of the separation of powers is to treat different branches of government differently, according to their institutional function.
I hope that that is a fair summary albeit with a gloss from me at the end of the committee’s decision.
HAHA WHAT A FAIL FROM TOMKINS AND THE TORIES SO DESPERATE TO CLOSE YOUR PETITION AND HE FAILED
Any idea of the numbers of politicians and people paid off to close this petition?
ReplyDeleteJudges and lawyers must have spent a fortune bribing as many as they can to shut this down!
From reading your earlier articles the Rangers case and the crooked Crown Office came at a good time for your petition.Everyone I know thinks there are just as many corrupt judges involved in the Rangers fiddle as from the Lord Advocate and Crown Office because no one believes Wolffe and Crown Office could arrange a malicious prosecution of this scale without the help of judges.
ReplyDeleteFinally in the Rangers case someone has the guts to write what no supposed newspaper or tv channel will broadcast
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
From reading your earlier articles the Rangers case and the crooked Crown Office came at a good time for your petition.Everyone I know thinks there are just as many corrupt judges involved in the Rangers fiddle as from the Lord Advocate and Crown Office because no one believes Wolffe and Crown Office could arrange a malicious prosecution of this scale without the help of judges.
14 August 2021 at 21:25
2017 Rangers case and the Lord Advocate in court to hear his own wife rule against the Rangers civil claims ON THIS BLOG!
ReplyDeletehttps://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/12/cry-wolffe-judicial-office-hit-with-new.html
CRY WOLFFE: Judicial Office hit with new conflict of interest claims as Court of Session papers reveal £9 million damages claim against Chief Constable & Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC was set to be heard by the Lord Advocate’s wife - Judge Lady Wolffe
Watch the video everyone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP99sIm9yB4 and think about what everyone says and their facial expressions
ReplyDeleteThe msps desperate to close the petition vary between anger and glee
Tomkins (Conservative)
Ewing (SNP)
Mackay (SNP)
None of these msps pulled this stunt without the backing of their party.This is certain and particularly for the Tory Convener.
My own impression of Kerr (Conservative) how he appears as he talks he must have already known his boss Tomkins was going to close your petition.
The others appear taken aback at the ravenous gang intent on supporting judges secrecy.
John Finnie (Green)
Shona Robison (SNP)
Rhoda Grant (Labour)
Liam McArthur (LibDem)
Had it not been for these four msps and in particular Mr Finnie your petition would have been closed and given what has been said in an earlier comment I believe there is motive and malice the attempt to close your petition.
As others have also pointed out why did the newspapers forget to report the hearing and the spluttering Convener and his accessories who failed to kill off a 10 year petition their parties helped to delay.
Who benefits from delay in this petition?
Government
Judges
Lawyers
Advocates
Conservatives
I am hopeful you will get the Register of Interests you asked for all this time however I feel there should be an investigation of why it has taken so long and to make sure any gains and other interests the judges obtained during these ten years are fully reported.
I'd like to add this to a comment I sent earlier.
ReplyDeleteDuring the last Ten years of your petition from my reading of your blog and all the events I can trace back and the corresponding media including your very full and detailed reports
You, Peter Cherbi faced off:
Two Scottish First Ministers
Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon
Three UK Prime Ministers
David Cameron, Theresa May Boris Johnson
Scotland's entire judiciary:
Lord Gill, Lord Carloway and all their judges, sheriffs and courts
The entire judiciary and Supreme Court and all courts in the UK
The EU court group report begging to cancel your petition
All lawyers who lobby against your petition
All politicians who lobby against your petition
All those people and their groups bitterly fought against your petition and were very determined not to give in.
In March 2021 the Scottish Conservatives come to some arrangement with two SNP politicians all are determined to close your petition and they fail.
From your Twitter page I discovered Angus MacDonald MSp asked the SNP to include your petition in their manifesto. You thanked him, I read your Tweets and I read his Tweets thanking you and his support for the petition.
I also read MSp Michelle Thomson's Tweets in support of your petition
After the SNP won the election in May, the new Justice Secretary Keith Brown said the Scottish Government will consult with stakeholders to bring your petition into being.
Is this a fair summary of events Peter?
Can I say I really admire your determination and all the detail you write in your blog and the way you make this available to everyone, and your message in the comments telling people to use your work and campaign for judges registers in wherever they live. I read on your Twitter you said this is all about sharing information and helping people.
Perhaps you wont publish my comment I don't know but can I say you are a really incredible person for doing all this work and holding steady to make the petition happen and all the other things you write about.
Good luck for the future!
The raw reality of Scotland in your blog is very different from what your government would have us believe!I read of your interest in SCOTUS.Do you live in Scotland or are you based in the US?
ReplyDeleteThanks for additional published and unpublished comments, the content of which has been noted and will be looked at for further investigation.
ReplyDeleteAny material offered within certain unpublished comments should be supplied to the blog via email or procedures for contacting blog journalists already known to sources, and those in the legal profession.
@ 13 August 2021 at 22:14
Blog journalists are happy to assist in bringing a Register of Judges' Interests to all courts and tribunals throughout the UK, and ensuring all UK citizens benefit from planned changes and reforms to accountability and transparency of the judiciary in Scotland.
@ 14 August 2021 at 01:21
Judges lie, DOI publishes the evidence.
@ 14 August 2021 at 14:41
Like Lord Gill ... Lord Carloway and most judges are too smart, or perhaps too sly - to become involved in instant message groups as the judiciary understand how messages can be recovered and viewed by any agency with a remit to do so.
Easier to look for legal figures and others close to certain judges - then you find out what the relevant judge is up to, or sanctions in terms of dodgy court deals, biz with law firms and other such intel.
@ 14 August 2021 at 20:39
Motivation on display ...
@ 14 August 2021 at 20:43
Lots ... over ten years, the sums spent on the judiciary and by the judiciary shoring up their position will be substantial.
@ 14 August 2021 at 21:25
Oh yes, absolutely.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever the Lord Advocate and Crown Office organised a meticulous, malicious and motivated prosecution of the Rangers Administrators - and secured judicial support to do so.
Simply, a case of this size and complexity would not have occurred if COPFS had not ensured the judiciary were up for it.
Also worth noting PoliceScotland were already part of the plan, hence the damages claims against the Chief Constable - which have also been paid out of public cash.
@ 14 August 2021 at 22:11
Thanks for the reminder ...
@ 15 August 2021 at 00:50
Yes ... a close run thing, slightly harrowing to watch the very obvious display of personal enmity invoked by those against the petition ...
However, publishing the material enables readers to come to their own conclusions, from the video footage of the debate and written transcript.
@ 15 August 2021 at 01:31
Yes, a fair summary ...
However please note several other journalists worked on this petition, which always had cross-party support and public interest media support.
Additionally there are key individuals from the justice sector who gave evidence which ensured the petition had testimony from inside the issue of oversight of judges which the petition seeks to advance.
A big thank you to Moi Ali @MoiAliEdinburgh (Twitter Ident) for her unwavering support over the years, and two appearances at the Scottish Parliament to give evidence and face MSPs questions.
This blog is also grateful to two of Scotland's top judges for invoking their own, highly personalised attacks against the petition, and their display of what one Public Petitions Committee Convener described as "passive aggression" when both members of the judiciary appeared before the Public Petitions Committee, Lord Gill after his retirement in 2015 and currently serving Lord President Lord Carloway in 2017.
@ 15 August 2021 at 02:59
American courts are very interesting - the same issues arise - transparency, accountability and judicial political power games ... whereas in the USA judicial politics is more overt, here in Scotland and the UK - judicial political power games are more covert.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHave you heard if any judges or even Carloway himself are in these online message groups?
14 August 2021 at 14:41
Diary of Injustice said 15 August 2021 at 13:49
Like Lord Gill ... Lord Carloway and most judges are too smart, or perhaps too sly - to become involved in instant message groups as the judiciary understand how messages can be recovered and viewed by any agency with a remit to do so.
Easier to look for legal figures and others close to certain judges - then you find out what the relevant judge is up to, or sanctions in terms of dodgy court deals, biz with law firms and other such intel.
A very chilling reply from PC.
It could very well be Peter Cherbi now knows and understands the judiciary more than the judiciary knows and understands itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq6kcS7i8jI
ReplyDeleteStill laughing at Jackson Carlaw and Gill's savage reply
So much for remaining broadly sympathetic to judges ROFLAMO
Dunlop is against your petition and gave a serious rant to the papers against you
ReplyDeleteThose watching the clip with Brian Gill and Jackson Carlaw are missing the point.
ReplyDeleteIf you watch the exchange several times and read the transcript from PC's blog you will realise Gill thinks Carlway is * in spite of Carlaw attempting to praise Gill and the judiciary.
Carlaw is obviously taken aback by Gill's attitude and gets it. You can see it clearly in Carlaw's face as he replies to Gill telling him he will frame his own questions instead of having them suggested to him.
I suspect the same will be true of Tomkins' failed attempt to close your petition.
The judiciary do not like politicians of any political party and the Scottish Conservatives attempt to cosy up to Gill and Carloway will be full of the same backstabbing you mentioned on your Twitter.
A link to PC's very detailed post on Brian Gill, Carlaw and the evidence
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/judge-another-day-sparks-fly-as-top.html
Lord Gill: Have you got any questions for me about the merits of the petition, Mr Carlaw?
Jackson Carlaw: I remain broadly sympathetic to the views that you have expressed. I simply say to you that it was unfortunate that we found ourselves in the position that we did. You spoke movingly—
Lord Gill: Mr Carlaw, this is water under the bridge now. I am here to talk about the petition.
Jackson Carlaw: That is why I am moving on.
Lord Gill: Well, please ask me some questions about the petition. That would be the most profitable use of time.
Jackson Carlaw: I will ask questions on the petition and on the remarks that you have made in opening and in your responses to questions. Forgive me, but allow me to frame my own questions rather than have them suggested to me.
Lord Gill: Please do.
There is no mystery why events relating to Petition PE 1458 during the Justice Committee hearing of 2 March were not reported.
ReplyDeleteA former journalist, an MSP with an interest and a leading lawyer separately contacted several outlets specifically requesting the hearing on Mr Cherbi's petition not be reported and instead reports should focus on the Justice Committee decision to keep open the Justice-for-Megrahi Lockerbie Bombing Petition PE 1370.
"Jackson Carlaw: I will ask questions on the petition and on the remarks that you have made in opening and in your responses to questions. Forgive me, but allow me to frame my own questions rather than have them suggested to me."
ReplyDeleteCarlaw talks about Framing questions and having questions suggested to him
So what is Jackson Carlaw really talking about?
Was there a list of questions Gill already rehearsed the answers?
If you watch some of or all the hearing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMlBc9XNxrc Brian Gill seems too prepared for what he is being asked and also manages a repeating statement demanding the petition be closed at the same hearing.
Was Gill expecting your petition to be closed in front of him so he gloat about it?
I think Jackson Carlaw accidentally revealed all of the above after Gill snarled at him for going off-piste!
Same Adam Tomkins who desperately tried to shut down your petition was in the headlines for telling his Tory staff to fob off a constituent.I suppose constituents dont carry as much favour as helping out the judges!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenational.scot/news/18800072.tory-msp-adam-tomkins-panned-sending-wrong-email-constituent/
Tory MSP Adam Tomkins panned after sending wrong email to constituent
By Angus Cochrane
Glasgow MSP Adam Tomkins made the embarrassing blunder in response to an email from one of his constituents
A TORY MSP has been caught fobbing off one of his constituents after accidentally sending them an email meant for his staff.
Adam Tomkins made the blunder in response to an email about concerns over coronavirus restrictions at weddings.
Constituent Duncan Forrest, a manager in the hospitality sector who is also in the process of planning his wedding, warned limits on the number of guests are having a “devastating effect” on the industry.
“I am writing to you to urge you to highlight the issue surrounding wedding guest numbers in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament, and propose that the number of wedding guests permitted should be limited according to venue capacity and ventilation,” the email reads.
It was also sent to Glasgow MSPs Johann Lamont, Patrick Harvie, James Kelly, Pauline McNeill, Annie Wells and Anas Sarwar.
The constituent makes proposals to “aid the mental wellbeing” of hospitality sector workers and people planning their weddings.
However, in a response presumably intended for a member of his team, Tomkins replies: “You can tweak my usual Covid response for this one, I think.”
The Glasgow MSP, who put the response down to "an administrative error”, was criticised on Facebook after the exchange was shared on the site.
“Just shows you. They don’t care,” one comment read.
Tomkins commented: “I’ve been in touch with the constituent and have apologised for the administrative error.”
An SNP spokesman added: “Having announced he is not seeking re-election to Holyrood, it appears Adam Tomkins’ full focus may no longer be on the day job and the needs of his constituents.”
STV also ran the Tomkins fobs off constituent story and shows what msps really think of their constituents don't you think?
ReplyDeletehttps://news.stv.tv/politics/msp-emails-constituent-tweak-my-usual-response-in-gaffe
MSP emails constituent ‘tweak my usual response’ in gaffe
Conservative Adam Tomkins caught in blunder after constituent wrote to him about Covid wedding restrictions.
Adam Tomkins: Conservative MSP is standing down at next election.
By Dan Vevers16th Oct 2020
A senior Conservative MSP has accidentally replied to a concerned constituent by asking a staffer to “tweak my usual Covid response”.
The constituent had contacted a number of Glasgow MSPs, including Tory Adam Tomkins, about limits on wedding guest numbers as a result of the pandemic.
In his letter, the man explained he is due to get married soon and that he works in hospitality management, saying he has seen the “devastating effect” the cap on guests is having on the sector.
Tomkins replied, in a message intended for internal use: “You can tweak my usual Covid response to fit this one, I think.”
He said he has since apologised to the constituent for the “administrative error”.
Exchanges showing the blunder were posted in a popular Facebook wedding group, with the Conservative MSP criticised for “using generic copy and pasted responses to constituents’ concerns”.
Wedding and civil partnership ceremonies and receptions, along with funerals and wakes, are exempt from the coronavirus “rule of six”.
Up to 20 people are allowed to attend such events in Scotland provided they are in regulated venues like hotels where public health guidance can be strictly followed.
But in his plea to local MSPs, the Glasgow constituent called more flexibility on numbers for venues which are larger or have better ventilation.
He continued: “As someone who is currently planning their wedding and someone who works in the hospitality industry at management level I know the devastating effect these limits are having on the industry and believe that these different measures deserve to be debated…
“I also believe that this could aid mental well-being of vendors, venue staff, registrars and celebrants, couples due to get married and the family and friends of those due to get married.
“I appreciate the safety of the public is the biggest concern, as it should be, but I believe this could be a way to increase numbers, help the industry and the wider economy.”
The email was also addressed to Glasgow MSPs Johann Lamont, Patrick Harvie, James Kelly, Pauline McNeill, Annie Wells and Anas Sarwar.
Tomkins, who serves as the Tories’ constitution spokesman, announced earlier this year he is not standing in the 2021 Holyrood election.
The MSP said: “I’ve been in touch with the constituent and have apologised for the administrative error.”
An SNP spokesman said: “Having announced he is not seeking re-election to Holyrood, it appears Adam Tomkins’ full focus may no longer be on the day job and the needs of his constituents.”
Petition PE1458 was originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012. The Petition calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all 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.
ReplyDeleteWhat fear Peter Cherbi brought to Scotland's judicary with his request for a judges interests register let no man prevent from his petition coming into law!
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-government-moves-forward-register-24317365
ReplyDeleteNow Keith Brown, who was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon to be the new Justice Secretary, has confirmed the Government is taking it forward.
He said: “It was a manifesto commitment of the SNP to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system. “Now that the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced and take forward the work needed to achieve this manifesto commitment.”
The Record further reports support for the petition from MSPs and the Scottish Government: SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said: “I support the commitment from the Scottish Government to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Members of the judiciary, like any other public servant in receipt of public funds, must disclose interests that could influence their decisions or give the perception of doing so”.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Introducing a register of interests for members of the judiciary will increase transparency and trust in the justice system. The Scottish Government will now begin work to engage with stakeholders to consider how best to bring forward this justice reform.”
Thanks for additional published & unpublished comments.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to numerous comments of a political nature seeking to turn issues into partisan politics for one party against another, it is surprising some people feel the Scottish Conservatives do more for constituents who suddenly claim to vote Conservative because they are facing a court case, litigation or criminal charges - none of which matter very much to MSPs as thousands of cases of constituent calls for help over the years have demonstrated.
DOI journalists constantly receive copies of letters from constituents to their MSPs and responses - which overall show most MSPs do very little for constituents who claim to have problems with their solicitors, or the law.
Indeed - blog journalists are well aware of cases relating to a law firm linked to an ex Scottish Conservative party politician - where clients were ripped off via poor, negligent & dishonest legal services, then were ruined for legal fees. Among numerous other cases linked to the same law firm which went bust - the wife of a currently serving judge begged to take on a case with the sole aim of gaining a large Insurance grant - which itself was and remains linked to a case involving Insurance fraud and misrepresentation of issues to the court and legal regulators.
@ 13 August 2021 at 17:17
If it can be established who is blackmailing who to do their dirty work, as appears to be the case in recent Tory leaning PR & spin waffle then perhaps yes ...
@ 16 August 2021 at 15:42
Your comment raises valid points regarding the video footage.
@ 16 August 2021 at 19:28
DOI Journalists were informed at the time in March, however given the 'industry' around the Lockerbie issue and other relevant factors - the intel obtained relating to the PR campaign against the Register of Judicial Interests petition and who was involved - proved more useful than publication of the messages.
@ 16 August 2021 at 20:07
Possibly, yes ... the image of a retired Lord President shaking his hands with anger at Holyrood over a petition seeking transparency in the judiciary perfectly sums up Scotland's judiciary.
You may want to delete the comment about the Lockerbie petition story swap because those of us contacted will now be asked who told you and why
ReplyDeleteA colleague at SCTS told me Gill was obsessed with finding you while he was LP and kept files on you also something about former boss of the SLCC offering info on your work to help stop your petition.Gill was supposedly determined to stop your petition at any cost and my friend says he and his colleagues were worried what lengths the judicial office would go to target you.Supposedly two msps of the petitions committee were fed a false story about you and they dismissed it at some meeting with the judiciary and this made the situation worse for judges.Happy you publish I took necessary precautions for the comment.
ReplyDeleteAdding to my previous comment, if the real story on the secret divorce comes out everyone will see Lord Gill in a very different light
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1162145/judge-sued-divorce-own-court/
Exclusive SPLIT REVEALED Top judge sued for divorce in his own court in Edinburgh where he used to earn £200,000 as Lord President
Lord Brian Gill had split from wife Catherine rubbed stamped in April but details were kept secret as they weren't heard in open court
By Kevin Duguid17 Jun 2017
A JUDGE was sued for divorce in his own court.
Lord Brian Gill, 75, had his split from wife Catherine rubber stamped in April.
But full details of the case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh where he used to earn £200,000 as Lord President were kept secret as they weren’t heard in open court.
Officials are only now able to reveal it was a marriage split after the legal move was finalised. A spokesman said: “I can confirm that decree of divorce was granted.”
Legal papers in April listed Lady Gill at a house in Edinburgh while the beak was at a separate address in London.
Lord Gill left his Court of Session post in 2015, then worked at the UK Supreme Court in London until he reached the statutory retirement age of 75 in February.
He campaigned against a law ordering judges to reveal details of their outside interests like shareholdings, fearing his privacy would be compromised.
@ 17 August 2021 at 19:50
ReplyDeleteNo comments or responses will be deleted in relation to this issue, as DOI journalists were informed in March 2021 of events including who was involved.
@ 17 August 2021 at 21:13
Thanks for your comment, the details of which are noted and appear to corroborate information provided to journalists.
And still nothing from the Beeb reporting the issue?
ReplyDeleteNo surprise the Convener preferred the Lockerbie petition given all the legal expenses and business around those who are making money off it.
ReplyDeleteSurprising however to see a comment from someone with an obvious interest in keeping a "Lockerbie petition story swap" secret
Anonymous said...
You may want to delete the comment about the Lockerbie petition story swap because those of us contacted will now be asked who told you and why
17 August 2021 at 19:50
I assume this comment is demanding you delete the following comment
Anonymous said...
There is no mystery why events relating to Petition PE 1458 during the Justice Committee hearing of 2 March were not reported.
A former journalist, an MSP with an interest and a leading lawyer separately contacted several outlets specifically requesting the hearing on Mr Cherbi's petition not be reported and instead reports should focus on the Justice Committee decision to keep open the Justice-for-Megrahi Lockerbie Bombing Petition PE 1370.
16 August 2021 at 19:28
The Lockerbie bomber subject is not usual territory for the Scottish Conservatives so they must only be keeping it going for the lawyer gravy train and usual diversion politics or are there any judges with conflicts of interest in the Lockerbie case which have been kept secret all this time?
@ 18 August 2021 at 11:59
ReplyDeleteBeeb journos busy briefing against their own colleagues & editing out identities from investigations to gain recognition/exclusivity ... the audio is fun to listen ...
@ 18 August 2021 at 16:04
Yes ... diversion politics as usual.
Have you noticed how the Rangers Crown Office saga has now been taken over by the Scottish Tories and no other politicians want to give statements about the malicious Lord Advocate?
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on winning this battle - but be under no illusions, the war is not yet won.
ReplyDeleteWhat a weird vindictive take on your petition from Tories and that ranting performance from the Tory boss they have it in for you all the way right to the end where he splutters out his last gasp!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed how the Rangers Crown Office saga has now been taken over by the Scottish Tories and no other politicians want to give statements about the malicious Lord Advocate?
19 August 2021 at 11:24
Yes easy to notice the Tories have jumped on the Rangers prosecution bandwagon to turn the story into an anti-SNP scandal when as PC said himself this is about the Crown Office and Lord Advocate doing as they please and using Police Scotland to set up the charges and set up the court with the Lord Advocate's wife judge Sarah Wolffe to hear the court case against her husband!
Read Peter's Twitter and he has the video of James Wolffe admitting to the malicious prosecution https://twitter.com/PeterCherbi/status/1425487689936216081
@ 19 August 2021 at 11:24
ReplyDeleteOh yes ... now very obvious the Rangers malicious prosecution case has become a political football and backed by the Scottish Conservatives for political gain.
Time therefore to cap settlements given this is after all public cash - and instead move to hold those involved to account - which presumably will never happen because the new Lord Advocate will have to order an investigation into, and potential charges if evidence holds up - of the former Lord Advocate, and potentially members of the judiciary - so absolutely positively not going to happen anytime soon.
@ 20 August 2021 at 06:31
Yes, quite so. This is only the beginning.
Material has been provided recently to DOI journalists on the judiciary's moves to conceal and move around assets & ownership and who including which law firms in the legal profession are assisting judges in doing so. This will come in useful as any work towards creating the Register of Judges' Interests takes shape.
@ 20 August 2021 at 11:05
Thanks, and yes - partisan politics via the Scottish Conservatives along with their online troll armies has now infected the debate around the Rangers malicious prosecution.
The 2017 article in relation to Lady Wolffe scheduled to hear the civil claims against the Lord Advocate James Wolffe, and the Chief Constable of PoliceScotland was an issue of interest for the petition regarding a Register of Judges' Interests.
All along this was about the Crown Office, PoliceScotland and the judiciary doing as they wished, due to the lack of accountability and transparency in the justice system - right up to the judiciary itself.
A top advocate is going around asking his contacts who is the clipe in their Whatsapp group something to do with messages he sent talking about his own clients and asking someone to arrange a certain law journalist be shot in the head.Know anything about this?
ReplyDeleteHow much did Carloway and his judges make last week from selling justice?!
ReplyDeleteAll these secrets must come out!!
Obviously the entire legal profession in Scotland were against you from the start but at least we know the judiciary ARE corrupt.The ten years worth of your petition proves this.
ReplyDeleteI like your blog and how you write about the law at least you stand behind what should be done instead of writing the lawyers own version of events which always turns out to be a lie.One thing everyone should learn from your blog is never blindly trust a lawyer or a judge because they serve each other in their own interests.
ReplyDeleteThanks for additional published & unpublished comments, the contents of which have been noted.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to unpublished comments on this, and other articles seeking to politicise issues relating to the law, regulation of solicitors, oversight of the judiciary and actual cases where proof of wrongdoing by lawyers has been long established - there no legitimacy given to those who seek to portray these issues as one political view against another.
For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, a steady 1000+ a year cases of complaints against Scottish solicitors & advocates have remained at around this same figure - sometimes exceeding 3000 a year since the 1990s - so, under all administrations even prior to the creation of the Scottish Parliament in May 1999 - from the former Scottish Office run by successive Labour and Conservative UK Governments, to the Scottish Executive run by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats - to the Scottish Government run by the Scottish National Party - Scotland's legal profession, legal industry and judiciary have successfully lobbied to remain aloof from regulation, oversight and reform for decades.
The Scottish Conservatives PR effort on the Rangers Administrators malicious prosecution is noted, and well evidenced in Scotgov-bad headlines - however as some comments have already indicated - the truth of the Rangers malicious prosecution case is that the Crown Office, Police & Judiciary teamed up to flex their legal mcmafia power against former owners & administrators of Rangers.
In relation to a comment query - DOI selects which comments to publish and allocate a response.
@ 20 August 2021 at 16:02
The messages referred to have been passed to DOI journalists and others for investigation.
It is interesting to note some Advocates identified from private social media message groups - who author messages which appear to call for violence against the media - also pride themselves in harvesting contact with journalists, editors and named MSPs.
@ 21 August 2021 at 19:48
Agreed ... the Ten year lobbying and briefing against the Register of Judges' Interests petition does demonstrate what the judiciary and legal profession fear - transparency and accountability.
Additionally .. think of all the people, families, clients & businesses harmed, even destroyed by Scotland's legal profession over Ten years. Quite a toll of lives, finance, property and evil far and above greater than profits of the regular annual Press Release from the Crown Office on crime gangs and alleged profits which never seem to translate to figures in the real world.
@ 21 August 2021 at 21:44
This blog is published for all, and also should serve as a guide for the wider community who should think very carefully before using or trusting anyone in Scotland's legal profession.
I get why threats must be acted on but given all the damage in a good way! you caused to Scotland's horrible lawyers in your publication of the misery they have caused everyone you must have expected this kind of reaction from the start right?
ReplyDeleteRumour beeb Scotland had a draft news report to air of the justice committee closing your judiciary petition in March.Story contains quote from an msp and a judge.
ReplyDeleteSomeone we both know has a copy :)
There is no chance of Police Scotland doing any proper investigation of the death threats from lawyers Whatsapp messages due to fact Police Scotland is led by a member of the Law Society of Scotland who was cleared by his Strathclyde Police colleagues of FIVE allegations of serious sexual assault on a woman police officer and is reported in the Herald newspaper before anyone takes issue with this comment
ReplyDeletehttps://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12502743.high-flier-is-reduced-to-the-ranks-policeman-will-fight-action-taken-after-drunken-party/
High-flier is reduced to the ranks Policeman will fight action taken after drunken party
ONE of Scotland's youngest and most promising senior police officers has been demoted from superintendent to constable following a disciplinary hearing over allegations involving a woman police officer.
Iain Livingstone, 37, was working as an aide to Scotland's most senior police officer, Sir Roy Cameron, at Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, when he was suspended in February 2003 over the claims, which arose from a drunken party at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan.
It is understood that he plans to contest the demotion, which meant him dropping four ranks.
The former lawyer and Raith Rovers footballer had been suspended for 17 months after the WPC claimed she had been sexually assaulted during the party.
Five allegations of serious sexual assault were dismissed but, at an internal misconduct hearing, Mr Livingstone admitted less serious allegations, including being in the woman's room overnight after falling asleep.
The hearing, chaired by John McLean, Strathclyde assistant chief constable, established there had been no sexual impropriety or intent on Mr Livingstone's part.
A qualified lawyer and member of the Law society of Scotland, Mr Livingstone switched careers in 1992, joining Lothian and Borders Police.
In just 10 years, he reached the rank of superintendent and it was thought that he would reach the highest echelons of service.
Mr Livingstone was unavailable for comment yesterday. His wife, Jane, said: ''We will be taking thorough legal advice and challenging this at every level.
''As everyone knows, Iain has done nothing wrong and he is devastated at the way this has been handled. He is a man of the highest integrity with an impeccable record and we will be appealing against this decision.''
A spokeswoman for Lothian and Borders Police said: ''Internal conduct proceedings against an officer has taken place. We will not comment further on internal staff matters.''
Tom Buchan, a chief Superin tendent with Strathclyde Police and national spokesman for the Association of Police Superintendents, said: ''We can't say very much just now.
''There may well be some form of appeal and this may not be the final outcome.''
He said the association had not been involved in the case so far, but that that could change should an appeal process be started.
One officer spoke out on behalf of his colleague. He said: ''Iain has been stripped of his rank and busted to the lowest rank form simply falling asleep at a party.
''The punishment does not fit the crime and it beggars belief that they can treat an officer, who has an unblemished record and was destined for big things, like this.''
10 YEARS!
ReplyDeletePetition PE1458 was originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012. The Petition calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all 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.
Why did the QC and the PF discuss how to throw trials on Whatsapp and what is Lord Carloway going to when people realise what is going on?
ReplyDeleteCant keep these out of the news forever you know mister leading QC of Faculty of Advocates
This must be the same message chain where one of the replies from a solicitor asks
ReplyDelete"He likes dogs does he have a dog we can get someone to poison?"
also further down
"I have a regular client who can break into his premises poss. work over if we can locate him"
For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, a steady 1000+ a year cases of complaints against Scottish solicitors & advocates have remained at around this same figure - sometimes exceeding 3000 a year since the 1990s - so, under all administrations even prior to the creation of the Scottish Parliament in May 1999 - from the former Scottish Office run by successive Labour and Conservative UK Governments, to the Scottish Executive run by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats - to the Scottish Government run by the Scottish National Party - Scotland's legal profession, legal industry and judiciary have successfully lobbied to remain aloof from regulation, oversight and reform for decades.
ReplyDeleteTRUTH!!
WELL SAID PETER!
Looking up your earlier reports Lord Carloway and his letter to the Petitions committee https://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2017/03/to-parly-mlord-scotlands-top-judge-lord.html
ReplyDeleteLord Carloway states "Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals including dissatisfied litigants.It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused."
Will Lord Carloway now correct the record and go in front of the Scottish Parliament committee to name all the lawyers who are threatening journalists and also identify his Sheriff accused of passing on personal details of journalists for a hit which took place and resulted in the jailing of the hitman?
Very disturbing Scottish lawyers and judges are getting away with their criminal activities.
Peter I love your honesty in Twitter!!
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/PeterCherbi/status/1429075126167945218
Also - during £10M fraud trial - Judge Lord Stewart
@JudgesScotland 'treated' his brother onto bench & introduced him to jurors
- while @Lawscot lawyer witnesses escaped prosecution for dirty financial gains with a secret @COPFS immunity deal
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/judge-feeling-heat-after-letting-10463172
Judge slammed after letting brother sit next to him during high profile trial 'as a treat'
Judge Lord Stewart has faced criticism for the decision, which gave his brother a front row view of Britain's longest running criminal trial.
By Craig McDonald 21 MAY 2017
Judge Lord Stewart let his brother sit beside him in a High Court trial in Glasgow
The judge in a major fraud trial was under fire yesterday after he let his brother sit beside him in court as a treat.
Lord Stewart introduced his big brother Patrick, 71, to jurors at the High Court in Glasgow.
A source said: “The judge said he had agreed to let him sit in on a bit of the trial as a treat. People were incredulous.
“The brother was on the bench with a clear view of material in front of the judge and his computer screen.
Ruthless £1.6m fraud couple tried to rent out 'disgusting' home to young family a month before being found guilty of mortgage scam
“Some people felt it was inappropriate.”
Patrick made his guest appearance during the longest criminal trial in British history, where Edwin McLaren and his wife Lorraine stood accused of duping home owners in a £1.7million mortgage scam.
And Labour justice spokeswoman Claire Baker MSP said: “It is a very unusual move and would seem fairly inappropriate, given the seriousness of the case and the upset caused to victims.”
The trial had been running for more than a year when Patrick joined his brother on the bench. He listened to proceedings for a time then left during a break.
A senior legal source told the Sunday Mail: “It’s most irregular and uncommon but it’s not unheard of.
“There are occasions when judges from another jurisdiction sit in on a trial to gain experience of a different legal system.
“The judge’s brother doing so is less common. But if there were any objections, these would have been raised at the time.”
The Judicial Office of Scotland said: “The trial judge invited Patrick Stewart MBE, an honorary sheriff, to sit on the bench for a short period on the afternoon of December 15, 2016.
“It is not uncommon for judges to extend this courtesy to distinguished visitors.”
The McLarens tricked people into transferring the ownership of their homes then remortgaged them and pocketed the cash.
Police said many of their victims were vulnerable and had been left “distraught, penniless and homeless”.
Edwin McLaren was found guilty last week of 29 charges involving £1.7million and his wife was convicted on two counts. They are now awaiting sentence next month.
The trial heard 320 days of evidence. It went on so long that Lord Stewart had to work on past his retirement age of 70.
The case had to be delayed for three weeks for a juror to get married and go on honeymoon.
Someone should ask the fat judge about his own judges involvement in hits on journos while he sits there at Holyrood yaking about his world leading judges and lawyers
ReplyDeleteThere are over 50 replies to the shooting threat message I can identify everyone who replies.As the replies go on messages contain suggestions of more extreme course of action.All of those replying are solicitors and advocates.
ReplyDeleteAt least 2 in the Whatsapp group work for the Law Society of Scotland I know this for a fact and another I think works for the SLCC.
This comment 22 August 2021 at 20:33
ReplyDeleteI read Carloway's letter.The same threats of aggressive media and litigants were put to the committee by Brian Gill.
At the time I thought this was going too far and the judiciary were hiding something like what I now read in the comments relating to lawyers threatening clients and journalists.The judiciary are very skilled as you point out many times Peter and what I take from reading Gill and Carloway's letters is by shouting the loudest and attacking the press the judges knew what their colleagues were up to and distracted us all by blaming the press for attacks when in fact the lawyers and judges have attacked everyone and bullied their way through 10 years of your petition and Parliament.
Scotland sure is a weird lil country with law enforcement folks with this kind of history You guys really scrape the barrel for police and judges
ReplyDelete@ 22 August 2021 at 14:25
ReplyDeleteCertainly, yes. Aggression, and preying on clients, whistleblowers journalists who refuse to write Law Society & pro-lawyer PR & anyone who raises issues for reform - are the things Scotland's legal profession do best.
@ 22 August 2021 at 15:58
Good to note the current Chief Constable is still a member of the Law Society of Scotland as per the news report.
@ 22 August 2021 at 18:04
This actually happens all the time, however because of electronic media and increasing willingness to talk, there is now hard copy evidence which identifies those who participate in shady deals involving criminal trials...
Also of note which members of the judiciary are hearing cases where this takes place - difficult to think ignorance on the bench is a common factor in such high profile cases, and the numbers involved.
@ 22 August 2021 at 18:42
Nothing DOI journalists have not seen before ...
Also good to note threats contained in the quotes have occurred in real life over a number of cases where clients complained against their solicitors.
Particularly in the 2000s through 2010s - cases brought to DOI's attention where clients complained against their solicitors - pet poisonings, targeting of clients family members, unexplained job dismissals, harassment and home burglaries were a common thread so much it became a standard question to ask in new cases if clients had experienced any of these events - many of which were reported to Police but again- strangely yet repetitively remain unsolved.
@ 22 August 2021 at 20:33
Scotland's top judge corrects nothing it is not in his interest to correct.
@ 22 August 2021 at 20:42
There is a lot more to the McLaren case, including a list of solicitors given immunity from prosecution and allowed to keep dirty cash - in exchange for dodgy evidence.
Also worth noting COPFS selected which solicitor witnesses to use, as some were thought to sound too corrupt for a jury to believe.
@ 22 August 2021 at 22:00
A journalist who was targeted in a hit allegedly linked to the assistance of a serving Sheriff did contact the judicial office ...
@ 22 August 2021 at 22:17
Good to know, thanks.
Material provided to DOI journalists is being studied as part of the wider probe of Scotland's legal profession and the judiciary. Anyone involved in these message groups who wants to make contact can email the blog. Guarantee of confidentiality applies given this is an ongoing investigation.
@ 23 August 2021 at 00:09
Interesting points raised by your comment - and yes - this is a tactic which has been employed for years by the legal industry - take an issue or tactic which lawyers employ against others including clients, then assume victim status to prevent any exposure of the profession's use of same ... definitely worth looking into, thanks.
@ 23 August 2021 at 02:09
The media, and this blog do report these matters .. however there are clearly big questions around key stakeholders in Scotland's justice system and how those at the top of various public service and justice sector organisations obtained the positions they hold today.
This comment is right on the money:
ReplyDelete"I read Carloway's letter.The same threats of aggressive media and litigants were put to the committee by Brian Gill.
At the time I thought this was going too far and the judiciary were hiding something like what I now read in the comments relating to lawyers threatening clients and journalists.The judiciary are very skilled as you point out many times Peter and what I take from reading Gill and Carloway's letters is by shouting the loudest and attacking the press the judges knew what their colleagues were up to and distracted us all by blaming the press for attacks when in fact the lawyers and judges have attacked everyone and bullied their way through 10 years of your petition and Parliament."
23 August 2021 at 00:09
and DOI reply:
@ 23 August 2021 at 00:09
Interesting points raised by your comment - and yes - this is a tactic which has been employed for years by the legal industry - take an issue or tactic which lawyers employ against others including clients, then assume victim status to prevent any exposure of the profession's use of same ... definitely worth looking into, thanks.
23 August 2021 at 10:53
I read the comment and your reply several times honestly Peter I never thought this possible by judges until reading what you said in reply and how you are able to understand all this very clearly and put things into perspective for us non legal people.I am sure Gill and Carloway both knew what they were doing in using these aggressive phrases and attacking the media because the judiciary were aware and supported the legal profession attacking clients and journalists and you especially because of your investigation of judges and judiciary.
Keep up the good work!
What a very interesting read through the comments and replies.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder they fought a war against your petition to keep everything secret.
All the comments aside Congrats on getting the register!
ReplyDeleteAs you say more work to make it happen I am sure you will succeed!
Australian case, criminal law.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjrWDwpNMcU
Last week did you receive messages from the usual Faculty of Advocates sources and a media company promoting the fake news possible £120 million claim against the Crown Office on the Rangers case?
ReplyDeleteOnly after the paid for headlines and the Tory whipped up social media trolling was the scaled back £25 million claim revealed.
Can send if you don't have.
What is this nonsense about the Scottish Parliament now consulting with stakeholders?
ReplyDeleteHave they forgotten their meetings with not one but 2 Lord Presidents on the matter, oh and then there were also appearances by 2 judicial complaints officers and various others.
The most depressing thing is they will probably get away with doing plenty of nothing for a few more years.
@ 23 August 2021 at 19:19
ReplyDeleteThanks.
@ 23 August 2021 at 21:45
This has occurred in Scotland previously. A case under current investigation by the media suggests a former COPFS prosecutor - now a criminal defence advocate may be subject of similar allegations, although a significant effort is being expended to keep matters relating to the Scottish case out of the media.
@ 24 August 2021 at 12:19
The content of the messages to which DOI journalists are aware, are clearly an organised attempt by the legal profession to manipulate a case in which millions of pounds of public cash will be used to pay out any settlement.
What the Crown Office did was wrong, and there should be accountability for those involved - including criminal charges for COPFS & PoliceScotland manipulation of the law and the malicious prosecution of individuals.
However - greedy lawyers and advocates using headlines to generate more legal fees and favour for themselves - are clearly issues of dishonesty and most certainly have relevance on any damages claims involving the use of public funds - which are represented by the same law firms & same counsel.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The correct use of the messages in relation to generating PR around the further litigation around the COPFS malicious prosecution - is to send the material to the Lord President directly, given he is head of the courts and judiciary where these damages claims may be heard, request a media comment and publish all material when it is appropriate to do so.
@ 24 August 2021 at 12:55
ReplyDeleteThe extra time will give useful insight into further resistance employed by the judiciary against the petition, the evidence already heard, and what information will be required to be declared in any Register of Judges' Interests.
Additional time also allows for additional intel on the movements of assets held by Scotland's judiciary and shifting ownership via advice and work by certain law firms known to journalists - in an organised effort by Scotland's judiciary to evade declaration of interests.
One issue I am sure you are aware of is a plan discussed in private clubs of judges and lawyers to stage a false attack on a Scottish judge during 2015 when your petition was in Parliament
ReplyDeleteLawyers were certain an event such as this would immediately close your petition. One of those involved told his friends he wanted to give Brian Gill something to talk about when he appeared at Holyrood in November 2015
You may also be aware this false attack was called off when the other journalist from the Sun was targeted
The ensuing headlines made the plan impossible
Not suggesting there is any linkage to the hit and miss however this came up at a meeting last week which has sparked a series of denials of involvement
What do you think about this Peter?
"This has occurred in Scotland previously. A case under current investigation by the media suggests a former COPFS prosecutor - now a criminal defence advocate may be subject of similar allegations, although a significant effort is being expended to keep matters relating to the Scottish case out of the media."
ReplyDeleteWho could this be?
Does Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain know him/her?
Maybe an old topic deserves new lease of life dear Law journalist
ReplyDeleteHow about investigating the secret role played by a Scottish judge with his friends in the art theft case of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder Da Vinci BEFORE Police recovered the painting from HBJ Gateley Wareing in Glasgow.
Why did the judge become involved escape prosecution and no one bothered to ask why.
A very senior judge and Scots legal celebs were able to view the stolen Da Vinci before Police recovered it.
And did these events have any effect on persons cleared of involvement in the art theft.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-33184626
Legal action against Duke of Buccleuch over Da Vinci theft fails
18 June 2015
A former lawyer has lost his £4.25m legal claim against a Scottish aristocrat over the return of a stolen masterpiece.
Marshall Ronald claimed that he was owed the sum after Leonardo da Vinci's Madonna of the Yarnwinder was recovered in 2007.
It was taken from Drumlanrig Castle, near Thornhill, four years earlier.
But a judge rejected the claim that he had brought against Richard Scott, the 10th Duke of Buccleuch.
The Duke earlier told the Court of Session in Edinburgh that he became "an actor" in a police undercover operation to secure the return of a stolen masterpiece.
Lord Brailsford was asked to rule on whether the Duke gave authority to an undercover police officer, John Craig, to enter a contract which Mr Ronald sought to enforce.
The ex-solicitor claimed that under the contract Craig was authorised to negotiate the recovery of the painting on behalf of the Duke.
But the judge said on the basis of the evidence there was no consensual agreement of that kind between the undercover officer and the Duke.
Lord Brailsford said: "On the contrary the arrangements were no more than a scheme designed and controlled by the police in an attempt to obtain the return of the stolen property."
In 2010 Mr Ronald was one of five men cleared at the High Court in Edinburgh of conspiring to extort £4.25m for the safe return of the painting.
In a statement released after the judgement, the Duke of Buccleuch said he was "very pleased" with the "unequivocal" judgement.
He added: "The theft of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder painting was deeply disturbing for my family and it is a matter of regret that court proceedings have continued over so many years.
"As was made clear in the evidence of three retired police officers as well as my own, my involvement in supporting the 'sting' operation which involved an undercover police officer was entirely at the request of and under the direction of the police.
"I pay tribute to their patience, persistence and courage in thus recovering the painting. The suggestion that, in doing what I did, I was somehow entering into an arrangement which could have been illegal has been absurd and I regret the waste of time and money that it has involved."
He said The Madonna of the Yarnwinder is now on loan to the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh.
"I hope today's judgement will provide a closure to a long and heavily scrutinised process and that this supremely beautiful painting can be thought of for that rather than as a legal battleground," he added.
@ 25 August 2021 at 13:42
ReplyDeleteInteresting ... does match old tips about strange discussions at Edinburgh clubs where the judiciary gather for a sing-a-long or more.
One thing for sure - after looking at Scotland's judiciary for Ten years and with a Scottish Parliament investigation to probe judicial interests - journalists involved in news articles quickly realised the judiciary, and prospective candidates to the judicial bench - are up for anything to obtain a judicial position and all the trappings of power which come with being a judge.
Perhaps a good time to remind readers - holding a judicial position on the bench gives an individual far more power than any elected official, civil servant, Prime Minister or even First Minister ... and the judiciary with a very powerful base of lawyers, advocates, friends either side of the crime divide and others in high places ensure there is no scrutiny or accountability for the judiciary in Scotland ... and other jurisdictions including rUK.
Be in no doubt - any member of Scotland's legal establishment, be they a solicitor, an advocate or some other ... will do whatever it takes, use whoever they can and what power they already have to gain a job as a judge - regardless of how honest or dishonest their service in the legal profession has been up to their appointment to the judicial bench.
@ 25 August 2021 at 15:49
Certainly the current Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, and the current Solicitor General Ruth Charteris will be aware of allegations against the former COPFS prosecutor. Records appear to indicate the LA probably worked with him previously while he was at COPFS.
@ 25 August 2021 at 16:13
Again, interesting but old ...
At the time of the art theft recovery - no one wanted to go on the record or admit to any judicial involvement and how this affected the outcome of a court case and other issues since.
There is actually a more entertaining story from a reliable source in relation to a top Scottish judge who - some time ago during his work as a judge and famed habit for international junket at public expense - visited an EU located art gallery to view a Da Vinci artwork, in the hope it would further issues in relation to certain superstitions of 'eternal life' held by this top judge.
This particular tip was shared with journo colleagues at the time but was deemed too sensitive to be published, as well as perhaps having the effect of bringing significant disrepute re. dodgy superstition and weird beliefs - to an 'esteemed' legal career - in reality not so esteemed.
Good to note the top judge was deciding major cases in Scotland at the time .. and still has influence over UK legislation with an rUK judicial linked role ...
I read in the comments Lord Carloway used the threats about aggressive media and litigants in 2017 so how does this relate to an alleged plot in 2015 to help out Lord Gill and stage some false attack on a judge for sympathetic headlines? If Carloway kicked off the aggressive media and litigants project in 2017 then I do not see how this relates to earlier alleged events to help out Gill. Answer appreciated.
ReplyDeleteScottish judges believing they are immortal should be an instant kick off the bench to protect the public from being judged by what I will assume to be elderly white males who should go off and practice their wizardry somewhere less threatening.
ReplyDelete"One thing for sure - after looking at Scotland's judiciary for Ten years and with a Scottish Parliament investigation to probe judicial interests - journalists involved in news articles quickly realised the judiciary, and prospective candidates to the judicial bench - are up for anything to obtain a judicial position and all the trappings of power which come with being a judge.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a good time to remind readers - holding a judicial position on the bench gives an individual far more power than any elected official, civil servant, Prime Minister or even First Minister ... and the judiciary with a very powerful base of lawyers, advocates, friends either side of the crime divide and others in high places ensure there is no scrutiny or accountability for the judiciary in Scotland ... and other jurisdictions including rUK.
Be in no doubt - any member of Scotland's legal establishment, be they a solicitor, an advocate or some other ... will do whatever it takes, use whoever they can and what power they already have to gain a job as a judge - regardless of how honest or dishonest their service in the legal profession has been up to their appointment to the judicial bench."
Given the rewards and power of being a judge AND how easily are corrupted when judges resist declaring interests for 10 years I am sure of what you write here
As someone mentioned earlier if the real story and all the plotting around the secret divorce of Scotland's top judge was made public as it should be people will have a very different view of all involved and how judges can manipulate courts and the law for their own interests.
ReplyDeleteIf you are looking at Da Vinci take time to research the trail of a Gulf States Saudi Arabia visiting art expert Scottish judge and the suspicious Salvator Mundi
ReplyDeleteBlessings from your friends in the FoA
"Good to note the top judge was deciding major cases in Scotland at the time .. and still has influence over UK legislation with an rUK judicial linked role ..."
ReplyDeletePsychiatric evaluations should be required for judges because cases are complex enough without having to deal with fantasist judges running the courtroom .
@ 25 August 2021 at 18:09
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question
The aggressive media and hostile litigants 'project' was actually started by Brian Gill in February 2013 - not as you infer - by Lord Carloway in 2017.
Lord Gill, in his role as Lord President in February 2013 - wrote to the Public Petitions Committee, stating:
"The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused."
Lord Carloway - who was Lord Gill's Lord Justice Clerk and succeeded Lord Gill as Lord President - quoted the material in his letter to MSPs in 2017 - supporting Lord Gill's 2013 statement - which has been used over and over again in letters and lobbying from the judiciary and their allies in the legal profession against the petition, from 2013 to this date.
Readers can view the report on Lord Gill's letter - and view the actual letter from Lord Gill in which he uses attacks on the media and court litigants - to stall the Register of Judicial Interests petition - from 2013 on this blog at the following link:
A MATTER OF TRUST : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill attacks Scottish Parliament petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scots Judiciary
@ 25 August 2021 at 19:44
ReplyDeleteInteresting, thanks ...
@ 25 August 2021 at 20:02
Good idea given the conduct of some members of the judiciary in courts over the years ...
What you said here is 100% accurate
ReplyDelete"In relation to unpublished comments on this, and other articles seeking to politicise issues relating to the law, regulation of solicitors, oversight of the judiciary and actual cases where proof of wrongdoing by lawyers has been long established - there no legitimacy given to those who seek to portray these issues as one political view against another.
For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, a steady 1000+ a year cases of complaints against Scottish solicitors & advocates have remained at around this same figure - sometimes exceeding 3000 a year since the 1990s - so, under all administrations even prior to the creation of the Scottish Parliament in May 1999 - from the former Scottish Office run by successive Labour and Conservative UK Governments, to the Scottish Executive run by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats - to the Scottish Government run by the Scottish National Party - Scotland's legal profession, legal industry and judiciary have successfully lobbied to remain aloof from regulation, oversight and reform for decades."
++++++
Everyone and all political parties have willfully ignored victims of the courts and lawyers for decades and I learn from how you write with experience and reply to people the willful ignorance is at the behest of the very same legal lobby who kept your petition at the Scottish Parliament for 10 years and constantly tried to stop your judicial register.
The justice system cannot be allowed to manage itself because the justice system is as rotten and corrupt as all other public bodies when you peel back the veneer of so-called respectability and lies around what they do for a living and how they get away with it.
Good work Peter.
Judges accusing the press of aggression well the performance from pro judge politicians in the video is extreme prejudice and very aggressive right to the end when the guy most against you realises he doesn't have the numbers to close your petition.
ReplyDeleteGood thing they failed and your register goes on!
Is there any truth to the rumour Frank Mulholland left a note for his replacement Lord Advocate Wolffe raising questions of the evidence used against the Rangers Administrators?
ReplyDeleteIf so why did the new Lord Advocate go ahead with the prosecution regardless?
You mentioned Brian Gill's use of wording where he describes "aggressive media"
ReplyDeleteWere you aware the Law Society offered assistance to the Courts Service to stop your petition in 2013
LSoS put it about they obtained a statement supporting judges privacy from one of their former employees who was subject of an attack organised by a corrupt lawyer. The story becomes more interesting when the former Law Society employee was approached directly for comment. He denied writing any statement, accused Law Society directors of holding a grudge against you, said your petition is a good idea and went on to say your blog does good work.
Looking back on Gill's 2013 letter may be good to establish how involved the Law Society were in the lobbying against your petition.
Thanks for additional published & unpublished comments, content of which has been noted.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to unpublished comments of content relating to private messaging groups of the legal profession, comments which contain identities and phone numbers associated with messages cannot be published. The content has been noted as part of the ongoing investigation into these issues, and those who are willing to disclose this material should contact the blog via email.
In relation to several unpublished comments identifying specific 'Scottish' Twitter users and certain anti-Scottish Government views - the content is not credible, and is clearly politically motivated.
This blog has already stated the position in relation to issues of justice, courts & the judiciary where politics has no place other than to bring reform to a system which has managed itself for too long and exerted undue influence over Scotland's political representatives, our elected Scottish Parliament, and many walks of public life.
@ 26 August 2021 at 15:26
Thanks, and yes - this is exactly what has been going on for decades - the legal establishment allowed to run the courts as a business model to inflate their own interests, at the expense of all others.
@ 26 August 2021 at 17:58
When people do not get their way - their mask slips ... the live video was a harrowing watch when the Justice Committee lurched from one view to another.
Fortunately clearer heads prevailed and the petition survived, to be taken up now by the Scottish Government for implementation.
@ 26 August 2021 at 18:40
Allegedly, yes ... the note did question whether the prosecution should go ahead ... yet what happened next was the Crown Office tried to steam roll the case through the courts using their support and allies within Scotland's judiciary - and the wheels came off from the move to shut down the civil claims - when the Lord Advocate's wife was due to hear the claim against her own husband James Wolffe.
From material viewed by journalists, COPFS were aware for some time the evidence was flimsy, manipulated, and malicious - yet the Lord Advocate chose to press on regardless.
@ 26 August 2021 at 19:20
The matter to which your comment refers was made aware to DOI journalists some years ago - and is a measure of how low the judiciary and their allies in the legal profession would go to close down Petition PE 1458.
Let there be no doubt. Over the years, this blog and journalists current and former - have reported on, witnessed and helped out on cases where the Law Society of Scotland and their members have infected Scots public life with a level of acceptable criminality free of any punishment - which has gone on to ruin so many clients while lining the pocke4ts of the legal profession.
The Law Society of Scotland are a deeply sinister organisation.
This 'regulator' (in actuality the primary and all powerful lobbyist body for Scotland's legal profession)- has stood by while it's members have looted, pillaged and rifled through their clients possessions, lives, families, businesses and everything.
There are plenty people who think lawyers are great, and the answer to everything is to sue the living daylights out of life, the universe, everything - but when it all goes wrong - the clients quickly become the prey and that promised mega trillion compensation or settlement turns into a few pounds, or a threat to sequestrate clients [using a friendly paid-for Sheriff Principal] if faked up legal fees are not paid.
It is time the reign of this monstrous legal lobby group was brought to an end, to enable ordinary people to have access to justice which all Scots deserve, rather than be bullied, groomed and preyed upon by Scottish solicitors with their fake reputations and power to manipulate news in their favour.
Reforms to justice start with giving justice to people, not lawyers.
Why didnt you accept the offer to work for the SLCC?
ReplyDeleteYour blog alone proves you could reform the SLCC all on your own
"Reforms to justice start with giving justice to people, not lawyers."
ReplyDeleteWELL SAID PETER!!
Content is noted in relation to unpublished comments.
ReplyDeleteMaterial sent in to DOI will be reviewed and looked at for further articles.
@ 3 September 2021 at 12:31
Offer was a trap - the person involved was effectively sacked after disregarding a warning the Law Society of Scotland were reading the SLCC's comms.
And, the workplace hating & harassment of any potential reformer via the Law Society club would be overwhelming to say the least ...
For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever - not one of Scotland's justice sector organisations or regulators can be reformed from within - save the example of Moi Ali as Judicial Complaints Reviewer who put the JCR Office on the map - and continues to support transparency & accountability for Scotland's judiciary.
JUSTICE FOR SALE - BRILLIANT!!!!
ReplyDeleteHow much did the judges make from selling us down the river this week?
Carloway must have picked up well over a million quid in salary alone since he took over from Gill so everything should be declared their pictures next to their salaries and all their interests because this is our money and our courts not theirs!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the headline should read JUDGES FOR SALE or JUDGES SOLD JUSTICE!!
ReplyDeleteScottish Twitter really is messed up with thousands of false Scottish pro-United Kingdom Union Twitter accounts linked to dark money groups funding the GOP and UK Conservative Party.
ReplyDeleteIf you ask the right people at Holyrood you will know Scottish Conservatives never really supported the petition.
ReplyDeleteThree leaders of the Scottish Conservatives were briefed on your petition while msps heard evidence and dithered on what to do.
There are two msps who demanded closure of your petition as you well know and both are Scottish Conservatives.
Maurice Corry and Adam Tomkins.
A clerk told me one of the ScotCons on the Petitions committee was briefed by the Law Society with false information.Too lazy to check for himself he used the term several times during his reference to the petition then someone pointed out he was wrong.
So you see Peter.Better not trust those Scottish Conservative Con Artists because they really are Con Artists every single one of them.
A member of the solicitor chat group shared copies of these messages in your blog comments.Are you aware there is a thread of messages proposing how to use a "car bomb" and a set of replies agreeing how to "tackle the media scourge against lawyers"
ReplyDelete