PRIVATE PARLY: Questions raised of what really took place in private meeting between Scotland’s top judge & two MSPs over judicial interests transparency register petition

More questions than answers emerge from private meeting between politicians & top judge. A PRIVATE MEETING between Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill and two MSP members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee over a PUBLIC PETITION calling for judges to declare their full interests in court  has raised serious questions over how far the judiciary are willing to go to avoid declaring secret wealth, hitherto unrevealed business links & family connections within the legal sector, allegations of offshore interests and even criminal convictions for benefits cheating.

The unprecedented private meeting between Lord Gill, Convener David Stewart and Deputy Convener Chic Brodie MSP and the Clerk to the PPC in attendance, became the subject of heated debate at this week’s Petitions Committee meeting on Tuesday.

The private meeting with the Lord President, held away from deliberations of the full Petitions Committee, came as a compromise solution because Lord Gill refused several invitations to appear before the Petitions Committee during 2013 to face questions on, and account for his vociferous opposition to a call for transparency over how judges recuse themselves in court and how judicial interests are not being properly declared.

Petitions Committee Meeting 28 January 2014 (Click to view video footage)

During the meeting, an account was given by the Convener & Deputy Convener of what had been said at the private meeting with Lord Gill. However, no written notes of the meeting had been handed to members of the Committee in advance of Tuesday’s Public Petitions Committee meeting, which caused some members to raise questions of the whole issue of Lord Gill refusing to appear before the Scottish Parliament on this issue.

Raising the issue of minutes of the private meeting with Lord Gill, John Wilson MSP asked the Convener if any notes of what was discussed at the private meeting were going to be placed on the official record of the Committee. Jackson Carlaw MSP also pointed out that had it not been for tenacity of this committee so far, there would be no letter forthcoming from the Lord President.

The day before the Public Petitions Committee met, it was reported on Diary of Injustice that limited declarations of interest by Scotland’s top judge and only six other members of Scotland’s vast, sprawling ranks of a multi million pound well salaried & well pensioned judiciary were published in the 2012-2013 Annual Report of the Scottish Court Service, a fact which Lord Gill omitted to tell MSPs in three ‘stonewalling’ letters of protest against the petition which the Lord President sent to msps last year.

The full article reporting on Lord Gill’s limited declarations, is available here: M’Lud’s Interests: What Scotland’s top judge did not tell Holyrood MSPs when he refused to give evidence on register of judicial interests

From the Petitions Committee’s own records, it transpires MSPs were informed of Lord Gill’s limited declaration in the SCS annual report during November 2013 by the petitioner, and a submission was published by the Scottish Parliament’s own website at that time, available here: PE1458/T: Petitioner Letter of 14 November 2013 (9KB pdf)

However, during Tuesday’s meeting earlier this week, an account given by the Deputy Convener to Committee members appeared to suggest the declarations by Lord Gill had come as a revelation from the Lord President himself during the private meeting which occurred only two weeks ago, leading some to feel Lord Gill is choosing a divide and conquer approach to how he responds to questions asked in private meetings, compared to questions raised by the Petitions Committee in published letters.

It was also reported to the Committee that Lord Gill had told both MSPs during the private meeting he would tinker with his apparently complicated computer systems to ensure data on judicial recusals was easier to come by for members of the public, albeit missing the point about publishing details of declarations of interest – called for by the petition itself.

However, the Lord President’s IT suggestion was today branded “laughable” by court sources who themselves have frequently said they find it difficult to even publish complete transcripts or verbatim final opinions delivered by judges in Scotland’s highest court, the Court of Session

The limited declarations, required for the positions on the Scottish Court Service Board, appear to fly in the face of a series of excuses, complaints, accusations and veiled threats made by the Lord President in writing against the idea of creating a publicly available register of judicial interests, and raise questions over how Lord Gill has handed the judiciary’s battle against what is a simple call for transparency, itself supported by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR).

Moi Ali, Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer recently gave testimony to MSPs at Holyrood on the benefits of a register of judicial interests, reported along with video footage of the testimony, here : As Scotland’s top judge battles on against transparency, Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life

Any publicly available register of judicial interests which could be created from the aims of the petition, would take in the entire judiciary and have to show criminal convictions,professional & other relationships, undeclared earnings and business links to law firms, investments, property and memberships of organisations and other information which commonly appears on registers of interest throughout the public sector.

It has also come to light some of Scotland’s judges have not declared their interests or recused themselves in court in cases where persons have been wrongfully convicted of a criminal offence.

Victims of miscarriage of injustice have then have gone on to suffer even greater injustice when it was revealed the same judges who prosecuted them while serving as Prosecutors for the Crown Office, had then gone on to hear the wrongfully convicted person’s appeal without recusing themselves from hearing the case, and had then dismissed the appeal.

A report on how the failure of judges to recuse themselves or declare their interests in cases which have led to miscarriages of justice features here: Failure to Recuse : Evidence handed to MSPs in judicial register of interests proposal reveals judges who blocked injustice appeal failed to declare interests in court

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Mail newspaper, 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

Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary is due to be heard again at the Scottish Parliament in some weeks time after a letter has been received from the Lord President, who is apparently still refusing to attend the Scottish Parliament and face open questions from all Committee members regarding judges hidden undeclared interests.

Anti-transparency top judge 'should reconsider his position on Scotland Act' as MSPs invite Judicial Investigator to give evidence on register of judicial interests

Scottish Parliament will hear evidence on register of judge’s interests after summer recess. MSPs from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee made it clear at last Tuesday’s committee meeting they still want to hear from Scotland’s top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill who has so far been reluctant to attend Holyrood to discuss issues of judicial transparency raised in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

The move by members of the Petitions Committee who have also decided to hear evidence in public sessions from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), Moi Ali, comes  after the Lord President refused to appear before MSPs to explain his vociferous opposition to the proposal seeking to create greater transparency in the judiciary.

During last Tuesday’s meeting at Holyrood, Chic Brodie MSP, the Deputy Convener of the Petitions Committee spoke on the issues of transparency in relation Lord Gill’s refusals to accept invitations from the Petitions Committee to attend the Parliament and speak on the matter.

Chic Brodie said : “We are looking for openness and transparency, but the Lord President has chosen not to attend to explain why there should not be a register of interests for judges, as there is for members of Parliament, members of the Scottish Police Authority and so on.”

The Deputy Convener also drew attention to the fact that Lord Gill was being selective in which Parliamentary Committees he attends.

Mr Brodie said : “I recently attended the Justice Committee to talk about changes to the Scottish Court Service; it is somewhat paradoxical that the Lord President was happy to go along to that committee to explain?or not to explain, as the case may be?the rationale behind those changes.”

Commenting further on Lord Gill’s terse opposition to the petition and refusal to provide answers to questions from members of the Petitions Committee, MSP Jackson Carlaw said : “Lord Gill’s response, which took us to something of an impasse from our point of view, was, “It’s not happening down south, and neither I nor anybody else has any intention of doing it, so get your tanks off my vested-interest lawn.”

Mr Carlaw also agreed that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, be invited to attend an evidence session to speak to MSPs on the merits of a register of interests for the judiciary.

Agreeing with Jackson Carlaw, John Wilson MSP also raised the possibility Lord Gill should reconsider his earlier refusals to attend the Petitions Committee after MSPs have heard from Moi Ali.

Mr Wilson went on to comment on the Lord President’s position regarding the Scotland Act, pointing out the issues being dealt with in the petition did not relate to decisions taken by judges in court, rather it related to the administration of the judiciary where it is the position of the petitioner that Parliament should have the right to speak to judges on these subjects.

John Wilson MSP said : “I hope that, once we have heard that evidence, Lord Gill might reconsider his position in relation to section 23(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. Basically, my interpretation is that Parliament and its committees cannot call judges or sheriffs to give evidence on and to be accountable for judicial decisions that they have made, but the petitioner’s main point is that we should hear from Lord Gill in his role as the Lord President, which involves overseeing the judiciary.”

The discussion on Petition 1458 drew to a close with the Committee agreeing to invite the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence at a future meeting. The Committee also agreed to write to Dr Kennedy Graham MP of the New Zealand Green party. Dr Graham’s bill for a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges in New Zealand, helped in-part inspire Petition 1458.

Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali has already voiced her support for the proposal in a letter to MSPs, reported by Diary of Injustice here : ‘Better Transparency would enhance Judiciary’ as Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer issues support for Register of interests for judges

Full video coverage & transcript of the Public Petitions Committee’s discussion of Petition 1458 :

Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scottish Judiciary 25 June 2013 Scottish Parliament (Click image to watch video)

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener) : PE1458 is on a register of interests for members of the judiciary. Recommendations for action that the committee might wish to take are included in the papers. One is to invite Moi Ali, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, to give evidence to the committee at a future meeting. We could also take any other action that we consider appropriate.

Before I make any personal comment, I seek the views of members of the committee.

Previously, the committee decided that there was no further purpose in pursuing the Lord President. I pointed out that the Government appointed JCR had particularly strong views on the matter and said that, although the Lord President wants to talk only about the constitutional principle, that principle needs to be seen in the light of potential constitutional changes. The view was that we should seek to close off the petition with the Lord President.

However, I certainly recommend that we get Moi Ali in here to hear her views.

Jackson Carlaw MSP: I agree. I thought that we had reached something of an impasse. When I saw the support for the proposal from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer?an appointment that was established under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008?I felt that, given that the weight of evidence so far from the establishment has been of one colour, it would be interesting to hear why the Judicial Complaints Reviewer takes a different view.

Malcolm Chisholm MSP: I have not been involved in the petition, so I would really like to ask a question. I have read Lord Gill’s view of judicial independence in relation to attending the committee and answering questions. Are his and others’ objections to the register based on the same principle of judicial independence, or are they not really to do with that at all? I do not know whether anyone can answer that, but it seems to me that the petition raises interesting general questions about  the line between judicial independence and accountability and political oversight. In part, that relates to an issue about judicial independence that I raised in last week’s debate in Parliament on the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill. I am curious about the issue.

Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener):  The view that was taken was that there are other mechanisms and checks and balances, such as recusal, that secure the independence of the judiciary without exposing judges to what would be seen as a breach of the Scotland Act 1998 in performing their role.

Malcolm Chisholm MSP:  So the issue is about a register that would affect judicial independence, rather than just about the Lord President appearing here to answer questions. Is that what you are saying?

Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener): That is the difficulty and the reason why we are struggling. We are looking for openness and transparency, but the Lord President has chosen not to attend to explain why there should not be a register of interests for judges, as there is for members of Parliament, members of the Scottish Police Authority and so on. That is his view.

Jackson Carlaw MSP:  Lord Gill’s response, which took us to something of an impasse from our point of view, was, “It’s not happening down south, and neither I nor anybody else has  any intention of doing it, so get your tanks off my vested-interest lawn.” We were unable to find a way to break through that, but the information that we have received from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer potentially offers us an interesting extension of  the discussion. However, I do not think that the issue that the petitioner raised has ever been properly and fully addressed, beyond the Lord President saying that he does not think that a register is necessary and, surprisingly, neither does anybody else who is currently employed in the profession.

John Wilson MSP:  I agree with Jackson Carlaw. Given the interesting comments in the response from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, it would serve a purpose to invite her to give evidence to the committee. I hope that, once we have heard that evidence, Lord Gill might reconsider his position in relation to section 23(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. Basically, my interpretation is that Parliament and its committees cannot call judges or sheriffs to give evidence on and  to be accountable for judicial decisions that they have made, but the petitioner’s main point is that we should hear from Lord Gill in his role as the Lord President, which involves overseeing the judiciary.

I hope that Lord Gill might reconsider his position in the light of the fact that we are to take further evidence. I hope that that evidence will draw out other issues that are relevant to our deliberations. I support Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion to take evidence from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.

Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener):  Okay. We will invite Moi Ali to give evidence.

I recently attended the Justice Committee to talk about changes to the Scottish Court Service; it is somewhat paradoxical that the Lord President was happy to go along to that committee to explain?or not to explain, as the case may be?the rationale behind those changes.

Do members have any other comments?

Jim Eadie MSP:  I just want to reinforce Mr Carlaw’s and Mr Wilson’s points. Notwithstanding the points that the Lord President made in his letter to the convener that judges cannot be compelled under the Scotland Act 1998 to appear before committees of the Parliament, I note the statement in that letter that“a register of interests for the judiciary is both unnecessary and unworkable.”

It would  have been beneficial if the committee had been able to hear oral evidence from the Lord President about why he thinks that that is the case. Like John Wilson, I hope that the Lord President will reconsider that. However, I certainly endorse the view that we should hear further evidence from other expert witnesses.

Angus MacDonald MSP:  I draw the committee’s attention to the petitioner’s letter, in which he asks the committee to approach a Green Party member of the New Zealand Parliament, Dr Kennedy Graham, who  is currently putting his Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill through that Parliament. We could approach Dr Graham to ask for his views.

Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener):  We can e-mail Dr Graham, but we will need to ask him very specific questions. I do not think that there is any harm in that but, as the clerk has just pointed out to me and as the correspondence makes clear, the suggestion is that the New Zealand Government is intending to move in the direction of recusal. Should I formulate some questions and just zap them around everyone?

Angus MacDonald:  That would be fine, convener.

Jim Eadie MSP: I do not think that we should rule out a future evidence session involving experts from furth of Scotland. When the Health and Sport Committee considered minimum unit pricing of alcohol, it benefited greatly from evidence from Canadian experts?notwithstanding the time difference between the two countries.

Chic Brodie MSP (Deputy Convener): I thought that you were going to suggest that we go out there to speak to them.We have covered the position.

Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary filed by law journalist Peter Cherbi calls on the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a requirement that all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

Previous articles from Diary of Injustice including video footage of the Petitions Committee meetings and further information on the drive to create a register of interests for Scotland’s judiciary can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

DEMOCRACY LIVE @ Holyrood ? Scottish Parliament to re-launch e-Petitions website after major redesign hopes to improve Scots interaction with politics

Scottish Parliament’s e-petitions website was down for much of the year, awaits imminent re-launch. SCOTS eager to add their signatures or debate the many & varied subjects of Public Petitions submitted to the Scottish Parliament as E-PETITIONS, should again be able to exercise their right to add their contributions to Scotland’s political landscape with the expected re-launch of e-petitions at Holyrood sometime later this December, according to statements released by the Scottish Parliament’s media office. The re-launch of the e-petitions website comes after the well used facility to sign & discuss petitions had been taken offline for many months after it had experienced several widely reported failures, most notably in a petition for a debate on the Lockerbie Trial.

E-Petitions, for those who are not familiar with the term are the electronic online version of a public petition submitted by an individual, which has additional advantages of encouraging online discussion & debate among contributors as well as having the facility to add signatures to a cause anyone thinks worthy of support.

A statement on the Scottish Parliament’s e-petitions website which has lain dormant for a number of months since the Parliament re-launched it’s website during late summer states : A new system for submitting petitions online is currently being developed which we hope to launch shortly. In advance of the launch of this new system, the e-petition facility has been suspended therefore there will be no facility to host petitions online and gather e-signatures. The new system will feature a new e-petition site.

For those of you who want to use the Internet to petition the Parliament, e-Petitioner allows you to have your petition live on the Internet, rather than just on paper. This way, your petition and supporting information can be made available to a potentially much wider audience, giving you the opportunity to gather more names to support the petition.

A petition may gather signatures in both forms - you can have a paper version and an online version, although repeat signatures will be removed. Each e-Petition also has its own discussion forum, where visitors and signatories can discuss the petition and surrounding issues online. There is also space for supporting information, so that you can add any background necessary and put your petition in context.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice, a spokesperson for the Scottish Parliament commented on the expected e-petitions system re-launch. She said : “Petitions can still be lodged with a webpage on the Parliament’s site for each petition. The Scottish Parliament was the first Parliament to launch an e-petitions site and the 11 year-old system required updating to ensure it could continue to meet both high demand and users’ expectations.”

The spokesperson continued : “The new e-petitions site, where petitioners can gather signatures prior to the petition being lodged, is expected in December.”

Noting the success of some petitions at the Scottish Parliament which petitioners and observers have claimed were ‘helped along’ with the addition of short video clips of specific debates on specific petitions by the Petitions Committee which were posted online on social media outlets, and also here on Diary of Injustice with regards to the long running & heavily debated McKenzie Friend petition, consumer advocates & law reform campaigners have made it be known to Diary of Injustice that a facility on the Scottish Parliament’s e-petitions website to include short video clips of debates on petitions would be a great help to those wishing to participate in online discussions of petitions, rather than having to search through hours of video clips of entire Committee sessions already posted on the Scottish Parliament’s website.

If readers are not familiar with how video clips have helped along some petitions, examples of short clips of petition debates, particularly on the McKenzie Friend petition can be found on Injustice TV and in previous reports on the McKenzie Friend petition, covered by Diary of Injustice HERE where video coverage posted to You Tube and on Diary of Injustice helped bring in international submissions on the McKenzie Friend issue.

A spokesperson for the Scottish Parliament, responding to the idea of including video clips in a form similar to how the BBC DEMOCRACY LIVE website operates, said : “It has never been our intention to provide a service along the lines of Democracy Live. The Parliament has always made available video of all its meetings in public – and this will continue to be the case. The whole petitions system will be integrated now, and it will be easier to register, track, comment and interact with Petitions.”

Anyone who wishes to contact the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions team can do so via emailing the Petitions Committee here : petitions@scottish.parliament.uk where staff & clerks from the Petitions Committee can address individual questions and develop direct relationships with potential petitioners, providing appropriate support to them.

Video clips of debates including Margo MacDonald’s fantastic input on McKenzie Friends swung it for success, said observers, and one angry senior judge ! In my experience on petitions I have reported on, particularly the McKenzie Friend Petition which saw the Scottish Parliament’s shining gem, Margo MacDonald MSP give what can only be described as fantastic input into a petition to assist Party Litigants with lay assistance in Scottish Courts, helped along with a particular court judgement in a long running case, the short video clips of the discussions at Holyrood which accompanied reports of the McKenzie Friend petition’s progress on Diary of Injustice, gave an example of how the public, politicians and even members of the judiciary react to the distribution of & public comment on video clips of debates in the Scottish Parliament.

The inclusion of short video clips specific to petitions, along with written reports and a facility to debate or comment on the Committee’s proceedings gives a greater chance of success to the petition at hand and a greater chance of Scots to debate and understand how they see the issues of the petition progressing before their very own eyes. It would be such a simple yet effective addition to the e-petitions website for petitions to have video clips of their own specific debates posted alongside the actual petition.