What is there to hide ? : A Register of Judicial Interests will bring much needed transparency & accountability to Scots Judiciary too used to life behind closed doors

Top judge Lord Gill has so far refused to answer questions on judicial secret interests. AS reported by Diary of Injustice earlier this week, MSPs from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee have  once again invited Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill to attend Holyrood to explain his ‘robust’ opposition to a proposal put forward in Petition PE1458 which calls for a Register of Judicial Interests for all members of Scotland's judiciary.

This second invitation from the Scottish Parliament to Scotland’s most senior judge comes after the Lord President Lord Gill earlier refused to attend the Petitions Committee to discuss issues raised in Petition PE1458, reported here : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill refuses to attend Scottish Parliament to face questions over opposition to register of judicial interests

Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary which was debated again at the Public Petitions Committee on Tuesday 16 April 2013, calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or to amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

The full Official Report of last week’s Petitions Committee meeting where Petition PE1458 was discussed, has now been published, available online HERE, and is reprinted below, along with a link to video footage of the PPC meeting for readers convenience.

All previous reports from Diary of Injustice 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

Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary Scottish Parliament 16 April 2013 (click image below to watch video footage of Petitions Committee debate)

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

The Convener David Stewart MSP:  The eighth current petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Members will be aware that there has been a lot of press coverage of the issue and that Lord Gill, the Lord President, declined the invitation to appear before the committee. As members will know, under the Scotland Act 1998 we have no power to cite judges to appear before us.

We received a courteous letter from Lord Gill, but it is important for us to get key figures in the judiciary to help us with the petition. I suggest that we send a courteous letter back, re-inviting Lord Gill and asking him how many judges have been recused and whether there is more detailed evidence on the effectiveness of the current system.

We should also seek the views of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the judicial complaints reviewer. If members think that it is important to have people in front of us, we could ask representatives of those latter two bodies to attend.

I know that several members have fairly strong views on the issue.

Chic Brodie MSP:  We have seen the answer from the Lord President. No one has said that the Scotland Act 1998 is perfect and, in this instance, it is not. We are all equal before the law, even those who dispense it. We should send a courteous letter, but it should be robust, on the basis that the Lord President has written to us but his letter does not necessarily answer all our questions. What is there to hide?

I am sure that we all want openness and transparency in our Parliament, which is the sovereign Parliament of the Scottish people. As a member of that constituency, the Lord President, like anyone else, should at least pay obeisance to a request by the committee on behalf of the Parliament for him to attend. I sincerely hope that he reconsiders his position and attends at the earliest opportunity.

Jackson Carlaw MSP :  We cannot compel the Lord President to give evidence, but I would say that he has already set aside that provision by choosing to contribute evidence in writing. We are seeking to explore that evidence with him further, now orally, which I think is entirely reasonable.

I would put an accent on Chic Brodie’s point, because the unintended consequence of the Lord President’s not coming is to gather support for the petition in the committee in the absence of our being able to establish for ourselves the necessity for progressing with its proposals. That is unfortunate. Therefore, we should say as politely as possible that, although the Lord President with his great erudition and extraordinary intellectual capacity might not be able to anticipate what further advice he could give us that we would find of interest or helpful, that is nonetheless something that we might be able to determine.

The Convener David Stewart MSP : To recap, we will write to Lord Gill and ask him to attend. We will ask him how many judges have been recused and whether there is more detailed evidence on the effectiveness of the current system. We will also seek the views of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the judicial complaints reviewer.

Do members agree to that course of action? Members indicated agreement.

Globetrotting Lord Gill urged to reconsider snub to Scottish Parliament after top judge refused to answer questions over opposition to register of judicial interests

Orient Express : Lord Gill ‘re-invited’ to attend Holyrood after judicial snub to msps. SCOTLAND’S top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill who earlier this month snubbed an official invite to attend the Scottish Parliament, has been asked once again by a Parliamentary Committee to appear before msps to face questions on why he is refusing to implement a register of interests for Scotland's judiciary.

The latest invitation from members of Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee comes after Lord Gill, who regularly travels to destinations as far afield as China,Taiwan and this week, South Africa, refused to attend Scotland’s elected Parliament, located a few hundred metres down Edinburgh’s Royal Mile from Lord Gill’s office at the Court of Session.

Legal observers to the escalating stand off between the Parliament & Scotland’s top judge say the Lord President appears anxious to avoid facing questions from msps over his objections to Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, filed by law journalist Peter Cherbi.

Last Tuesday, 16 April, the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee met to discuss the Lord President’s refusal to attend an evidence session. Committee members including Chic Brodie MSP, Jackson Carlaw MSP and the Committee’s Convener David Stewart MSP, made it clear that Lord Gill should be re-invited to attend an evidence session at the Scottish Parliament to face questions on the strength of his objections to creating a register of interests for his judicial colleagues.

The Committee also agreed to seek views from the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali. who has also encountered resistance from the Lord President with regard to transparency of complaints made against members of Scotland’s judiciary, recently reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper and on Diary of Injustice, HERE.

Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary Scottish Parliament 16 April 2013 (click image below to watch video footage of Petitions Committee debate) 

The Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee has since issued a statement on Friday 19 April, announcing that Lord Gill has been asked to reconsider his decision not to appear in front of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in a letter issued by Convener David Stewart MSP on behalf of the Committee. The invitation asks Lord Gill to reconsider his decision not to attend the committee to discuss petition PE1458, which calls for legislation to be put in place to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests.

Committee Convener David Stewart MSP said: “As a Scottish Parliament committee, our job is to fully examine the petitions before us and explore the issues involved.Only by doing this can we ensure that we exhausted every possible avenue in taking a petition forward. To do this without hearing from the Lord President in person would be difficult. That is why we are disappointed that Lord Gill has felt unable to attend a committee meeting to discuss these issues fully. We have written to Lord Gill asking him to reconsider his decision in the hope that our committee can have a full and frank discussion of the issues.”

MSPs letter to Lord Gill requesting he attend Scottish Parliament. The text of the letter sent by Convener of the Petitions Committee, David Stewart MSP to Lord Gill states : “Notwithstanding your response, the Committee still feels it would assist its consideration of this petition and aide its understanding of the issues raised were you able to make yourself available.  The Committee can see benefit in being able to explore with you orally the written evidence provided. By way of example, we note that to your knowledge no situation has arisen, within your tenure as Lord President, where a judge has failed to recuse him or herself. Would a central record be kept of any such instances and if so, are you able to provide any information on the numbers involved? I and the other members of the Committee would be most grateful if you were able to reconsider the invitation from the Committee to attend in person.”

Diary of Injustice reported on the Petitions Committee’s meeting of 5th March 2013 which issued the initial invite to Lord Gill to attend Holyrood, here : SILENCE IN COURT : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill summoned to Parliament over ‘vested interests’ attempt to block Register of Judicial Interests petition and video footage of that earlier meeting is also available online here : Petition PE1458 Register of Judges Interests 5 March 2013 Scottish Parliament.

The Sunday Mail newspaper has also reported on the latest developments and MSPs comments regarding Lord Gill’s earlier refusal to attend the Scottish Parliament, here :

LAWMAN GOES TO ORIENT BUT NOT HOLYROOD

TOP JUDGE’S STONEWALL OF CHINA

MSPs urge legal chief to reconsider parly snub

By Russell Findlay 21 April 2013 Sunday Mail

Scotland's top judge is refusing to go to Holyrood to face MSPs despite once travelling 6000 miles to meet a politician. Lord Gill snubbed the parliament's petitions committee who want to quiz him about his opposition to a judicial register of interests.

But the £214,000-a-year Lord President previously went on a jaunt to Taiwan where he talked to president Ma Ying-jeou about Scotland's legal system.

And last week he jetted off to a law conference in South Africa as the committee urged him to reconsider his attendance at Holyrood.

Committee member and SNP MSP Chic Brodie said: "It would appear his international travel commitments are more important than speaking to us. "It's ridiculous to say he won't come in person. It's an insult to the parliament. He really should come along. "It comes back to the old adage, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

"Any cabinet secretary asked to appear has done so and they are subjected to very robust questioning on the basis that they want to have openness and transparency. "The judiciary should open the window and let in fresh air but he wants to shut the window. "Welcome to the 21st century. We want a new Scotland to be open and transparent."

Legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi's petition calls for judges to declare their interests as others in public life must do.

Registers usually include details of hospitality, gifts, property plus personal or financial links to outside bodies. Lord Gill expressed opposition to a register in writing but, as we revealed last week, has refused MSPs' requests to answer questions about the subject.

Under the Scotland Act, judges are not compelled to attend.

On Tuesday, the committee agreed to write back to Lord Gill and ask him to change his mind. Legal and political observers are watching the escalating stand-off between Holyrood and the judiciary.

Committee chairman Labour MSP David Stewart will also ask the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, to attend. Ali said: "I'm committed to openness and transparency in public life and fully supportive of a register of interests for the judiciary. "It's a standard part of being in the public eye and I can see no reason why some people should be exempt.”

Cherbi, from Edinburgh, said: "It seems a little arrogant that Scotland's most senior judge should shun his own country's parliament 700m from his office yet is willing to meet politicians halfway round the world."

During last week's committee meeting, Brodie said: "We're all equal before the law, even those who dispense it.

"I think we should send a courteous letter but make it very robust in that we now question that, yes, he's written to us but that doesn't necessarily answer all the questions we have. What is there to hide?"

The Judicial Office for Scotland said: "The Lord President's private office has received a letter from the public petitions committee. He will consider the terms and respond."

Former Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion joins Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as costly, scandal tainted law regulator tries to clean up its act

Ex-FOI Chief Kevin Dunion joins board of dodgy law regulator. SCOTLAND’S ‘independent’ regulator of solicitors, the traditionally anti-client & scandal tainted Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has announced that  Mr Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s first Information Commissioner has now joined the SLCC’s board as a ‘non lawyer’ member. Mr Dunion’s appointment is for five years and runs from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2018.

A Press Release issued by the SLCC said it was pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Dunion to it’s board but did not mention the fact that in his previous role as Scottish Information Commissioner, he regularly investigated the SLCC in response to cases brought to his office concerning appeals against the legal regulator’s refusal to disclose information in response to Freedom of Information requests made by journalists. Mr Dunion also found on many occasions the SLCC had unfairly blacked out documents and mistreated the public, journalists and the media with regard to FOI requests.

On one occasion, Mr Dunion’s office ordered the SLCC to disclose a series of previously blacked out bitter quotes made against a member of the public by another lawyer board member who happened to be the husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith. The now former lawyer board member, identified in emails as ‘retired’ solicitor David Smith, had embarked on name calling exercise against financially ruined clients who had made complaints against their solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported the case here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

Mr Dunion’s office also ordered the SLCC to disclose details of sky high expenses payments made to it’s board members after the SLCC had bizarrely argued payments should be kept secret to protect board members from mental health problems.

The shocking sums of expenses claims paid out to board members, were subsequently revealed at £158K a year, reported by Diary of Injustice here : REVEALED : £158k of board members rocketing payments & expenses claims at ‘duck-out’ law regulator Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Diary of Injustice journalists also used FOI legislation to investigate the SLCC after more evidence of board members anti-consumer stance emerged with the disclosure of internal emails documenting exchanges between the SLCC’s then Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman and a key lawyer board member Glasgow Divorce solicitor Margaret Scanlan OBE who joked about being too “out on the razzle” the night before, to think, while demanding consumer groups be excluded from key research into the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt Master Insurance Policy.

The incident involving Scanlan, who is no longer on the SLCC’s board, was reported by Diary of Injustice and the Sunday Mail newspaper in 2009 here : HERE and again more recently last October 2012 HERE after Scottish Govt insiders claimed the “Drink fuelled & ‘hate filled’ emails of MacAskill appointees had ruined the credibility” of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Mr Dunion’s office also ordered the SLCC to disclose a series of bitter quotes made against a member of the public by another lawyer board member who is also the husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith. The now former lawyer board member, identified in emails as ‘retired’ solicitor David Smith had embarked on name calling exercise against financially ruined clients who had made complaints against their solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported the case here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

Interestingly, in an interview with BBC Newsnight last September 2012, Mr Dunion made references to developments in England & Wales where the UK Government are looking at including the Law Society within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation. It was pointed out the Scottish Government are still dragging their feet on this issue.

Indeed, the Scottish Government have taken a directly opposite approach, with Justice Secretary Kenny Macaskill adopting a hostile position to requests to bring the Law Society of Scotland within the scope of the Scottish version of the Freedom of Information Act. Diary of Injustice reported more on this as long ago as March 2009 here : MacAskill’s ‘no intention to include Law Society in FOI review’ allows lawyers to keep scandals & criminal records hidden from public scrutiny.

It is also hoped Mr Dunion may raise concerns over the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s use of arms length projects to thwart media & public Freedom of Information requests for data gathered during research & survey activities which the regulator uses to justify it’s existence while refusing to release actual evidence of its claims.

The SLCC’s latest attempt at getting round FOI laws was revealed in a recent Diary of Injustice investigation which found the SLCC had instructed paid researchers to retain data and not pass it on directly to the regulator, in an attempt to avoid compliance with requests made under FOI legislation. Diary of Injustice reported on the scandal here : Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'

While Mr Dunion now joins the SLCC as a board member, observers of Scotland's notoriously pro-lawyer complaints regulator will recall that last year, the fourth, & former Chief Executive of the SLCC, Rosemary Agnew, who was rebuked at least FIVE times by Mr Dunion over her handling of FOI requests, succeeded Mr Dunion as the Scottish Information Commissioner, reported by Diary of Injustice, here : SHHH HAPPENED : Scotland’s new Information Commissioner to be Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew, rebuked FIVE TIMES for being ANTI-FOI

HOW FOI OPENS UP SCOTLAND’S LEGAL SYSTEM :

Freedom of Information requests & investigations conducted by Diary of Injustice journalists have contributed to a wider understanding of how the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) operate, where SLAB & Crown Office officials appeared to be more interested in expenses claims & flying high on intercontinental air carriers than pursuing sleazy solicitors who make off with millions of pounds of taxpayer funded legal aid.

Scotland’s Crown Office have also been caught short, awarding themselves HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS in staff bonuses from the top of the organisation down, yet by all accounts failing to enforce the law when it came to instances such as the FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escape justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years , and all because the Lord Advocate’s ‘independent’ Crown Counsel kept saying there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

The Scottish Government too have come in for exposure, where FOI requests revealed its own Ministers directly intervened with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, demanding the SLCC hand back ONE MILLION POUNDS to lawyers who pled poverty over last year’s complaints levy, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Undue Influence : Freedom of Information reveals how Law Society used Scottish Government Ministers to reduce complaints levy for crooked lawyers. Further requests revealed the Justice Secretary himself even signed off on a secret payoff for the allegedly ‘too sick to ever work again’ now former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman, reported by Diary of Injustice here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

Last year, the Diary of Injustice team began work on a major investigation into Scotland’s judiciary using Freedom of Information legislation and other investigative resources. Investigations revealed a number of judges who had been secretly prosecuted for criminal offences, one at least involving Benefits Cheating, while other members of the judiciary were apparently involved in dodgy financial & property arrangements and even holding ‘tax efficient’ schemes aimed at mitigating payments of tax on financial gains. Diary of Injustice and the Sunday Mail newspaper reported on these findings here : ALL THE LORD PRESIDENT’S MEN : Benefits cheats, drunk drivers & tax dodgers, yet identities of convicted Scottish judges to remain secret for now

The Diary of Injustice team have also investigated the financial costs of Scotland’s judiciary after our FOI requests forced the publication of JUDGES EXPENSES, allowing the public to peer into the murky world of Scottish judges earning up to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS a year plus expenses, tips & hospitality so far unrecorded. Diary of Injustice first reported on the issue of judicial expenses, here : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates and further reports continued HERE, all brought to you by Freedom of Information legislation & tips from well placed sources.

JUDGE SNUB TO HOLYROOD : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill refuses to attend Scottish Parliament to face questions over opposition to register of judicial interests

Secretive judge : Lord Gill snubs Holyrood over questions on register of judicial interests. SCOTLAND’S most senior judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill has abruptly REFUSED an invitation to appear before the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee to give evidence on why he is trying to block a proposal to create a register of interests for all members of the Scots judiciary.

Lord Gill had been invited to give evidence at Holyrood on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary after msps raised serious questions over the strength of the Lord President’s protestations against declaring judges financial & other interests.

During the 5th March meeting of the Petitions Committee which saw intense debate about the register of judicial interests idea, Jackson Carlaw MSP told colleagues : “The student anarchist in me smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and turning their backs in an effort to shut the matter down. In fact, the protest was so great that I found myself thinking, “Methinks the Lord President doth protest too much. I would like us to invite the Lord President to give evidence to the committee, if that is within our competence, along with other vested interests who think that we should close the petition, so that we can ask them to justify their position.”

Several MSPs on the Petitions Committee raised further key points regarding Lord Gill’s furious opposition to the register of interests proposal, reported in full HERE, and an invitation was sent out to the Lord President to attend Holyrood, an invitation Lord Gill has now pointedly refused.

Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs refusing to attend Parliament. In Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs dated 2 April 2013, the Lord President said : “Thank you for your invitation to attend the committee to provide oral evidence. I hope that you will not think it discourteous of me to decline your invitation. As your fellow members noted in their discussion, I have provided a detailed response. On reflection, I think that I could not add any material points to the terms of my response.”

Lord Gill went on to provide references to a European report on corruption within the judiciary, a report which itself has been prepared and written by judges. The report, available here : GRECO FOURTH EVALUATION ROUND Corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, Judges and Prosecutors unsurprisingly claims there is no need for a register of interests and Lord Gill used its vague, unspecific findings to back up his opposition to Petition 1458.

However, what Lord Gill DID NOT tell msps on the Public Petitions Committee was that the same EU report contains references to claims their investigative team interviewed members of Scotland’s judiciary and the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), although no identities of those in Scotland allegedly interviewed were disclosed.

In a written response from the petitioner to Lord Gill’s refusal to attend the Scottish Parliament, and the revelations that members of the Scots legal establishment had spoken to an EU body, law journalist Peter Cherbi told msps : “I am somewhat surprised Lord Gill, the Lord President chooses not to attend the Scottish Parliament to give evidence on a register of interests for the judiciary, while he is apparently content for his colleagues in the judiciary and others in the legal system speak to an European body on the subject of transparency and corruption within the judiciary, and then uses the resulting, if flawed, GRECO report to justify his stance against the petition.”

Peter continued : “Respectfully, if members of the judiciary and prosecution service of Scotland (Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service) have made themselves available to be interviewed by GRECO, a European body, these same members of the judiciary and prosecution service, including the Lord President should come forward and make themselves available to attend Scotland's democratically elected Parliament and give testimony on this petition, as well as share with MSPs and the PPC any evidence, submissions interviews or material disclosed to the GRECO Evaluation Team.”

The petitioner’s response also cited the failure of Lord Gill to address or answer questions seeking clarification regarding precisely how the current system of rules & oaths relating to Scottish judges recusing themselves operates.

Drawing attention to the fact there is currently no statistical or analytical information published or made available by the Judiciary of Scotland to document whether such declarations of conflict of interest are being made or can be independently verified to assure their authenticity the petitioner asked the Petitions Committee to again request this information from the Lord President and in the light of any shared information, consider matters further.

Diary of Injustice reported on the Petitions Committee’s meeting of 5th March where Petition 1458 was discussed, here : SILENCE IN COURT : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill summoned to Parliament over ‘vested interests’ attempt to block Register of Judicial Interests petition.

Video footage of the Petitions Committee meeting is also available online here : Petition PE1458 Register of Judges Interests 5 March 2013 Scottish Parliament and Petition 1458 will again be debated at the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday 16 April 2013.

The Sunday Mail newspaper has reported on Lord Gill’s refusal to attend the Scottish Parliament, here :

Scotland's top judge has refused to appear before MSPs to explain why he attempted to block a register of his legal colleagues' financial interests

Me, Scotland’s most senior judge turn up to be questioned by MSPs about why I won’t entertain a register of interests? GOOD LORD, NO

EXCLUSIVE By Mark Aitken 14 Apr 2013 Sunday Mail

SCOTLAND'S top judge has refused to answer MSPs’ questions on why he tried to block a register of interests for his legal colleagues.

The Lord President, Lord Gill, was asked to attend a Holyrood hearing on the matter. But he refused and the Parliament will not be able to insist on his attendance – because a loophole makes judges exempt from being forced to attend.

Holyrood’s petitions committee wanted to question the Lord President on his opposition to judges having to reveal business, professional and financial links.

MSPs expected the £214,000-a-year judge to appear in person to explain why he was opposed to the transparency motion. But the 71 year-old rejected their request, insisting he had given a full written response and had nothing more to add.

Peter Cherbi, the campaigner who brought the petition, was angry at the snub. He said: “Surely it cannot be correct that the most senior member of the Scottish judiciary can refuse to appear before the democratically elected Parliament’s perfectly proper inquiries into issues which directly concern and involve the judiciary.”

Committee chairman and Labour MSP David Stewart said: “We’re disappointed as Lord Gill would have been the key individual to cast some light on the pros and cons of a register for judges. “It is a setback for us but I’m sure the committee will look at all other aspects to give the petitioner the full rub of the green.”

He added: “Scottish Parliament committees can effectively compel witnesses to attend before them. “My experience is that you don’t normally need to use these powers because ministers, other MSPs and public bodies attend out of courtesy when you invite them. We’ve never had any difficulty there. “However, I’ve had our officials check the Scotland Act and there is a clause that judges can’t be compelled to attend. We have no legal powers to insist judges appear before us.”

Mr Cherbi believes that a register would have forced crooked judges into the open. Similar moves in New Zealand were sparked by a judge failing to declare he owed money to a lawyer involved in a case.

Lord Gill said he objected to the register because he and his colleagues could be abused by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.

In his letter to the petitions committee, he wrote: “I hope that you will not think it discourteous to decline your invitation. As your members noted in their discussion, I have provided a detailed response.”

Two months ago, the Sunday Mail revealed how a watchdog looking into complaints against Scotland’s judges feared she was not being given enough help by Lord Gill.

Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali accused him of undermining her work by blocking access to vital documents. She said she was only seeing the correspondence between the Judicial Office, who act for the judges, and the complainers. She said she was not allowed to see the internal memos and reports between the office and the judges.

VESTED INTERESTS need only apply : Victorian values of our courts in the dock, yet new Scottish Civil Justice Council quango may end up doing little for Scots access to justice

Outlook is bleak for Scots access to justice as planned reforms appear overtaken by time. AS the sands of time continue to devour what have so far turned out to be many false promises of a new dawn for Scots justice in the 2009 Civil Courts Review, a new quango in the form of the Scottish Civil Justice Council (SCJC) has been created to take on functions from two decades-old bureaucratic, lawyer-dominated Court Service quangos responsible for much of the current mess of Scotland’s courts and which did little for Scots access to justice over the past few years.

Unsurprisingly, recruitment for the new Scottish Civil Justice Council is to include a heavy mix of lawyers, advocates and “suitable individuals who may be appointed at the Lord President’s discretion” (also known as the old tap-on-the-shoulder job offer). Applications for the positions on offer will end noon tomorrow on Monday 15 April, with interviews being held in early May and successful candidates attending the first Council meeting, on Monday 10 June 2013.

Among the mix of lawyers and other vested interests being sought to run the new quango, there will be only two “Consumer representatives” sought for Scottish Civil Justice Council, which will take on the rule drafting functions of the Court of Session Rules Council (established in its current form by Section 8 of the Court of Session Act 1988) and the Sheriff Court Rules Council (established in its current form by Section 33 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971).

In addition to its rule drafting functions, the SCJC will have a remit to provide advice and make recommendations to the Lord President and the Scottish Ministers on the development of the civil justice system, which was heavily criticised in the 2009 Civil Courts Review report authored by the now current Lord President Lord Gill , who condemned Scotland’s justice system as being “Victorian” and unfit for society. In 2013, it still is.

Vested Interests sought for Justice Quango : Recruitment of Members for Scottish Civil Justice Council

Advocate, solicitor, consumer representative and LP members 6 to 12 appointments available

The Scottish Civil Justice Council (SCJC) will be established in May 2013 when the Scottish Government brings into force the relevant provisions of The Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Act 2013.  The first meeting of the SCJC is due to take place on 10 June 2013.

The SCJC will take on the rule drafting functions of the Court of Session and Sheriff Court Rules Councils and in addition will have a remit to provide advice and make recommendations to the Lord President and the Scottish Ministers on the development of the civil justice system. The SCJC will in particular be responsible in its early years for implementing the procedural changes to effect the reforms contained in The Scottish Government’s forthcoming Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, currently being consulted on.

The Lord President is seeking to appoint a minimum of 2 advocates, 2 solicitors and 2 consumer representatives to the Council, and up to 6 LP members (suitable individuals who may be appointed at the Lord President’s discretion).  A summary of the overall membership can be viewed here.

* Members should expect approximately 12 days’ commitment a year and, among other matters, will:

* Develop draft rules for the Court of Session and sheriff court civil proceedings;

* Advise and make recommendations to the Lord President on the development of the civil justice system;

* Develop the SCJC annual programme and report;

* Take into account the needs of court users and potential court users; and

* Co-operate with others in the justice system.

Successful candidates will meet one or more of the criteria in the following areas: legal knowledge and skills; understanding of people and society; knowledge and understanding of the wider justice system and issues affecting it; and personal qualities. 

The Lord President is committed to the principles of appointment on merit and to the well-informed choice of individuals who, through their abilities, experience and qualities match the requirement of the post.  Further details as to eligibility and selection criteria are set out in the Lord President’s Statement of Appointment Practice and candidate information forms.

To apply, please download a copy of the application form and submit it with an equal opportunities monitoring form to scjc@scotcourts.gov.uk. For further information please contact Ondine Tennant at scjc@scotcourts.gov.uk / Scottish Civil Justice Council (Appointments), Parliament House, Edinburgh, EH1 1RQ / 0131 240 6769.

Jailed crook learns self regulation only protects genuine 'rogue solicitors', as ‘fake lawyer’ given 14 year sentence for fraud, deception & money laundering

One ‘fake’ lawyer jailed as serial ‘genuine’ crooked lawyers escape justice system. A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM that sends a fake lawyer convicted of fraud to jail for FOURTEEN YEARS yet allows genuine solicitors to escape criminal prosecutions for involvement in similar activities including multi million pound legal aid frauds, serial embezzlement of client funds, and almost unquantifiable client rip-offs per annum, can easily be said to be operating one law for the protection of its own, and another for outsiders.

This marked contrast of how ‘justice’ is applied to those in society who deceive the public has been brought into focus yet again with the conviction last week of fake lawyer Giovanni di Stefano on 25 charges including deception, fraud and money laundering between 2001 and 2011 at London's Southwark Crown Court. Di Stefano also pleaded guilty to another two counts of fraud and a further three counts were ordered to lie on file.

The court heard Di Stefano, who never qualified as a genuine solicitor yet had been passing himself off as a bona fide legal professional for years, and had been allowed to represent people in court on previous occasions, had regularly taken significant amounts of funds from clients, and then failed to proceed their cases.

The Daily Record newspaper reported Judge Alistair McCreath, the Recorder of Westminster noted there were many offences over significant periods of time.

The fact the victims, which included a disabled man seeking damages for the loss of an arm, were all "desperate and vulnerable" and faced losses which were not just financial but also included the "raising and dashing of false hope" were aggravating factors, the judge said.

He conned clients out of millions of pounds by setting himself up as a lawyer when he had no legal qualifications and was not registered to work as a lawyer in Italy or the UK. He used the Italian word "avvocato" on business cards, letterheads and identification documents to give clients - and the judiciary - the impression he was an advocate.

The judge told di Stefano: "I recognise that you did not actively seek out those whom you defrauded. They came to you. You did not approach them but there is more than one kind of predator.

"Some predators hunt down their victims, others lie in wait for them. Your victims in this case were all desperate people and people who, because of their desperation, were vulnerable."

The judge also noted that, while this case is about money, "it is also about something different and great - it is about the real distress you caused to so many people". “You had no regard for them nor for their anguish," he said. "Your only concern was to line your own pockets."

The harm that di Stefano inflicted was "in financial terms alone high", said the judge. The judge said di Stefano had "lied" to his victims about what he was capable of and who he was. His crimes were "planned and persistent" and some of his attempts to defend his behaviour in court amounted to "breathtaking cynicism", the judge noted.

Di Stefano, of North Stream, Marshside, Canterbury, Kent, was found guilty of nine counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception, eight counts of fraud, three counts of acquiring criminal property, two counts of using a false instrument, one count of attempting to obtain a money transfer by deception, one count of obtaining property by deception and one count of using criminal property.

He also pleaded guilty to stealing £150,000 compensation that should have gone to a man who had lost an arm in a car crash. The money was due as part of an insurance policy but di Stefano had it paid in to his business account and "duly stole it". This was a "wicked" crime and is one which "stands in a league of its own", according to the judge.

The bogus lawyer also admitted defrauding engineer David Brown and his family of £160,000 including the £75,000 life savings of his partner's mother. This case also involved £20,000 costs which were not paid out. Due to the "utterly wrong" advice that di Stefano gave him - "to protect your own position" - he lost his home and his job.

Tricia Walsh Smith, a reality tv star and former client of di Stefano, caught out the fake lawyer on camera in a sting and took him to task over his actings on her own case. Ms Walsh Smith published a video of the encounter on the You Tube video sharing website, which was taken down after she was threatened by the judge with contempt of court proceedings for publishing the video, being told it could ruin di Stefano’s right to a fair hearing. The video footage has since been re-uploaded to You Tube, here : Conman Giovanni Di Stefano STUNG by Tricia Walsh Smith

While an English court sent di Stefano to jail for his crimes, much of what he did is highly reminiscent of the activities of increasing numbers of genuine, yet rogue solicitors throughout Scotland and the rest of the UK, who treat their clients in much the same way.

The now familiar tale of genuine solicitors making fanciful claims to their clients, claims which are never fulfilled after years of fees are taken from the desperate & vulnerable, solicitors who defraud clients of large sums of cash, property and other assets, and of course, not forgetting those solicitors who defraud the public purse of millions of pounds in fraudulently claimed legal aid fees, usually never result in a single criminal prosecution.

As the public are now increasingly aware, most ‘genuine’ solicitors who face complaints from clients about fraud, embezzlement and serial rip offs usually escape with a slap on the wrist and a pat on the back courtesy of institutions such as the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal and the Law Society of Scotland.

It should therefore not be forgotten that on all the available evidence of how genuine solicitors regulate themselves, it is a chilling fact that if di Stefano had been a genuine lawyer, the probability is he would not have been convicted of any crime whatsoever and just as in cases involving the likes of the notorious John G O’Donnell and hundreds of other ‘genuine’ solicitors who have toxic, yet secret complaints histories involving complicated frauds, embezzlement and negligence, clients would have received no return and no justice for their woes.

The Sunday Mail reports the latest on the Di Stefano case :

Fake lawyer Giovanni di Stefano claimed dad was murdered by British spies in bid to cheat justice

By Russell Findlay Sunday Mail 31 Mar 2013

FAKE lawyer Giovanni di Stefano claimed his dad was murdered by British spies in a bid to cheat justice. Former Dundee director Di Stefano, 57, made the claim during his trial at London’s Southwark Crown Court.

He said his dad – who died of natural causes in Italy on the day Saddam Hussein was executed in 2006 – was murdered with an ice pick. He claimed the killing was revenge for him being the dictator’s lawyer.

The officer whose seven-year investigation brought Di Stefano to justice was Detective Constable Jerry Walters of City of London Police.

DC Walters said: “There are no depths he wouldn’t have sunk to in order to get off. “He said the British security services had murdered his dad with an ice pick because of his own involvement with Hussein. “We discovered that his dad did die in Italy on that date but it was of natural causes. “It also emerged that Di Stefano only reported the murder allegation in Italy four days before his trial was due to start. “So he waited six years after his dad’s death then made a false allegation that he had been murdered to try and get off.”

Di Stefano was found guilty of 25 charges then admitted two more.

He claimed be a multi-millionaire “Devil’s advocate” who represented major criminals, dictators and terrorists including Osama bin Laden and Balkan warlord Arkan.

Four charges related to reality TV star Tricia Walsh-Smith, who was delighted to see him thrown behind bars. She said: “I think he was shocked. I think he believes he has special powers but he’s as mad as a hatter. “He seems to think he hasn’t done anything wrong and that he’s the victim.”

The fantasist even told Walsh-Smith that he had bedded Hollywood stars. She said: “He told me that he slept with Sharon Stone and then gave her the role in Basic Instinct. It was all fantasy. “When I met him in 2011, I was going bankrupt and he took everything I had left. He was incredibly plausible.”

Nine years ago, the Sunday Mail revealed that Di Stefano was accused of bankrolling Serb war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. Di Stefano, of Canterbury, mounted a bid to buy Dundee FC but eventually quit Scotland.