GESTURE MOTION : Law Society face claims ‘banned’ rogue lawyer was hidden by legal colleague to dodge Court of Session interdict hearing

Law Society ‘knew’ banned rogue lawyer was being hidden by legal colleague. SEVEN MONTHS after the Law Society of Scotland claimed in court they could not serve court papers on a well known rogue solicitor because he had disappeared from public view, it has emerged the lawyers self regulator knew all along where their colleague was hiding out – in the posh house of another solicitor who works for a Glasgow based law firm.

Last October, the Law Society of Scotland told the Court of Session the now former solicitor John G O’Donnell was “nowhere to be seen” and this was making it difficult for the regulator to serve him with a banning order forbidding him from posing as a solicitor.

However, even as the Law Society told the Court of Session they could not find the rogue solicitor, journalists quickly located O’Donnell’s posh hideout in Glasgow, that of a house owned by a currently working solicitor linked to O’Donnell, and known to the Law Society of Scotland.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice last week, a legal insider described last October’s hearing at the Court of Session as “a sham” after it became apparent senior figures at the Law Society of Scotland knew exactly where O’Donnell was even though the judge was told otherwise.

The hurried attempts by the Law Society to act on the negative publicity, culminating in the action at the Court of Session last year only came about after further investigations by the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed O’Donnell had been involved in a scam where people desperately in need of legal assistance were sent to him by ‘would-be solicitors’ who worked for Hamilton Citizens Advice Bureau.

In a particularly shocking case, the Sunday Mail revealed O’Donnell had among over victims, targeted elderly widow Elizabeth Campbell. Papers obtained by the newspaper revealed that Gilbert S Anderson who worked as an ‘In-Court adviser for Hamilton Citizens Advice Bureau had sent Mrs Campbell to O’Donnell, who was posing as deceased solicitor Colin Anderson.

It was also revealed the Hamilton Citizens Advice worker sent the rogue solicitor a handwritten note saying “possibly in my mind a cash for Colin £3000” indicating he hoped O’Donnell would be able to scam plenty of cash from the elderly widow. Diary of Injustice reported on the case involving John O’Donnell & Gilbert Anderson, here : Crooked lawyer impersonates DEAD COLLEAGUE to lure clients in fraud scam as Law Society of Scotland’s self regulation of solicitors fails yet again

Of particular interest to the current case against O’Donnell is that Elaine Motion QC of Balfour & Manson who is currently representing the Law Society of Scotland in the Court of Session against John G O’Donnell, has previously represented the Law Society against O’Donnell at hearings before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.

Legal observers following the O’Donnell saga have drawn attention to the fact that during one earlier attempt to prosecute O’Donnell before the SSDT, legal representatives of the rogue lawyer tried to broker a secret deal with the QC at a Law Society Christmas party in 2009.

A ‘limited account’ of the 2009 Christmas party meeting between QC Elaine Motion & solicitor Steven Gold who acted for O’Donnell, was reported in the Tribunal's hearing into one of the complaints against O’Donnell, which is published online here Council of the Law Society of Scotland v John G O'Donnell and reprinted below as an example of double dealing behind the closed doors of self regulation of Scottish solicitors.

Law Society’s 2009 Christmas party was scene of deal to save O’Donnell from disciplinary moves. Page three of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland v John G O'Donnell states : “In December 2009, Elaine Motion and Steven Gold, Solicitor were both at a Law Society’s Christmas Drinks Party. They were involved in a conversation with regard to the health and welfare of the Respondent. Mr Gold made representations on behalf of the Respondent to Elaine Motion to the effect that it would be humane and advantageous to everyone involved if a way could be found to allow the Respondent to hand in his practising certificate without having to undergo the ordeal and expense of an appearance before the Tribunal. Elaine Motion was sympathetic to the representations but indicated that she would require to discuss matters with the Law Society of Scotland who would make the decision. There was no undertaking given at this meeting to Steven Gold that if the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal struck the Respondent’s name from the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland no further Complaints would be brought against the Respondent and no undertaking was given that if the Respondent accepted pleas of guilty to the outstanding Complaint, no further proceedings would be brought against him.”

So far, the Lord Advocate & Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have apparently refused to become involved in the case, instead preferring the matter remain a one for lawyers looking after their own.

However, with claims surfacing from individuals that O’Donnell has undertaken new ‘legal work’ since last October’s court hearings, there are serious questions over the resolve of the Law Society to make an example of O’Donnell and many other rogue lawyers who escape any penalty or prosecution for their sharp practices against vulnerable clients in Scotland.

If you are a victim of rogue solicitor John G O’Donnell, tell us more about your case and any dealings with him by contacting us at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

The Sunday Mail’s report of last October on the O’Donnell case :

BANNED LAWYER FACES NEW COURT DATE

A rogue lawyer is being hunted by watchdogs so they can tell him he's banned - again.

John O'Donnell, 62, has been accused of breaching a ban on working as a solicitor following a Sunday Mail probe.

The Law Society of Scotland's Elaine Motion is trying to take him to court but does not know where he is.

O'Donnell has been repeatedly rapped for professional misconduct and negligence.

The Law Society won an interim interdict at the Court of Session Edinburgh three years ago, banning him from posing as a solicitor. Six Months ago, we revealed that O'Donnell was allegedly using another lawyer's identity to beat the ban.

That prompted the Law Society to take action against him for flouting the interdict.

One source said : "The problem is that he's nowhere to be seen and does not appear keen to make himself available."

The Law Society said : "John O'Donnell does not hold a current practising certificate and therefore cannot practise as a solicitor in Scotland.

"The Law Society applied to the court to serve notice - by way of an advertisement in the press - of an alleged breach of an interim interdict."

"The Interim Interdict included an order preventing Mr O'Donnell from holding himself out as entitled by law to practise as a solicitor."

"The application to service a notice was granted by the court on October 16"

One year as Lord President, little change in Scotland’s courts as top judge fights on against register of judicial interests transparency proposal

Courts remain a mess, transparency not for us says top judge. ONE YEAR ON from being appointed as the country’s top judge, the reality is that few in the way of productive changes to help Scots access justice have occurred in the courts ruled over by Lord Brian Gill, Scotland’s Lord President of the Court of Session.

A year ago this month, Brian Gill was elevated from his former position of Lord Justice Clerk, to succeed the media savvy Lord Arthur Campbell Hamilton who served as Lord Justice General & Lord President from November 2005 to June 2012.

While publicly priding himself in putting on the air miles as Scotland’s top judge, flying around the globe on “diplomatic” commitments representing the Scottish judiciary in destinations from Uganda to Taiwan, little of the civil justice reforms Brian Gill called for as author of the Scottish Civil Courts Review have so-far made it to Scotland’s justice system, and those that have, have inevitably been watered down to an almost ineffectual state.

More worryingly, in spite of a continuing stream of questions surrounding the integrity of Scotland Prosecution Service, the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), and numerous failures in his own Scottish Court Service which have contributed to Civil cases needlessly dragging on for decades in Scotland’s courts, little criticism has come from the top. This lack of top down discipline has seemingly allowing Prosecutors a free hand to botch up case after case, and even shred files before MSPs could request sight of them, while some Court of Session senators have allowed personal weakness, bias and even vitriol to creep into opinion after opinion.

The current unwillingness of the Commander in Chief of our Courts to bring the system into line with public expectation of justice, and more importantly fairness, compares strangely with previous examples where the integrity of the justice system was at stake, for example, when Lord Gill’s predecessor clashed with a former Lord Advocate over the collapse of the World’s End murder trial.

Willing to tackle an institution recently dubbed “institutionally corrupt”, Lord Hamilton as Lord President wasted no time publicly castigating the Crown Office, accusing it’s then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) of attacking the independence and reputation of the judiciary after Angiolini directly addressed the Scottish Parliament stating she was disappointed with the trial judge Lord Clarke’s ruling  there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict and threw the case out.

As matters stand one year on, this Lord President has so far, remained almost mute in publicly combating what many perceive as the vested interests of the current legal establishment, who appear to be more interested in the continuing disruption to access to justice rather than it’s expansion to serve all Scots instead of those selected on a whim by the legal profession.

Of much concern currently, is Lord Gill’s hostility towards proposals put before MSPs at the Scottish Parliament to create a statutory register of interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.

As has been widely reported in the media, by the Sunday Mail newspaper and others, and by Diary of Injustice, Lord Gill has now twice refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to give evidence on, and answer questions in public relating to the so-far hidden, undeclared interests of Scotland’s judges.

Lord Gill has taken the fight against transparency to the extremes, refusing to provide detailed, analytical evidence on how judges have (or have not) recused themselves over the years, and in what circumstances these recusals took place, in response to repeated written requests from MSPs.

The Lord President has gone so far as to cast an EU report in the face of Holyrood, as an excuse for refusing to attend the Public Petitions Committee and has alleged any attempt to require judges to disclose their hidden wealth along with other interests, would compromise the independence of the judiciary. Yet bizarrely, with his conviction set against openness, Lord Gill apparently feels he cannot answer questions in public about this same EU report he has used in his defence.

Could Lord Gill’s refusal to answer questions in public on the very evidence he puts forward for doing nothing on a register of judicial interests be because his EU report was written by retired judges who themselves have a vested interest in not creating a register of interests for the judiciary?

Tomorrow, Tuesday 25 June, MSPs at the Scottish Parliament will again discuss Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary which 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

In a response provided to the Public Petitions Committee, MSPs have been asked to arrange evidence sessions on the petition as has previously been suggested by Committee members, and would welcome others joining the debate, be they members of Consumer Protection organisations, the Scottish Government, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Lord Advocate and representatives of the media who might wish to participate in public evidence sessions.

Previous reports from Diary of Injustice including video footage of previous 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

Naming & Shaming powers 'reserved' : Consumers still in the dark on crooked lawyers as identities of rogue solicitors & law firms yet to be published by Legal Ombudsman

Much promised Naming & shaming of rogue lawyers yet to happen in England & Wales MORE THAN TWO YEARS after much debate and numerous consultations which received widespread support from consumer groups and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) of England & Wales to name & shame rogue solicitors & law firms in published complaints data, the policy decision taken by the LeO in April 2012 to publish the identities of lawyers involved in client complaints, has not yet resulted in publication of a single solicitor or law firm’s identity.

Shedding some light on the lack of publication of lawyer’s names to-date, the latest annual report covering 2012-1013 from the Legal Ombudsman states “In one of the key decisions taken during the year related to the publication of the statistics about ombudsman decisions. While there was general agreement that it was desirable for us to publish as much information about the nature of our decisions as possible, lawyers’ representatives were strongly opposed to naming the lawyers involved. Consumer groups on the other hand argued for as much information as possible about lawyers involved in our cases to be placed in the public domain.”

“In the event, following a lengthy consultation process, our board decided that statistical data about all ombudsman decisions should be published, including the area of law, the nature of the complaint, the outcome of the complaint and the name of the lawyer or firm involved. We began publishing this data from autumn 2012. The initial media interest which this engendered has rapidly subsided and as the information builds, we may soon be able to begin discerning some patterns over time.”

“As well as the routine publication of data, the board decided to reserve to itself the power in individual cases to publish the full decision, including the name of the lawyer (but redacting the name of the complainant) where it considers that it is in the public interest to do so. No such publication took place during the year covered by this report.”

However, many consumers and some consumer protection groups had expected the LeO to begin publishing the identities of rogue solicitors and their law firms last year.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice nearly a year ago last July 2012 Chief Ombudsman, Adam Sampson said at the time : “Our Board wanted to ensure that we’re certain about the accuracy of the data we report in the first data set of published Ombudsman decisions and that the lawyers and law firms who’ll be named have an opportunity to point out any discrepancies prior to publication.

“As a result, and on this occasion only, we have this week contacted each of the 750+ lawyers and law firms that have been the subject of our decisions during the first quarter to tell them what we’ll publish. We will then deal with any feedback, where required, in the weeks that follow before publishing the data. The level of feedback and subsequent work needed following this process will determine how soon we can publish the first set of data.”

The Legal Ombudsman had originally announced in November 2011 they would be going ahead with ‘naming & shaming’ in early 2012, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Scots to be ‘kept in dark’ on details of crooked lawyers while Legal Ombudsman’s ‘naming & shaming’ policy ‘will protect’ consumers in England & Wales

Diary of Injustice reported on the Legal Ombudsman’s consultation on naming & shaming here : Legal Ombudsman moving to name & shame crooked lawyers in England & Wales, crooked Scottish solicitors records to remain protected by secrecy for now

Consumer group Which? gave their backing to the Legal Ombudsman’s plans to identify crooked lawyers in England & Wales. A spokesperson for Which? told Diary of Injustice last year : “Which? strongly supports the principle of the LeO publishing complaints data under a strict and published policy , including in some circumstances the name of the law firm concerned. We set out our position in our response to the LeO consultation (page 51: opening up regulatory data)) pointing out that it is the expectation of Government that complaints handling bodies are as transparent as possible.”

Speaking on the LeO’s plans to publish complaints data & the identities of law firms who perform poorly for clients, Elisabeth Davies, Chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP), said at the time : “Research shows that UK consumers are now leaving well over 100 million comments online every year about their experience with businesses across the economy. Lawyers cannot escape this welcome emergence of consumer power, but instead should seek and then use such feedback to improve the service they offer.

She continued : “The courts will decide the fate of the Solicitors From Hell website. However, such websites fill a vacuum that exists because official complaints data about lawyers is not publically available to help consumers identify good quality lawyers. The Panel will continue to push the Legal Ombudsman to name those law firms who regularly provide poor service.”

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) also supports the Legal Ombudsman’s naming & shaming policy. The OFT stated in its submission (pdf) to the LeO’s consultation : “We appreciate that you need to balance the interests of consumers with the reputational impact on firms and individual lawyers. However, the OFT remains firmly of the view that the publication of named complaints data could incentivise legal service providers, due to reputational considerations, to maintain and/or improve the quality of service they provide to consumers.We believe that essential data would include:

* The number of complaints made against individual firms and lawyers;
* The nature of those complaints and placing them into categories to help see if a pattern develops;
* The ratio of complaints upheld against an individual firm or lawyer;
* Areas of law where complaints tend to focus;
* Which aspects of service the complaints tend to focus; and
* Whether the complaints tend to come from private or publically funded cases.

However, to-date, no solicitor has yet been named by the LeO, prompting fears in some quarters that protests from the legal profession and alleged murmurs of potential legal action by English lawyers if their names appear in complaints data, has put the brakes on total transparency.

Asked for comment today on lack of naming & shaming by the LeO, a spokesperson for the Legal Services Consumer Panel issued the following statement :

“Just to clarify that LeO publish two types of information: · Details of cases that involve a formal ombudsman decision · Individual cases where this is in the public interest test”

“In relation to the former, this information has been published for a while now. When LeO consulted on this, the Panel wanted all complaints involving a remedy (i.e. those that are mediated as well as ombudsman decisions) to be published. In addition, this information would benefit from having more prominence than it does currently.”

“In relation to the latter, as this is an emergency publication power, given the short period that it has been operational it’s difficult to know whether there have been circumstances when LeO hasn’t used these powers but should have. It would be better to assess this once the scheme has been operational for a longer period.”

For now, consumers are still in the dark over which solicitors & law firms fair better than others in complaints data. Exactly when the Legal Ombudsman does identify rogue lawyers and law firms remains to be decided.

Historically, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has refused to name any Scottish solicitors or law firms involved in complaints, citing reasons of confidentiality and the terms of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 for the prohibition of naming crooked lawyers in Scotland. It is not thought the SLCC in its current format will ever identify rogue lawyers.

When “Sorry” won’t do : Criminal law should be used to protect the public from the 'off the hook' style self-regulation empires of banking, finance, legal and key public services

Broken regulation applies to many more services than just banks. During a week in which England’s NHS regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) was forced to admit (in response to a review) it had covered up information relating to the deaths of babies at a hospital in Cumbria, and at Westminster, the Cross-party Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards report recommended bankers found guilty of a yet to be created criminal offence of “reckless misconduct” be jailed, it is not too difficult to put forward the point once more that regulation as we know it is ineffective and does not pose any deterrent to those it purports to regulate.

Let’s face it, if regulators are happy enough to cover up the deaths of babies in hospitals, and profit from such a cover up, what chance does any of us have in getting justice against any complaint lodged with any of the current regulators of any profession or public service ?

Diary of Injustice has previously reported on cases in Scottish hospitals where in one particularly case of the death of baby McKenzie Wallace at an NHS Forth Valley hospital reported HERE, regulation in the form of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) ‘Complaints Reviewer’, Eileen Masterman, did nothing to explain the tragic events, other than to produce a ‘whitewash report’ which only contributed further to the hospital’s cover up.

Time and again, we are promised change, told “lessons will be learned” and what happened will never happen again, but it does, whether it’s another avoidable death in a hospital, or an avoidable rip off of consumers and those who should face a court and be found guilty escape with a big fat pension while their victims are left to pick up the pieces.

The recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards tell a story many consumers have known for years when it comes to regulation. With particular regard to the creation of a criminal offence of reckless misconduct, such a move should not only be limited to bankers, rather also it should be applied to all those professions where the long standing cosy clubs of self regulation have seen the public are let down time & again.

The key recommendations of the report on Banking standards could well be applied to the legal system, where client’s lives are regularly ruined by legal ‘professionals’ who rely on their system of self regulation to get them off the hook just as the bankers have so far escaped punishment for their actions :

* A new Senior Persons Regime, replacing the Approved Persons Regime, to ensure that the most important responsibilities within banks are assigned to specific, senior individuals so they can be held fully accountable for their decisions and the standards of their banks in these areas

* A new licensing regime underpinned by Banking Standards Rules to ensure those who can do serious harm are subject to the full range of enforcement powers;

* A new criminal offence for Senior Persons of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank, carrying a custodial sentence;

* A new remuneration code better to align risks taken and rewards received in remuneration, with much more remuneration to be deferred and for much longer;

* A new power for the regulator to cancel all outstanding deferred remuneration, along with unvested pension rights and loss of office or change of control payments, for senior bank employees in the event of their banks needing taxpayer support, creating a major new incentive on bankers to avoid such risks.

Just imagine if the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission called for the same powers, and demanded the added protection of criminal law for clients whose finances are regularly wiped out by solicitors free to do it again and again …

Similarly, the key points of the report on Banking standards also tell the same story of problems in the legal profession, and those others in the justice system who work in, manage, and rule over our “Victorian” courts system.

* Given the misalignment of incentives in banking, it should be no surprise that deep lapses in standards have been commonplace. The Commission’s Final Report, ‘Changing banking for good’, contains a package of recommendations to raise standards.

* The recommendations cover several main areas including: making senior bankers personally responsible, reforming bank governance, creating better functioning and more diverse markets, reinforcing the powers of regulators and making sure they do their job.

Just as in banking, when there is no incentive to be honest in our justice system, whether you are a member of the judiciary, a court clerk, a solicitor or even a member of a self regulator of solicitors, the same deep lapses in standards have also become commonplace because there is no deterrent in current regulation and no fear of being caught.

The full report on banking standards by the cross party Committee on Banking Standards can be found at the following links :

• Report: Changing banking for good - Volume I (HTML)
• Report: Changing banking for good - Volume I ( PDF 592 KB)
• Report: Changing banking for good - Volume II (HTML)
• Report: Changing banking for good - Volume II ( PDF 2.5 MB)
• Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards

If we are going to charge the bankers with reckless misconduct for ruining the banks, we may as well also charge the lawyers who ruin countless clients, and get away with it in the same way the bankers have done up to now.

If this were to happen, and the likes of the John O'Donnell's and countless other reckless lawyers in Scotland face a custodial term for their wholesale thieving, attitudes within the prosecution service would also have to change, particularly in Scotland where our own Lord Advocate’s Crown Office refused to prosecute FOURTEEN lawyers for legal aid fraud.

But of course, when these events happen around the fringes of a stone age legal system where our top judge would rather listen to organ music and play ‘fly me to the moon’ than show up to answer questions in our sovereign Parliament about transparency in the judiciary, and perhaps give an indication as to why judges seem to think they are above the law, then what can we expect ?

‘Better Transparency would enhance Judiciary’ as Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer issues support for Register of interests for judges

Secretive Judge trumped by transparency as Judicial Complaints Reviewer supports register of judge’s interests. SCOTLAND’S independently appointed Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) Moi Ali, has told MSPs of her support for a public petition currently being discussed at the Scottish Parliament which seeks to create a statutory register of interests for Scotland’s highly secretive judiciary. The JCR’s support for Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary has previously been reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper and Diary of Injustice, here : HERE

Moi Ali, Scotland’s first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer has told MSPs in her letter to Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee that “Better transparency would enhance the standing of that judiciary and bring judicial office holders into line with other holders of important roles in public life.”. Ms Ali went on in her response to dispel arguments put forward by the vested interests of the Lord President, Law Society of Scotland & others against the proposal.

In a move which contrasts sharply with the bitter hostility of Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill to Petition PE1458, Ms Ali has taken a radical approach to issues put forward in the petition by creating a register of interests for the office of Judicial Complaints Reviewer, a register which is to be published soon on the JCR’s website.

Ms Ali told MSPs in her submission : “Registers of interest are now a normal part of public life and it seems right that the judiciary should not be out of line with what is required of others who hold high public office. I have completed registers of interest for my roles on public boards such as the Scottish Ambulance Service and Scottish Police Authority. It is not onerous to update this annually or when any changes in circumstance occur. Members of the Petitions Committee will have undertaken something similar themselves in their parliamentary life. Although not required to do so, I have prepared my own register of interest and will shortly be publishing it on my website. I believe that the JCR should be required to do this, either by legislation or as a requirement set out in their letter of appointment from the Minister.”

In a further bold move, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer told the Petitions Committee that any register of interests for judges should be expanded to include non financial interests and other links. Moi Ali stated : “Should a register of interests be limited to pecuniary interests? I believe that it should also encompass non-financial interests such as memberships, unpaid trusteeships, and any relevant close family/friendship links that may be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. One review I undertook last year concerned a complaint about a judge who had allegedly used their judicial position to promote a body that was alleged to have breached international law. Another concerned a sheriff who allegedly participated in a social function organised by the defender during the proof hearing.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice earlier today, law journalist Peter Cherbi said he was grateful for the support of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, and commended her approach to transparency. Scotland’s legal system clearly needs more people like Moi Ali.

The full response from Moi Ali, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to the Public Petitions Committee, Scottish Parliament :

Consideration of Petition PE1458

Thank you for your letter of 25th April seeking my views on the above petition.

I am supportive of a register of interests, for the reasons outlined below. I believe that it would be beneficial for any register to encompass more than pecuniary interests. I have set out my thinking on this matter below, but I want to begin with a brief summary of the role of Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), as it is still relatively new.

JCR Background Information

The Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) was established under The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 to review the handling of complaints investigations into members of the judiciary, to ensure that they have been dealt with in accordance with the Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2011(the Rules).

I was appointed in September 2011 as the first JCR. My service is free, independent and impartial. It is open to those who have complained about a member of the judiciary, and to those who have been the subject of a complaint.

Unlike my counterpart in England and Wales, who is an Ombudsman, the legislation allows me only to review the handling of investigations into complaints about members of the judiciary. I cannot review the outcome of those investigations, cannot get decisions overturned and cannot get redress (such as an apology or compensation). If I find that the Rules were not followed, I can make a referral to the Lord President, but thereafter the matter is in his hands.

Response to Petition: View of JCR

The petitioner states that a register of interests would increase the transparency of the judiciary and ensure public confidence in the judiciary’s actions and decisions. I agree. Transparency tends to increase trust; conversely, lack of transparency is more likely to create suspicion.

Some of those responding to the petition (such as the Lord President, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Government), argue that a register of interests is unnecessary, referring, among other things, to the complaints process as a safeguard.

In my role as Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I am part of that process. As is the nature of my role as a reviewer, I deal with dissatisfied people. It might be argued that they are not representative of the wider public, although that is not a view that I would take. Some people who contact me write of the judiciary sticking together, defending its own interests, and lacking transparency. If that view is a representative one, anything that increases judicial transparency is good both for the public and also for the judiciary. Greater transparency can only boost public trust and confidence and enhance the standing of the judiciary.

One argument put forward against a register of interests is that it is unnecessary, as there is provision under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 to regulate and investigate the conduct of judicial office holders, that a complaints process is in place and to date there have been no substantiated complaints alleging judicial bias. I have received requests to review complaints in which allegations of judicial bias have been raised.  It may be that no “substantiated” complaints have been made, but that is not to say that no complaints of this nature have been made. I received one such review request a few months ago via a Member of Parliament, and I completed another one in the last few weeks, and there have been others too.

Registers of interest are now a normal part of public life and it seems right that the judiciary should not be out of line with what is required of others who hold high public office. I have completed registers of interest for my roles on public boards such as the Scottish Ambulance Service and Scottish Police Authority. It is not onerous to update this annually or when any changes in circumstance occur. Members of the Petitions Committee will have undertaken something similar themselves in their parliamentary life. Although not required to do so, I have prepared my own register of interest and will shortly be publishing it on my website. I believe that the JCR should be required to do this, either by legislation or as a requirement set out in their letter of appointment from the Minister.

Should a register of interests be limited to pecuniary interests? I believe that it should also encompass non-financial interests such as memberships, unpaid trusteeships, and any relevant close family/friendship links that may be perceived as a potential conflict of interest. One review I undertook last year concerned a complaint about a judge who had allegedly used their judicial position to promote a body that was alleged to have breached international law. Another concerned a sheriff who allegedly participated in a social function organised by the defender during the proof hearing.

We are very lucky in this country to have an independent judiciary. Better transparency would enhance the standing of that judiciary and bring judicial office holders into line with other holders of important roles in public life.

I am happy to provide any further information that you require.
Yours sincerely,
Moi Ali
Judicial Complaints Reviewer

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

A further report in the Sunday Mail newspaper featured details of further resistance to transparency from Scotland’s secretive judges, where it was reported Scotland’s Judiciary have refused to cooperate with the Judicial Complaints Reviewer on a number of occasions, also reported by Diary of Injustice, here : HERE

Court Closures are necessary, Scotland's top judge tells MSPs, as Lord Gill refuses to face public questions over rich judiciary’s vested interests, criminal records, & secret wealth

Lord Gill goes to Holyrood, willing to talk about court closures, not judge’s hidden wealth & vested interests. UNDERPREFORMING Scottish courts need to be closed as part of a process to make savings of 20% in the Scottish Court Service budget by 2015, Scotland's top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill and representatives of the Scottish Court Service told MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee earlier this week on Tuesday. The closures, already approved by the Scottish Government last year will see ten sheriff courts and seven justice of the peace courts shut down in an effort to streamline Scotland’s Victorian justice system.

Lord Gill’s attendance at the Justice Committee on Tuesday can be viewed on BBC Democracy Live, HERE. The session passed off without much ado, bar some slight signs of dispute over how the Scottish Courts Service had handled the court closures, after MSPs on the Justice Committee raised questions of why many of Scotland’s local sheriff courts buildings have been left with a £57 million pound repair backlog while Parliament House, home to Scotland’s Court of Session and the top tier of the judiciary, including Lord Gill himself, has seen well over £60 million pounds spent on it in the past five years.

Notably, the Lord President showed little difficulty discussing issues relating to the court closures, an apparently less threatening subject for Scotland’s most senior judge who has now twice refused to attend another Scottish Parliament Committee to give evidence on simple questions of transparency within the judiciary, raised in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

Lord NO-NO : Top Judge defies Scottish Parliament on Judiciary’s interests Last week, Scotland’s Sunday Mail newspaper, and Diary of Injustice reported on a letter sent by Lord Gill to MSP David Stewart, Convener of Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee. In the letter the Lord President again refused to accept an invitation from MSPs to discuss the current system of how judges recuse themselves and, inevitably face questions on the hidden wealth, undeclared interests and other vested interests of Scotland's closed door judiciary.

Lord Gill told MSPs the Scotland Act as it currently stands, allows judges to pick & choose what subjects they feel comfortable discussing at the Scottish Parliament, however it does not seem in the public interest that the Scotland Act is now being used by the judiciary to hide their indiscretions, criminal convictions and secret interests which are not being declared in courts as they should be.

Lord Gill’s letter stated : “Judges have from time to time given evidence to committees of the Scottish Parliament on matters that affect the administration of justice in Scotland. I hope that that has been helpful in the legislative process. Judicial participation in the work of the committees must however be kept within prudent limits.

The letter from the Lord President also pointedly reminded MSPs of a now rather Victorian era excuse of protecting the independence of the judiciary from situations which may compromise it. In this case, apparently discussing the secret interests of the judges themselves is curiously seen by the Lord President as an issue which may compromise Scotland’s judiciary over a simple issue of transparency.

Lord Gill went on in his letter to the Petitions Committee, saying : “Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act provides inter alia that the Parliament may not require a judge to attend its proceedings for the purposes of giving evidence. This is not a loophole. It is a necessary part of the constitutional settlement by which the Parliament is established. Its purpose is to protect the independence of the judiciary, a vital constitutional principle that is declared in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.”

Lord Gill has already refused to attend the Petitions Committee earlier in April 2013 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

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

Scotland’s top judge throws Scotland Act at MSPs in transparency battle as Lord Gill refuses to give evidence at Scottish Parliament on judge’s secret wealth, connections for register of judicial interests

Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill is determined judges wealth & connections should remain secret. SCOTLAND’S top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill has again refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to answer questions from MSPs and give evidence on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, reports the Sunday Mail newspaper on 2 June 2013.

Also, the Sunday Mail’s coverage features a report of support for the register of interests proposal from the independently appointed Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali and a must-read Sunday Mail opinion supporting transparency within the judiciary.

The petition, filed by law journalist Peter Cherbi at the Scottish Parliament last year, has since brought about a public discussion on judge’s secret wealth, connections, hospitality, and a complete failure by judges to recuse themselves in case after case in the Scottish courts.

The petition 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, a move the Lord President Lord Gill has bitterly resisted, reported in previous articles by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Mail newspaper, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

The Sunday Mail’s 2 June coverage of Lord Gill’s refusal to show up at the Scottish Parliament, also features an article exposing the round the world travels of Scotland’s judiciary on the taxpayer, the very same Scottish judiciary who cannot be bothered to walk a few hundred yards to our sovereign Scottish Parliament and account for their secretive interests. The Sunday Mail reports :

Scotland's top judge refuses to appear before MSPs for a second time to explain his opposition to a register of interests

EXCLUSIVE : LORD NO-NO : Gill snubs second invite from Holyrood Committee

By Russell Findlay 2 Jun 2013 Sunday Mail

SCOTLAND'S top judge has snubbed MSPs for a second time after they asked him to give evidence at Holyrood.

The Lord President, Lord Gill previously declined to attend the Scottish Parliament’s petitions committee to explain his opposition to a register of interests for judges. MSPs wrote asking him to reconsider his refusal to attend. But last week, in a letter to the committee’s chairman, Labour’s David Stewart, he rejected their second request to appear.

The top lawman, who earns £214,000 a year, cited the Scotland Act which prevents parliament from forcing judges to give evidence. He justified his refusal saying: “I do so for the reasons of constitutional principle. I intend no discourtesy to your committee. This is not a loophole. It is a necessary part of the constitutional settlement by which the Parliament is established. Its purpose is to protect the independence of the judiciary, a vital constitutional principle that is declared in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.”

The row follows a petition by legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi which calls for judges to declare interests such as hospitality, gifts, property plus any links to outside bodies.

In February, Lord Gill wrote to say a register was not needed and that it might mean judges would be harassed by “aggressive media”. His refusal to elaborate on that stance in person angered the committee. In April, they issued a second invitation but he has again refused to travel the 700 metres from his office to parliament to give evidence.

In his letter, sent to Stewart on Tuesday, Lord Gill did offer to meet committee members in private. Stewart now plans to meet Lord Gill along with deputy committee convener Chic Brodie. He said: “I’m disappointed but we will try to meet as soon as possible to get the information we require to deal with this very interesting petition.”

SNP MSP Brodie said: “He is at least willing to have discussions with representatives of the committee.”

Sources at Parliament say the judge has added insult to injury by agreeing to give evidence to the Justice Committee on Tuesday to defend heavily criticised cost-cutting reforms that will mean the closure of one in five sheriff courts.

WATCHDOG WHY SHOULD JUDGES BE EXEMPT?

Lord Gill's insistence that he will not appear in front of MSPs comes as a legal watchdog revealed two judges were investigated for alleged conflicts of interest last year. Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali, left, revealed the probes as she backed calls for a register.

Her submission to the committee said: "One review I undertook last year concerned a complaint about a judge who had allegedly used their judicial position to promote a body that was alleged to have breached international law." Another was a sheriff who allegedly participated in a social function organised by the defender during the proof hearing.

Ali - who was appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in 2011 - can review how the the Judicial Office for Scotland have handled a complaint but can only pass on her concerns to the Lord President.

She added "Registers of interest are a normal part of public life."It seems right that the judiciary should not be out of line with what is required of others who hold high public office."Better transparency would enhance the standing of that judiciary."

JET-SETTING LAWMEN NOTCH UP £83K BILL

Scotland's judges have racked up thousands of air miles on overseas trips, including jaunts to the US, India, Morocco and Malaysia.

Taxpayers have paid £83,644 to send judges and sheriffs around the world in the past three years. In 2010/11, the total was £14,430 which rose to £35,107 in 2011/12 followed by £34,167 last year.

The most expensive trip last year was to Kampala in Uganda. It cost £7300 for Sheriff Michael Fletcher and Lord President Lord Gill to attend a judges' conference there. Lord Gill’s other trips since 2010 have included Dublin, Cape Town in South Africa, Slovenian capital Ljubljana and a £1050 trip to a conference in Canada.

One of the most widely travelled was Sheriff Andrew Normand who has been on 11 overseas trips in the last three years. The judges usually travel alone or with a colleague but on two occasions last year they were joined by their wives.

The figures were obtained by legal blogger Peter Cherbi. He said: "Instead of flying around the world, perhaps Scotland's judges should focus on the problems within our own legal system."

The Judicial Office for Scotland said: "Attendance at overseas events must be approved in advance and comply with agreed guidance."

Mail Opinion: Lord Gill has missed an opportunity to portray our justice system as open and accountable

2 Jun 2013 11:32

NO JUSTICE IF IT CANOT BE SEEEN : SENIOR judge's refusal to give evidence to MSPs shows a lack of transparency, says Mail Opinion.

WE'RE possibly not clever enough but it is difficult to understand the terribly important point of principle Lord Gill is defending when he refuses to give evidence to our elected representatives.

Scotland’s most senior judge insists that he cannot amble down the Royal Mile to Holyrood to appear before the petitions committee because he must maintain the crucial separation between our courts and the Government.

The Lord President told them that, with the greatest respect, MSPs cannot compel a judge to appear. This is not a legal loophole, he said, but a vital bulwark of our democracy.

Fine. We get it. But they are not compelling him to appear. They did not issue an order but an invitation.

Since he has apparently agreed to appear in front of the justice committee on Tuesday to discuss the closure of a fifth of our sheriff courts, we must assume that he is picking and choosing which MSPs might be given his valuable time.

You could be forgiven for suspecting that he believes MSPs scrutinising the calls for judges to register their interests are wasting their time – and is not allowing them to waste his. Fair enough but his disinclination to pitch up before the people who represent the people who pay his £214,000-a-year salary might look a little high-handed and disrespectful. It might and, to be honest, it does.

This wasn’t an ambush. It was an opportunity for Scotland’s top judge to go to Parliament and talk about how our legal system works and might work better. It would have added, as the public relations executives and politicians like to say, a little transparency.

It was a window of opportunity that Lord Gill politely, but very firmly, nailed shut.

By taking every opportunity to speak to MSPs, Lord Gill could do more to show our legal system is a modern, receptive institution than any number of gimmicks and sound bites.

Instead, his refusal has only hardened the suspicion that our judges live and work in a bubble smelling of horse hair wigs, vintage port and even more vintage attitudes.

But his decision is only one disappointing straw in what is becoming a mighty wind of official secrecy and needless silence gusting around every part of our justice system.

Police and prosecutors might not be using Lord Leveson’s criticism of newspapers to chill potential whistle-blowers and curb information being given to journalists, officially or unofficially, but you’d be forgiven for thinking so.

These days, the most simple, straightforward requests for the most simple, straightforward information from our law enforcement and legal authorities hit stonewall after stonewall.

It is a disgrace that Scottish journalists – and, through them, the Scottish public – are not being given basic information that would be passed on as a matter of course in, for example, England and the United States.

It is a disgrace and one that our MSPs should be discussing and debating. Not least because journalists are clearly not the only people our legal establishment are happy to keep in the dark.

‘Judicial Independence’ gives vested interests, tax dodging, rich judges an immunity from transparency says top judge as Lord Gill refuses to answer MSPs questions over register of judicial interests

Judicial Immunity from transparency - Lord Gill will not answer questions over judge’s financial interests. SCOTLAND’S top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill has again refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to answer questions from MSPs who are considering the issues of judicial transparency raised in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, filed by Scots law journalist Peter Cherbi.

The petition, which has caused several run-ins with Lord Gill, who was previously viewed as more open to change in the justice system, 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.

The latest letter from Lord Gill to the Convener of the Public Petitions Committee, David Stewart MSP, which is dated 28 May 2013, cites issues of “constitutional principle” and the “independence of the judiciary” as reasons for Lord Gill’s refusal to attend the PPC to give evidence on judge’s interests and provide details on how the current system of judges recusing themselves operates in Scotland. The response from the Lord President also fails to answer questions now put twice to the Lord President, asking for statistical information on how the system of judges recusing themselves operates.

Again, the Lord President sidestepped all the questions from MSPs and merely stated “The Lord President has been responsible for matters concerning the conduct of judicial office holders since April 2010. During that period there has been no case in which a judge has been found guilty of misconduct for a failure to recuse.”

Lord Gill has now been asked twice by MSPs to provide information on how many judges have been recused and whether there is more detailed evidence on the effectiveness of the current system. Clearly these are not questions Scotland’s top judge can or is willing to provide answers to, raising serious questions over the honesty and integrity of Scotland’s judiciary.

Lord Gill went on to cite the Scotland Act, reminding MSPs they may not require a judge to attend proceedings for the purposes of giving evidence, claiming the missing part of the Scotland Act was not a loophole, rather a protection mechanism for protecting the independence of the judiciary from politicians. However, many will see this as a mechanism for covering the backs of the unelected judiciary who are bitterly resisting transparency and hold such power they can easily strike down legislation with one mere comment or opinion in court.

In an attempt to placate his stubborn position on the protection of judges vast secret & financial interests, as well as records of criminal convictions including Benefits Cheating, Lord Gill again cited an EU report which itself has been prepared and written by judges who have a vested interest in preventing any register of judicial interests going ahead. The report,which Lord Gill and the Scottish judiciary are relying on to keep their dirty linen secret, is available here : GRECO FOURTH EVALUATION ROUND Corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, Judges and Prosecutors.

Lord Gill conveniently left out of his letter to the PPC Committee Convener, any references to his judicial colleagues who had signed up to be interviewed to complete the EU report, rather than attending the Scottish Parliament to answer questions on their own secretive financial interests.

Lord Gill ended his letter by offering to meet the Committee Convener in private to discuss the constitutional implications of the Public Petitions Committee’s invitation. The irony of Scotland’s to judge holding secret meetings to discuss a call for transparency within the judiciary will not be lost on legal observers to this on-going battle over the hidden secrets of Scotland’s judges.

Lord Gill’s letter to the Convener of the Public Petitions Committee David Stewart MSP, in full :

Lord Gill’s second refusal to answer questions on judges secret & financial interests PUBLIC PETITION PE1458

Thank you for your letter of 18 April 2013. I regret that I again have to decline your committee's invitation to appear before it. I do so for reasons of constitutional principle. I intend no discourtesy to your committee.

Judges have from time to time given evidence to committees of the Scottish Parliament on matters that affect the administration of justice in Scotland. I hope that that has been helpful in the legislative process. Judicial participation in the work of the committees must however be kept within prudent limits.

Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act provides inter alia that the Parliament may not require a judge to attend its proceedings for the purposes of giving evidence. This is not a loophole. It is a necessary part of the constitutional settlement by which the Parliament is established. Its purpose is to protect the independence of the judiciary, a vital constitutional principle that is declared in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

When a committee invites a judge to give evidence before it, I have to decide whether the subject matter might infringe the principle of judicial independence; and whether the evidence required could be satisfactorily given in writing.

In my correspondence with you I have set out carefully why I believe that a register of interests for the judiciary is both unnecessary and unworkable. I have directed you to an independent scrutiny of the judiciary in the United Kingdom that has on two occasions considered and rejected the need for such a register. I have also directed you to the decision of the United Kingdom Government to accept that finding, and to the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court not to create a register. That I think, is as much useful evidence as I am in a position to give on the subject; but if there is any further information that you feel would be relevant and helpful to the committee, please let me know and I will consider the matter further.

In your letter you have asked whether any central record has been kept of failures by judges to recuse themselves. The Lord President has been responsible for matters concerning the conduct of judicial office holders since April 2010. During that period there has been no case in which a judge has been found guilty of misconduct for a failure to recuse.

If you would find it helpful I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss the constitutional implications of the Committee's invitation.

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

Diary of Injustice reported on an earlier meeting of the Petitions Committee on 5th March 2013 where MSPs initially invited 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.

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

A full report on the story along with details of judges jet setting around the world, and support from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali for the register of interests proposal, can be viewed in the Sunday Mail newspaper today HERE

JUDGES FEAR THE REGISTER - PETITION SEEKS TRANSPARENCY IN COURT WITH REGISTER OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS :

Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary 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 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. Diary of Injustice has featured coverage of the petition in earlier reports, Register of Interests for Judges.

The petition also features references to debate in the Parliament of New Zealand who are considering legislation to create a register of interests for the judiciary. It is time for Scotland to move in the same direction and create a similar register of interests for the judiciary of Scotland and all its members, increasing the transparency of the judiciary and ensuring public confidence in their actions & decisions.

The full details of the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, should be looked at for a model of similar legislation in Scotland, can be viewed online here  Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.

The New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests which recommends further inclusion of court staff in a register of interests, can be downloaded here : NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges pecuniary interests? (pdf)

In comparison to New Zealand’s effort to ensure transparency in the judiciary, Scotland’s judges and the Scottish Government have, unsurprisingly backed away from any similar measures, even concealing criminal charges and convictions of Scottish judges, where in one case a Scottish judge was charged with fiddling benefits claims, exposed in a Diary of Injustice investigation into Judge’s financial fiddles, here : CAREER CROOKED : Investigation reveals Scottish judges are CONVICTED CRIMINALS, Drunk Drivers,Tax Dodgers & alleged BENEFITS CHEATS

The on-going investigation by Diary of Injustice into members of Scotland’s judiciary has already revealed a series of judges appear to be involved in OFFSHORE TAX AVOIDANCE schemes, associations with convicted criminals & organised crime, prostitution rackets, accepting hospitality & payments from well known corrupt solicitors representing dodgy law firms while others on the bench are engaging in questionable investments & duties which appear to be in conflict with their positions as members of the judiciary. More on these findings can be read in an earlier article here : Offshore trusts, property holdings, insurance syndicates, hospitality from dodgy lawyers, yet no plans for a register of interests for Scottish judges