Dishonest in Name & Nature : Law Society of Scotland announces review of dodgy Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund, where clients claiming compensation ‘are made to feel like criminals’

Law Society of Scotland to review its own dodgy claims fund. THE Law Society of Scotland has announced a ‘root & branch review’ of the infamously corrupt Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund, a fund paid into by all members of the legal profession. The Guarantee Fund, which the society claims will be ‘independently’ reviewed, differs from the equally corrupt Master Policy in that the former pays out for victims of dishonest solicitors, while the latter is supposed to pay out for victims of negligent solicitors.

The Law Society claimed in an announcement its latest “wide ranging and independent review of the compensation fund”, to be carried out independently following an open tender process. will study the purpose of the Guarantee Fund along with the cover and benefits it provides to consumers.  It will also consider the funding and governance arrangements and how these fit with the rapidly changing legal marketplace.  The review is expected to be completed over the next 12 months with a report and recommendations made to the Society's regulatory committee.

Diary of Injustice has previously reported on how victims of crooked lawyers are poorly treated by the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund, which has a poor track record at honouring its claim to compensate victims of corrupt solicitors : Law Society's 'Guarantee Fund' for clients of crooked lawyers revealed as multi million pound masterpiece of claims dodging corruption

However, in an attempt to counter previous and well publicised evidence against the Guarantee Fund’s integrity, Carole Ford, the non-solicitor convener of the Society's regulatory committee claimed in a statement issued by the Law Society : "By setting high standards for solicitors and regularly inspecting firms, our first responsibility is to try and prevent problems from arising in the first place.  However, we also need a robust scheme that protects innocent clients when things do go wrong, particularly when clients lose money through no fault of their own and as a result of a solicitor's dishonesty.”

Ms Ford continued : "For over 60 years, the Guarantee Fund has been a cornerstone of the Scottish solicitor profession, giving assurance to consumers and being funded entirely by solicitors without the use of taxpayers' money. Maintaining the Fund and considering applications for payments from affected clients are just some of the many ways in which the Law Society works to protect the public interest. However, we know the legal market is changing and changing rapidly.  That is why now is the right time to have a root and branch review of the Fund and consider whether the arrangements put in place by legislation are still effective and appropriate for today."

Commenting on Ms Ford’s claims, a legal insider retorted :”Well, now you know why financial claims against crooked lawyers have failed for the past sixty years – because lawyers and the Law Society of Scotland have been looking after their own and covering their own backs.”

The latest review of the Guarantee Fund, which has been mired in fraud, controversy and allegations of discrimination against clients who were placed in the unenviable position of having to claim for compensation against their dishonest solicitor, comes after various earlier reports from the powerless Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) found the fund lacking in its claims & provisions to pay out when the situation of almost financially ruined clients clearly merited compensation.

Over two years ago in September 2011, Diary of Injustice reported on the SLCC’s last attempt at a report into the Guarantee Fund, here : DISASTER REPORT : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission study of Law Society “Guarantee Fund” suffers 13% turnout, finds clients ‘treated as criminals’

The floundering attempt by Scotland’s ‘independent’, lawyer dominated SLCC to produce a report into the Guarantee Fund was hit by a poor response rate, partly due to the bungled arrangements put in place by the SLCC to research problems of the Guarantee Fund, and arguments between the regulator, the Law Society of Scotland and other lawyers lobby groups.

Report heard Law Society staff made Guarantee Fund claimants feel like criminals. The SLCC's Report carried out by the SLCC into the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund heard from clients they were made to feel criminals by the Law Society of Scotland staff who controlled the compensation scheme. The SLCC survey was also hit by problems over the arrangements for distribution of the questionnaires, where almost unbelievably, the SLCC were forced to rely on the Law Society of Scotland to distribute the forms themselves, after refusing to hand over the identities of claimants to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

One respondent to the survey stated : “It seemed as if the Scottish Solicitor’s Guarantee Fund were trying to pay as little as possible and were looking after their own interests. Again you were made to feel like a criminal at the hearing.”

Another respondent said : “I was not fully compensated for a fraud that was not my fault but my solicitor's, who was now in jail and yet I had to suffer financially and with stress.”

Comments from the five people who provided reasons for their satisfaction expressed relief that the process had come to an end and they perceived that the Fund had worked well for them.

One respondent said : “Achieved desired outcome although would have preferred not to have gone through the process at all.”Another respondent said : “[Because] I felt that I could move forward and bring closure to the whole affair [as] I had felt very let down by the solicitor involved in my particular case.”

Diary of Injustice featured a report on the SLCC’s Guarantee Fund research project as it took shape, HERE and upon publication of the SLCC’s report, carried out by Progressive, a research company based in Edinburgh, final figures revealed an abysmally low response rate of only 13%, where the research company contracted by the SLCC ultimately received only 19 replies out of 145 questionnaires sent out by the Law Society of Scotland.

The research firm conducting the survey on behalf of the SLCC said in their report : “Progressive was not able to receive a database of contact details from the Law Society of Scotland. As such the questionnaire packs were sent to LSS for labelling and distribution.”

The company were further critical of the Law Society’s methods of distribution, stating “A large proportion of questionnaires were not sent directly to claimants. Sending questionnaires first to solicitors to pass on to their clients would have affected the likelihood of the questionnaires reaching them and also their likelihood of completing them.” Progressive further warned : “This is likely to impact response rates.”

The report also claims : “Missing information on labels. A few solicitors fed back that there was no client contact on the packs they were sent so were unable to forward these on, again, affecting the final response rate (at least 4 reported this to be the case)” and that some clients who were sent questionnaires by the Law Society of Scotland could not be traced because they had moved address.

CONDUCT OF REGULATOR PREJUDICED CONSUMER CLAIMS

Former SLCC Board Member Margaret Scanlan branded Guarantee Fund claimants as “chancers”. Previous investigations in to the SLCC’s attitude towards clients and compensations claims against solicitors have revealed prejudice against consumers at the very heart of the SLCC itself, which spilled out into the media when now former SLCC Board Member Margaret Scanlan raged against claimants to the Guarantee Fund, branding them “chancers” in a series of bitter emails revealed through a Freedom of Information investigation here : HERE& HERE

Continuing investigations into the SLCC by Diary of Injustice further revealed another board member, David Smith , married to Court of Session judge Lady Smith, had described claimants to the Master Policy, the Law Society of Scotland’s equally corrupt Personal Indemnity Insurance coverage for negligent solicitors, as “frequent flyers”.

The SLCC had attempted to withhold the identity of the board member who made the anti-client remarks, however, the regulator was ordered to release the information by a decision of the Scottish Information Commissioner. Diary of Injustice reported on the move by the then Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion (who is now a board member of the SLCC), here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

Two earlier reports published by Diary of Injustice featured findings of the University of Manchester 2009 report into the Guarantee Fund & Master Policy, here : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers and here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

If you have a claim against the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund, or the Master Insurance Policy, tell us at Diary of Injustice at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

CONFLICTING INTEREST : Anti-transparency top judge Lord Gill will head new ‘independent’ unified Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service

Vested Interests must not be declared – Lord Gill. SCOTLAND’S top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill who is challenging parliamentary moves to create a register of judicial interests, and has three times refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to give evidence on the undeclared interests, secret earnings, business relationships & other matters involving members of the Scottish judiciary, is to be made the head of a new ‘independent’ body which will merge the Scottish Court Service (SCS) and the Scottish Tribunals Service (STS) into a new body called the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.

Last Friday, the Scottish Government announced in a Press Release that legislation to merge the Scottish Court Service (SCS) and the Scottish Tribunals Service (STS) into a unified body to be called the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service will be brought forward early next year, creating an ‘independent’ joint administration for courts and devolved tribunals headed by a board which will be chaired by the Lord President as head of courts and tribunals judiciary.

Presently has STS has around 100 staff the majority of whom are based in Hamilton.  Staff support hearings held for different Tribunals across Scotland. It is envisaged that the front-line operational delivery of courts and tribunals business will not be affected as the current specialist staff and venues for tribunals and courts will remain.

The following tribunals currently administered by the Scottish Tribunals Service (STS) will pass into control of the new unified Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service headed by Lord Gill :

• The Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (ASNTS)
• The Lands Tribunal for Scotland (LTS)
• The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (MHTS)
• The Pensions Appeal Tribunal Scotland (PATS)
• The Scottish Charity Appeals Panel (SCAP)
• The Private Rented Housing Panel (PRHP)
• The Homeowner Housing Panel (HOHP)
• The Council Tax Reduction Review Panel (CTRRP)

Commenting on consultation responses to the Scottish Government’s plans to merge the two, already disreputable parts of the judiciary into one, Legal Affairs Minister Roseanna Cunningham said: “The majority of responses to the consultation supported a single body to serve both courts and devolved tribunals in Scotland. A joint body will ensure continued independence, with a joint body corporate chaired by the Lord President, while enabling on-going improvement and sharing of best practice.

Miss Cuningham continued : "It is paramount that the specialism of courts and tribunals continues to be supported by their specialist staff in a merged organisation. That’s why we aim to bring forward legislation early in the New Year to bring about this change and ensure a board structure which supports the business of both courts and tribunals.”

Chief Executive of the Scottish Court Service, Eric McQueen, said: “The Scottish Court Service Board carefully considered the feasibility of a merger with the Scottish Tribunals Service and has approved the proposal.”

Mr McQueen continued : “It is sensible to create a joint administration based on the current SCS model and we will work with the Scottish Tribunals Service to deliver this new organisation, recognising the unique requirements of courts and tribunals and taking account of the needs of their individual users.“

Chief Executive of the Scottish Tribunals Service, Martin McKenna, said: “I see this as a positive step for the Scottish Tribunals Service and those of us who work within it. This puts the administration of tribunals on the same independent statutory footing as courts whilst protecting the unique nature of tribunals for the people that use them.”

The Scottish Government claimed their ‘Justice Strategy for Scotland’ sets out the vision of a justice system in Scotland that is fit for the 21st century and that as part of this programme the Scottish Government are transforming the civil and administrative justice systems and this includes a tribunals reform project to ensure the best structures are in place for people who use tribunals.

However, neither Mr McQueen, Mr McKenna or the Legal Affairs Minister gave any idea in their public statements contained in the Scottish Government’s Press Release as to whether members of the new unified Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service including the Lord President himself, will be required to declare their full interests in a properly maintained and updated register of judicial interests as has been proposed in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary

So far, Lord Gill has bitterly resisted calls for members of Scotland’s judiciary to declare their interests, citing unacceptable breaches of judges privacy, and potential challenges to judicial authority from litigants if it were discovered that the judge in their case had failed to recuse themselves from hearings due to overly cosy relationships, and in some cases, money earning relationships with opposing counsel.

Lord Gill branded such challenges by “aggressive media” and “hostile individuals including dissatisfied litigants ” as “harassment” even though most people and politicians accept that judges who have clear conflicts of interest must recuse themselves when circumstances demand.

The Lord President previously told MSPs in a letter : “Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused. These are significant concerns. If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. It also raises the question whether such a measure would have an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of the Judiciary"

However, in spite of the Lord President’s stubborn refusal to speak in public on the lack of a register of interests, and serious, systemic problems with judges failing or even refusing to recuse themselves in court hearings, it has now been established through the Scottish Parliament’s investigation into Petition 1458, that the problem of judges failing to declare their interests or recuse themselves in court affects both the civil justice system and cases involving Scotland’s criminal justice system.

Recently the Sunday Mail newspaper reported that judges have sat in their own cause in criminal cases and have thrown out appeals against convictions handed down by other family members in the judiciary – without declaring any interests or recusing themselves in the case. The article from the Sunday Mail can be viewed here : Failure to Recuse : Evidence handed to MSPs in judicial register of interests proposal reveals judges who blocked injustice appeal failed to declare interests in court

Even more alarmingly it was revealed in the same article that judges such as Lord Osborne (now retired)  have thrown out appeals against cases they prosecuted themselves while working at Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service, without declaring an interest in relevant appeal hearings or recusing themselves as appropriate.

The move to unify the tribunals with the Scottish Courts Service has not received 100% support from all quarters. Significant criticism and the downside of this merging was reported in yesterday’s Guardian newspaper in an article by Richard Henderson, a former President of the Law Society of Scotland, here : Merging Scottish tribunals and courts – the unintended consequences

If a new unified Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is to be created, transparency must be at its heart, and certainly all members of the board, members of the judiciary, those who serve on the tribunals and employees of the new unified courts & tribunal service must be required to declare their interests in a published, fully maintained and regularly updated register of interests.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Mail newspaper, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

The vested interests of secrecy : Justice Secretary sides with anti-transparency top judge, refuses plea for more powers, wider remit of Judicial Complaints Reviewer

MacAskill sides with secrecy for judges, rejects plea for increased powers for Judicial Investigator. IN A MOVE likely to increase concerns about the lack of openness in the Scottish legal system, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has sided with the position of Scotland’s anti-transparency top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill who has issued a stark refusal to share detailed information with Moi Ali, Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) about outcomes of decisions on complaints made against judges.

In a letter to David Stewart MSP, the Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill rejected pleas to increase the remit and powers of Moi Ali, who is tasked with reviewing how complaints made by members of the public against the judiciary are handled by the judiciary themselves.

Protests from Scottish judiciary limited powers of independent Judicial Investigator. Mr MacAskill was responding to concerns raised by JCR Moi Ali in evidence to MSPs who are considering Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary in which the JCR told the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee there was little point to the existence of her office, created by the Justice Secretary in the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

In spite of detailed evidence heard at Holyrood that the lack of powers was hampering the work of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said in his letter : “I consider that given the relatively short time the post of JCR has been in existence, and the modest number of reviews that have been handled in that time, it is premature to review the powers of the role. I am therefore not persuaded of the need for any change to the role or its functions at this moment in time.”

A detailed report on the evidence given by Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali to MSPs at Holyrood on the role of her office & remit along with the benefits of a register of judicial interests, can be viewed in an earlier report here : As Scotland’s top judge battles on against transparency, Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life

The Justice Secretary’s refusal to grant further powers comes in the wake of Lord Gill’s refusal to share further information with Moi Ali’s office on what happens to a complaint after there has been a referral made by the JCR.

In a report featured on Diary of Injustice last month, it was revealed the Judicial Complaints Reviewer recently wrote to MSPs on the Petitions Committee informing them she was being treated as a “third party” by the Lord President over how information is shared about decisions taken with regards to complaints made about judges.

The JCR told MSPs the Lord President had informed her “You have a clear but limited remit. The nature of your work and the terms of your remit do not involve any follow-up.”

First Annual Report of JCR revealed Scotland’s top judge froze out independent Judicial Investigator. This latest refusal of the Lord President to share information with the JCR came after it had been previously reported in February by the Sunday Mail newspaper and featured on Diary of Injustice that the JCR’s first Annual Report revealed Lord President Lord Gill ‘froze out’ Judicial Complaints Reviewer amid series of revoked findings, secret unshared memos & dismissed complaints.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Mail newspaper, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

The Sunday Mail newspaper has featured a report on the Justice Secretary’s refusal to grant more powers to the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, and put Scotland on a parity with the rest of the UK, regarding how complaints against the judiciary are handled.

MacAskill snub for Justice Watchdog

By Russell Findlay, Sunday Mail 10 November 2013

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill has rejected a plea to give teeth to a watchdog who probe complaints about judges.

The move comes after Moi Ali revealed there was “little point” to her role as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR).

But MacAskill won’t grant Ali the same power as her equivalent in England and Wales.

He said: “I consider that given the relatively short time the post of JCR has been in existence, and the modest number of reviews that have been handled in that time, it is premature to review the powers of the role.”

MacAskill created the JCR post in 2011 but critics blame fierce judicial opposition for its lack of teeth.

In England and Wales, Moi’s equivalent can overturn decisions, order reinvestigations and ask for victims to be compensated.

But she can only ask the Judicial Office for Scotland - headed by top judge Lord President Lord Gill - to review how complaints were handled.

Ali told the Holyrood petitions committee in September: “There’s no real independent oversight. If you provide oversight without powers, then there’s almost little point to it.”

She added: “The real issue is how the public and the judiciary are best served, and in my view that would be by independent oversight with teeth - an ombudsman.”

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

Justice Secretary tells msps : No further powers for Judicial Investigator. Writing to the Convener of the Petitions Committee the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill said : Thank you for your letter of 24 September 2013 in relation to the role of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, her powers and resources available to her.

By way of background, Ms Moi Ali, the first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), was appointed under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) by Scottish Ministers, with the consent of the Lord President, for a period of three years from 1 September 2011 until 31 August 2014. The 2008 Act makes provision for a scheme to be established to handle complaints about the conduct of the judiciary. The mechanism is set out, in rules made by the Lord President (Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules 2011), which provide that complaints about the personal conduct of a judicial office holder should be sent to the Judicial Office. If, after investigation by a nominated judge, the complaint is upheld the Lord President may decide to take disciplinary action against the judge who has been the subject of the complaint.

The 2008 Act provides a right for either the complainer or the judicial office holder who has been the subject of a complaint to refer the matter to the JCR to review the handling of the case to ensure that the set procedures have been followed. The JCR has no power to consider either the merits of any complaint or the disposal of the complaint: the role is limited to considering whether the appropriate procedures have been followed.

During the lead up to and passage of the 2008 Act, consideration was given to options regarding the role and functions of an independent reviewer as part of the scheme for dealing with complaints. For instance, consideration was given as to whether or not the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman ought to be involved but this was rejected on the basis that conferring this function on the Ombudsman would not sit well with the constitutional position of the judiciary.An independent ombudsman, as there is in England and Wales (who also has functions in relation to the judicial appointments process), was also rejected. It was considered that given the relatively smaller number of likely complaints in Scotland the public expenditure involved in establishing and maintaining an independent ombudsman would be not justified. Parliament concluded that the powers in the 2008 Act were both appropriate and proportionate.

I consider that given the relatively short time the post of JCR has been in existence, and the modest number of reviews that have been handled in that time, it is premature to review the powers of the role. I am therefore not persuaded of the need for any change to the role or its functions at this moment in time.

As far as resources are concerned, the JCR was initially paid a daily rate for 3 days work per month. The terms and conditions of appointment provide that additional remuneration can be agreed if extra duties involve a greater commitment of time and, following representations from Ms Ali, we have recently increased payment to 4 days per month for the remainder of this calendar year. The JCR also receives funding for office and travel expenses, and for other larger expenses, including the cost of setting up her website. Premises within the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s offices were secured for the JCR to allow her access to all workplace essentials and some administrative staff support. However, Ms Ali elected to work from home. Having reviewed the matter, I consider that the current remuneration package is sufficient to enable the JCR to adequately perform her role.

Vested Interests : Protests of Scotland’s anti-transparency top judge questioned as Courts Chief tells MSPs register of interests cause no problems for court staff

Courts Chief admission to Holyrood contradicts anti-transparency protests of top judge. CLAIMS made by Scotland’s top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill that forcing judges to disclose their hidden wealth, secret earnings, business & personal relationships, directorships, offshore finances, gifts & hospitality in a published register of interests may cause undue harm & harassment and made it difficult to recruit for the judiciary, have been dealt a blow by the Chief Executive of the Scottish Court Service (SCS) who has been forced to admit to MSPs that no problems have been caused to all other court workers who are required to declare their interests & hospitality.

Responding to queries from MSPs on the subject of Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, Mr Eric McQueen, Chief Executive of the SCS, who recently gave testimony to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee Parliament along with Lord Gill regarding court closures across Scotland, told the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee in a letter last week the SCS implementation of a register of interests & hospitality for its own employees “has not posed any difficulties and staff register their interests as appropriate.”

Court Chief tells MSPs in letter : No harm has come to staff who declare interests. Thank you for your letter of 25 September 2013 in which you seek the Scottish Court Service,s views on what the petition is seeking. You also asked whether there have been any issues for the SCS in operation a register of interests for the people within the SCS.

The Committee will be aware that the Scottish Courts Service is a body corporate established by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. The statutory function of the SCS is to provide the resources and support to the courts of Scotland and the judiciary in those courts. It also provides support to the Lord President and other members of the judiciary who have leadership functions.

The subject matter of the petition is not a matter which has been discussed by the Scottish Court Service Board. It is not a matter within the statutory responsibility of the SCS and as such it is not appropriate that the SCS expresses any view on the subject matter of the petition.

The Scottish Court Service has maintained a register of interests for staff for many years in line with standard practice across the civil service. It has not posed any difficulties and staff register interests, as appropriate.

The admission from the Chief Executive of Scotland’s courts that staff work within a register of their own interests without causing personal harm, raises serious questions over outlandish claims presented by Lord Gill in earlier written submissions to MSPs that bringing similar transparency to the judiciary and requiring judges to comply with a register of interests may have “unintended consequences” and somehow damage the judiciary.

Writing to MSPs earlier this year in February, Lord Gill – who opposes greater transparency of judges interests, said he feared judges could be harassed by the media and their privacy ruined. Diary of Injustice reported on Lord Gill’s attack against transparency calls, here : A MATTER OF TRUST : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill attacks Scottish Parliament petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scots Judiciary

Top judge tells MSPs forcing judiciary to be honest about their interests may have unintended consequences. Lord Gill protested : “The introduction of such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused. These are significant concerns.

Lord Gill continued : “If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. It also raises the question whether such a measure would have an adverse impact on the recruitment and retention of the Judiciary.”

In two further letters to MSPs, the Lord President went on to refuse to attend the Scottish Parliament to answer questions on his opposition to Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and even went so far as to inform MSPs they could not insist he attend an evidence session because of loopholes in the Scotland Act.

However, MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee have already heard from Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) Moi Ali – who supports a register of judicial interests, that increased transparency of the judiciary can only increase public confidence in the justice system. Moi Ali told MSPs in a letter : “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.”

Further reporting on JCR Moi Ali’s submission to the Petitions Committee was featured here : ‘Better Transparency would enhance Judiciary’ as Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer issues support for Register of interests for judges

Video footage of testimony given by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has been previously reported here : As Scotland’s top judge battles on against transparency, Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life

Given the admission of the Chief Executive of the SCS, who’s job it is to keep the courts working, Lord Gill’s arguments that more transparency in the form of a register of interests could cause harm to the judiciary are now seriously in doubt, given the fact registers of interest are common in public life and that there is no honest reason why the judiciary should be exempt from declaring their interests.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations of the judiciary by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Mail newspaper, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary