Monday, January 27, 2014

M’Lud’s Interests: What Scotland’s top judge did not tell Holyrood MSPs when he refused to give evidence on register of judicial interests

Lord Gill omitted to tell MSPs he declares some interests with ease. REFUSING at least two invitations to appear before a Scottish Parliament Committee, using deficiencies in the Scotland Act to avoid facing MSPs questions on a PUBLIC PETITION, and then going on to brand the media, litigants, court users & members of the public as “aggressive” & “hostile” in an attempt to thwart calls for judges to declare their interests, it can now be revealed Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill has omitted to tell MSPs he IS actually required to declare at least some interests as the head of the board which controls Scotland’s courts.

The declarations of interest by Scotland’s top judge and only six other members of Scotland’s vast, sprawling ranks of a multi million pound well salaried & well pensioned judiciary, feature in the 2012-2013 Annual Report of the Scottish Court Service, a fact which Lord Gill has strangely omitted to tell MSPs in three ‘stonewalling’ letters the Lord President sent to the Scottish Parliament.

And, contrary to the written claims of Lord Gill that it would be unworkable for the judiciary to declare their interests, and that the very notion of having judges declare their interests may breach judges privacy, cause them undue suffering and bring the courts to a complete standstill, the seven members of the judiciary who sit on the all powerful board of the Scottish Court Service, seem not to have suffered at all by interests they have wished to declare in keeping with their positions on the SCS board.

Pages from the SCS Annual Report handed to MSPs show a handful of judges including Lord Gill do declare at least some of their interests:

Lord President – Rt. Hon. Lord Gill
•  Director of Scottish Redundant Churches Trust, a company limited by guarantee registered in Scotland (SC162884) •  Director of the Royal School of Church Music, a company limited by guarantee registered in England (Reg’d No 250031) •  Trustee of the Carmont Settlement: a trust for the support of retired priests of the Roman Catholic Church •  Trustee of the Columba Trust: a trust for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland •  Trustee of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Endowment Trust: a trust for the benefit of RCS and its students •  Trustee of the Royal Conservatoire Trust: a trust for the benefit of the RCS and its students •  Trustee of the Royal School of Church Music: a registered charity for the promotion of church music in the Christian Churches (Reg No 312828) •  Vice President of the Royal Conservatoire

Lord Justice Clerk - Rt Hon Lord Carloway • None

Sheriff Iona McDonald •  Deputy Lieutenant for Ayrshire and Arran •  Partner in property rental firm

Sheriff A Grant McCulloch •  Chair West Fife Education Trust •  Chair Relationship Scotland- Couple Counseling Fife •  Committee Member Cammo Residents Association

Johan Findlay OBE • Honorary Sheriff• Justice of the Peace

Hon Lord Bannatyne
•  Chester Street (Limited Partner) Ltd on behalf of the Board of the Cathedral Church of St Mary the Virgin, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh •  Member of the Board of the Cathedral Church of St Mary the Virgin, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh •  Shareholder as Trustee for the Cathedral Church of St Mary the Virgin, Palmerston Place, Edinburgh, in Chester Street (General Partner) Ltd •  Member of the Clergy Disciplinary Tribunal of the Episcopal Church

Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop QC
•  Commissioner of Northern Lighthouses •  Trustee of St John’s Kirk of Perth Trust •  Member of Stirling University Conference •  Chair of local Criminal Justice Boards in Tayside Central and Fife •  Elder of Gorebridge Parish Church of Scotland •  Member of Royal Northern & Clyde Yacht Club •  Member of the New Club, Edinburgh

A further six people ranging from the Chief Executive of the Scottish Court Service to lawyers and others also sit on the SCS Board, apparently declaring their own interests with ease and none of the fuss which Scotland’s top judge insisted would bring the justice system to a stand still.

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

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

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

It also came to light some of Scotland’s judges have not declared their interests or recused themselves in court, contrary to claims made by the Lord President, and that persons wrongfully convicted have suffered even greater injustice when it was revealed that judges who once prosecuted them, had heard their appeals against wrongful convictions and kept quiet.

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

HOW TOP JUDGE PROTESTED AGAINST TRANSPARENCY REGISTER:

Lord Gill’s first letter to MSPs voiced vociferous opposition to transparency. In Lord Gill’s opening letter to MSPs on the call for a register of judicial interests, the judge claimed “In practical terms it would be impossible for all judicial office holders to identify all the interests that could conceivably arise in any future case. The terms of the Judicial Oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics ensure that such a difficulty does not arise and that the onus is on the judicial office holder to declare any interest at the outset.”

In what was surely a hint of the sheer hostility felt by the judiciary against a call to bring transparency to judges interests, Lord Gill went onto accuse the media, press, litigants, court users and just about everyone else with an interest in transparency of being potentially hostile and aggressive, simply because someone may wish to raise questions of judges interests similar to the same kinds of questions which are raised of interests in other public officials and those in public life, politics & government.

Clearly angered by the call for transparency, Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs stated: “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. 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.”

Top judge Lord Gill refused to go to Holyrood, by letter. In a second reply to the Convener of the PPC, dated 2 April 2013, Lord Gill refused an invitation to attend the Scottish Parliament and face questions from Committee members on issues raised in the petition and to explain his own opposition to the transparency proposal.

Notably, Gill’s second reply did not contain any answers to questions put to him in writing by the Petitions Committee, nor did the judge provide any statistical or analytical evidence on the numbers of recusals which have been undertaken by judges in Scotland’s courts. However, seeking once again to lobby MSPs against any call for transparency of judges interests, the Lord President again referred to the content of an EU report, itself written by judges, who claimed there was no need for a register of judicial interests.

A further invitation was sent to Lord Gill by the Convener of the Public Petitions Committee, asking for answers to questions and again inviting the Lord President to addend the Scottish Parliament to give evidence on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary

Third letter from top judge refused Holyrood invitation, used Scotland Act loophole. Having received the third letter containing a second invitation to attend Holyrood, Lord Gill wrote back to the Convener of the Public Petitions Committee on the 28 May 2013, again refusing to appear before MSPs to face questions on judges interests and his own opposition to the petition.

However, this time the top judge added a hint that judicial cooperation with Committees of the Scottish Parliament may suffer and must be limited.

In what appears to have been little short of a veiled threat to refuse further judicial cooperation with, and future Committee appearances at the Scottish Parliament, Gill 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.”

And, shockingly, Lord Gill then sought to use deficiencies in the Scotland Act to justify his refusal to attend the Public Petitions Committee and answer question from msps.

Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media. Writing in his third letter, Lord Gill said: “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”

The judge continued: “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.”

So far, Lord Gill has failed to appear before the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament to explain his deep seated opposition to the transparency issue of declarations made by members of the judiciary in court or answer questions from MSPs on the proposal to create a register of judicial 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

Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary is due to be heard again at the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, Tuesday 28th January 2014 and will include a report or comment on a private meeting held last Tuesday between the Convener and Deputy Convener of the Public Petitions Committee and Scotland’s top judge Lord Brian Gill.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well the thing is Peter he didn't tell the msps about it because it would have sounded bloody stupid if on one hand he was being seen to accuse the press you litigants everyone else etc of being aggressive and using this as a reason to keep judges interests private/secret and then hey! it turns out Gill actually does declare some of his interests (as you cleverly put it) without all the hoo-hah he threw in his letters to the committee.

I think you have successfully pointed out a glaring inconsistency in Gill's approach to the whole issue.

Anonymous said...

Judge used a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Is there any lie Brian Gill would not tell to protect the unsatisfactory and secretive status quo?

Anonymous said...

I like how you pull all this together with the documents to back it all up.
Ever considered television?

Anonymous said...

These interests of Gill seem a bit too mundane to justify his opposition to your register idea.

As for his accusations against everyone in those letters you seem to have obtained.. did the judge not consider how ridiculous his protests would sound in today's world?

So what exactly is the Lord President hiding and why does it seem to me he is covering up for the rest of the judiciary?

Anonymous said...

Very damaging article

Anonymous said...

So what is the problem Lord Gill? and anyway since you have now declared these interests all the privacy arguments are now gone?

Hope the msps feel the same way and go ahead to make it law.

Anonymous said...

A private meeting with a judge on a petition about transparency

Only in Scotland!

Anonymous said...

Clearly angered by the call for transparency, Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs stated: “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. 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.”

How nice of him to find everyone guilty before a fair hearing and just because you asked about their interests.

This is a very poor attitude for the judiciary now wonder people are beginning to question how justice is delivered

Anonymous said...

Interesting the declaration from Sheriff Alastair Dunlop.

I take it you do realise Mr Dunlop sits on the same Northern Lighthouse Board along with other sheriffs and also prosecutors. I wonder if it is healthy for members of the judiciay who are supposed to be independent of everything to sit on the same kinds of clubs along with prosecutors especially with the way the Crown Office handle criminal cases.

Here is the list with the sheriffs and prosecutors from the nlb site before it disappears.

http://www.nlb.org.uk/AboutUs/BoardBusiness/List-of-Commissioners/

COMMISSIONERS OF NORTHERN LIGHTHOUSES
(As at 6 November 2013)

The Rt Hon Frank Mulholland QC
Lord Advocate

Lesley Thomson QC
Solicitor General of Scotland

Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop QC
Sheriff Principal of Tayside, Central & Fife

Sheriff Principal Bruce Kerr QC
Sheriff Principal of North Strathclyde

Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart
Sheriff Principal of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

Sheriff Principal Derek Pyle
Sheriff Principal of Grampian, Highlands and Islands

Sheriff Principal Craig Scott QC
Sheriff Principal of Glasgow and Strathkelvin

Sheriff Principal Mhairi Stephen
Sheriff Principal of Lothian and Borders

Anonymous said...

I like your arguments about the judge saying interests register unworkable yet here he is declaring his interests!

Totally ruins any argument to the contrary will be watching tomorrow to see what the msps say about it!

Anonymous said...

Has this continuous obfuscation by Mr Gill and the apparent childish treatment of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, brought the Office of Lord President into disrepute?

Anonymous said...

How can Lord Gill adequately fulfil his Job Specification if he has so many other interests, which have nothing to do with his job?

If he wants to spend so much time in other places, then he should retire already?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Clearly angered by the call for transparency, Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs stated: “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. 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.”

How nice of him to find everyone guilty before a fair hearing and just because you asked about their interests.

This is a very poor attitude for the judiciary now wonder people are beginning to question how justice is delivered

27 January 2014 15:05
=;-( ;-( ;-( ;-( ;-( ;-( ;-( ;-( ;-( ;-( ;-( ;-(

Scotland's Lord President lets slip again what he thinks of Scotland's Public?

A bunch of Plebs?

Is this really the standard of balance, impartiality and good judgement required by the Head Judge or is this yet another example of how far standards have slipped?

How can the Scottish Public respect such a figure who repels transparency, deliberately misleads a Parliamentary Committee and who's conduct has resulted in the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to leave her job through lack of support, when his actions do not command respect?

Anonymous said...

In the past few months Lord Gill's own actions have brought the Office of Lord President into disrepute and he has invited the 'common man' to see him as a figure of ridicule?

Anonymous said...

The shaky peg has just fallen off!

Anonymous said...

This debate should be happening in England too because the judges here do not declare their interests

Anonymous said...

Did the BBC fall off a cliff while all this was happening?

Seems a bit odd there is no matching BBC news report at least from BBC Scotland on this one given the headlines and even coverage from STV.

Anonymous said...

I am assuming that the role of Lord President is an entirely managerial position and involves Zero time actually as a judge?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 27 January 2014 17:18

No, the Lord President hears cases like other Senators of the Court of Session.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Did the BBC fall off a cliff while all this was happening?

Seems a bit odd there is no matching BBC news report at least from BBC Scotland on this one given the headlines and even coverage from STV.

27 January 2014 17:13

Hmmm Correct!

Anonymous said...

What are Gill's advisers like?Any good or just a pile of the usual suspects?

Did no one bother to point out how bad this kind of letter writing will look to the rest of us or did they believe his letters would be kept secret?

Anonymous said...

Honestly I had to laugh a little while reading through those interests of theirs and all that he said about aggressive media and disgruntled everyone haha what on earth is he playing at?

Anyways the parliament should do something and bring him in for questioning like the judges do when they feel like it.

Anonymous said...

I cant really get over how this judge expects to keep his interests secret when he declares them himself in this annual report and with the other judges.

Anyway what is so wrong about declaring interests and why are the judges allowed to keep theirs secret? I think you are spot on about all this and we should have this register for all their interests and published.

Anonymous said...

I dont think the Scotland Act was intended to be used in this way just to save the neck of judges worried about their secrets

Anonymous said...

Given that Lord Gill has declared some, if not all, of his interests I am more convinced than ever that he is;

a) Playing for time so his colleagues on the bench can get their affairs in order, and/or

b) He knows that he will not get an honest answer to any request for a register of their interests from some of his fellow judges.

Time is up Lord Gill, do yourself and the Scottish Public a favour, introduce an Act of Sederunt and let Scotland actually set an example to others - for once - by establishing a Judicial Register of Interests.

Anonymous said...

Very bizarre the judge declares his interests and then tells the msps it is unworkable to declare them.Anyone else think like me there is too much to hide and something going on here?
Really shocking to see judges going on like this.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I like your arguments about the judge saying interests register unworkable yet here he is declaring his interests!

Totally ruins any argument to the contrary will be watching tomorrow to see what the msps say about it!

27 January 2014 16:20
£££££££££££££££££

Maybe Gill was referring to hitherto un-published Interests?

Anonymous said...

The strategy behind this private meeting will be the judges making the parliament go to (and bow to) them but after all these headlines there should be a register of interests and also where is the BBC this is a good story involving the top judges and politicians and no beeb?Come on stop clowning around and get in there like the rest!Isnt it what we pay the license fee for anyway?

Anonymous said...

I think a lot more could have been achieved if the judge had done the right thing from the start and agreed to publish a register of interests for all the judiciary.
It is just so appalling to see a country's chief justice act in this way towards an elected assembly.

Anonymous said...

People in powerful jobs always think different rules should apply to them. Lawyers barring ruined members of the public from the courts is a form of aggression. Ask a lawyer to do this and their attitude towards you changes instantly.

Mr Gill wants everything his own way, a consequence of power going to his head.

Anonymous said...

Gill should be made to appear before the parliament this is an absolute disgrace

Anonymous said...

I watched what happened at the Petitions Committee this morning about your petition and it was shocking.

This private meeting they said they had with Lord Gill ended up making a complete mockery of the committee and some of them were complaining about it in the open.

I wonder if this was all done on purpose by the judge to discredit your register and the committee at the same time

I think they now have to make Gill show up otherwise they look very weak

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 28 January 2014 14:33

Yes,if it had not been filmed it would be hard to believe what happened today actually took place ... a report will follow later this week ...

Anonymous said...

Yes I heard the private meeting did not go down too well at the PPC today although it seems everything you wrote about yesterday came up today.

How did you manage that one?

Anonymous said...

Hope you give it a good write up - today must be the first time I have seen an invisible judge dictate the course of a parliamentary committee debate.This just does not happen.Ever!

Anonymous said...

This must the the most pitiful declarations of interest in existence Did these judges themselves write the terms of what is required to be disclosed?

All the church interests and singing in the choir would not have sufficed for registers of interest I have declared.

Anonymous said...

Are all judges so arrogant as this or is this just a Scottish thing?

Anonymous said...

Good point in that comment about the content of what old Gill and the other judges put in the documents it isnt much is it I can find out a lot more about him online and anyway what is his problem with having all his interests in one book or file so everyone can see it?

Anonymous said...

Was it Lord Acton who once famously remarked......, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

Wise words indeed!

Anonymous said...

Gill's letters to parliament are not protests against your petition they are carefully worded letters ordering the msps to close it down.

Democracy stops at the court when judges are asked about what they are privately up to - you have proved this sufficiently now with your petition and the debates which have taken place on it.

Anonymous said...

It seems nothing will persuade Lord Gill to rock the vested interests boat.

One can only hope the patience of Petitions Committee is finally exhausted by Lord Gill's unbelievably arrogant and condescending attitude, and take the matter forward given his stubborn refusal to speak publicly and on the record about this very important petition.

Hopefully such action might even persuade the Lord President to resign, and from what I have seen and read we would all be a lot better off if he did.

Anonymous said...

After reading his letters and all that you have written I do not trust this judge or any of his other judges they have betrayed Scotland for their own pockets

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
It seems nothing will persuade Lord Gill to rock the vested interests boat.

One can only hope the patience of Petitions Committee is finally exhausted by Lord Gill's unbelievably arrogant and condescending attitude, and take the matter forward given his stubborn refusal to speak publicly and on the record about this very important petition.

Hopefully such action might even persuade the Lord President to resign, and from what I have seen and read we would all be a lot better off if he did.

29 January 2014 12:55
[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}[]{}

Almost as if everyone else reports to him and that he is accountable to no man?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Good point in that comment about the content of what old Gill and the other judges put in the documents it isnt much is it I can find out a lot more about him online and anyway what is his problem with having all his interests in one book or file so everyone can see it?


28 January 2014 21:41
//////////////////////////////////

No lawful reason whatsoever?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Are all judges so arrogant as this or is this just a Scottish thing?

28 January 2014 19:49
????????????????

After months of exhaustive research, it seems as though it is just the Scottish Judges and the Scottish System in general?

And as if to put the cherry on the cake?

The Scottish Judges demand more pay than their equivalent Judges in England?

That's 6 million people versus 66 million people?

The World is upside down here in Scotland!

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs stated: “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.
==================================
Funny how he cannot see that his rejection of transparency means the judiciary can abuse those they are there to serve.

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill was right when he said the system was Victorian, clearly now he proves that is where he really wants to keep it. He created a trap of his own because of his intention of reforming this system which serves the Legal profession so well whilst "failing society". He will not act in any manner that diminishes his and his colleagues power. This cannot be disputed, actions speak louder than words.

Anonymous said...

No-one has disputed the important point raised by Mr John Wilson MSP who said his understanding of the relevant article of the Scotland Act was that while it did prevent a judge or sheriff being compelled to attend parliament regarding a judicial decision they had made, IT DID NOT prevent - or indeed allow - the Lord Ordinary to refuse to attend in his capacity as the administrator of the judiciary.

If Lord Gill disagrees with this understanding I am sure many would be very interested to read precisely why.

Anonymous said...

It is alarming to think these crooks will be in charge of an independent Scotland. They run the show behind their MSP puppets.

Anonymous said...

So, if Lord Gill has Registered his Interests already, then logic dictates that he is vehemently protesting about having to Register certain Interests, that he has not already declared and that he does not want the Scottish Public to find out about?

This Scandal gets worse by the day?

It is like a script from the latest Mr Bean movie?


All of this, 'me thinks he protest too much' has led to people thinking, well wait a minute, why IS he making such a shambles of something that should be straightforward and easy to adopt?

All he has done is magnify the Scottish Public's gaze on just what our Judges Registered Interests are and now that is going to include back-dated Interests which have been dumped in this 'stalling period'?

All of this obfuscation and bluster is futile in any case because Scotland's Son, Mr Peter Cherbi will find out if they have been up to shenanigans and the penalty for being found guilty, whilst trying to conceal any crookedness is going to lead to a much larger penalty?

If there has been any deceit then Mr Gill is playing a very high risk gamble of Simon Says?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Lord Gill’s letter to MSPs stated: “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.
==================================
Funny how he cannot see that his rejection of transparency means the judiciary can abuse those they are there to serve.

29 January 2014 18:36
=====================

Good Point well made!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Lord Gill was right when he said the system was Victorian, clearly now he proves that is where he really wants to keep it. He created a trap of his own because of his intention of reforming this system which serves the Legal profession so well whilst "failing society". He will not act in any manner that diminishes his and his colleagues power. This cannot be disputed, actions speak louder than words.


29 January 2014 22:48
--------------------------------

You are right, our antiquated Judicial System was described as Victorian but then through the last few months it has been described as Edwardian and even like the Middle Ages?

However, due to the serious decline in standards and the complete disregard of accountability by Scottish Judges, it has recently been likened to the Stone-Age?

Unfortunately, Fred Flintstone has complained about this remark, saying that he does not care for the insinuation?

Anonymous said...

Move over the BBC, I cannot wait for the next episode of this Circus Drama?

The Lord walking a tight-rope with a blind-fold on has been brilliant watching?

But the part played by the two Clowns led-by-the-lead by The Lord God was hilarious and then their custard pie slap-stick to the rest of the Committee was pure Comedy Gold bye-the-way?

Anonymous said...

Not much to declare so must be a lot more hidden by the sounds of it.lets have it all out in the open please Lord Gill

Anonymous said...

Apparently the judges are having a fit you published all their details from this annual report.They are now concerned people will come here to read it and read the rest of your petition.

Nice one!

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 6 February 2014 13:47

Therefore Lord Gill and his judicial colleagues should remedy the situation by attending the Petitions Committee and face questions from all msps on the petition and their interests which Lord Gill claims are impossibly unworkable to declare ...