The Judges Ermine Piggy Bank: Scotland’s wealthy judiciary - detached from society and closeted in a rich secretive world of links to big business, undeclared earnings, directorships, offshore trusts & vested interests

Scotland’s rich judges act more like unaccountable directors of a business called justice. SCOTLAND’S judiciary are a group of select, predominantly white, extremely wealthy influential lawyers who have an unelected and almost unchallengeable power to stall or close debate on their own secret vested interests, change any of our lives at the stroke of a pen, or strike down legislation desired by the greater community and voted through by democratically elected politicians in our own Scottish Parliament.

Clearly any group in society which has this almost limitless power, must above all, be as transparent as other branches of government and society to which it applies its rulings. But, as we have found out during a full year of debate at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, if anything, the judges are even more secret than the secret service itself when it comes to the thorny question of judges pecuniary and other interests.

Their personal, undeclared wealth including extensive family and business links throughout the legal profession, offshore ‘tax efficient’ trusts, ownership of numerous and high value properties through a variety of interesting arrangements, investments, directorships and shareholdings, collectively generate millions of pounds in earnings for the judges and their families each year.

Yet, to-date, not one court user, not one member of the public, not one accused person, nor the media or even our own members of the Scottish parliament have had the chance to scrutinise and question judges about their vested financial interests, as there is no register of judicial interests or any effective method of ensuring the judiciary declare their positions, connections and interests in a publicly available document as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

You will never see a judge come out of a food bank, even though at least one judge was charged with cheating the benefits system and others regularly claim poverty when faced with the prospect of investigations into their tax affairs, civil litigation or even seizure of their assets.

You will never see a judge on the homeless register – even though it turns out a good few of them curiously appear to own no property at all – preferring instead to rely on “creative property owning solutions” carefully constructed by their chosen law firms who create tax dodging trusts to get round inheritance taxes & capital gains taxes while the rest of the country are required to pay up, on penalty of the prospect of appearing before these same tax dodging judges who fail to recuse themselves over their own dodgy financial arrangements.

And, its not just the judges. Their families often share in this wealthy backslapping system where spouses, children and relatives end up in law firms, investment houses, banks and other professions and yet nothing, not a hint is ever declared when one of them or their firm ends up in front of their relatives on the bench.

In one example known to journalists, the son of one Scottish judge was given a prestigious job in a London based bank, simply because his father is a judge. Yet this individual, like another famous name who is generally considered to have ruined the UK’s biggest bank, had no qualifications necessary to undertake financial transactions of a scale entrusted to him, and thus went on to lose clients hundreds of thousands of pounds while fiddling his commissions and expenses claims.

Senior staff at this well known bank - which received massive financial bailouts from taxpayers after the banking crash of 2008, felt they could not sack the judge’s son, due to his father’s position on the bench. As losses to clients mounted and he cheated the bank even more, staff just had to wait on him departing of his own accord after “he became bored”.

But, it wasn't all bad news for the bank. In all of the cases in which this bank and other financial institutions linked to it or owned by it have appeared as a litigant in Scotland’s courts, not one recusal by the judge, or a number of his judicial colleagues who also have links to, and investments in the same bank, has ever taken place or been recorded in any document or even in published court opinions on cases which the bank won.

Another Scottish bank, well known for sponsoring events held by the Law Society of Scotland has relied on millions of pounds of business from many of Scotland’s law firms who have banked their client fund accounts there. These same law firms have employed some of our current judges in speaking events and other business.

But whenever questions arise over missing client funds involving solicitors and this same bank or its subsidiaries, and these cases eventually get to court and in front of a judge, don’t expect a recusal or anyone to bother asking, as there have been none.

Renewable energy. Yes. Members of Scotland’s judiciary were quick to spot the earnings potential of windmills, wave power and tree hugging. Yet while many judges have chose to invest in renewables, as well as adding a few of their siblings to the companies they invest in, there have been no recorded recusals when any renewable energy firms or their business ventures have appeared before our judges in Scotland’s highest courts.

Insurance. Members of Scotland’s judiciary on £150K plus a year have always viewed the insurance industry as a great little earner, yet when things go wrong, a few of the judges have suddenly claimed poverty to evade paying out rather than their investments paying them. Ever so dishonest, although it appears no action against any of the judicial dodgers was ever taken.

Its not all just about interests and money. Persons accused of criminal offences and their legal teams are not able to consult any register of interests to decide if the judge hearing the case may be required to recuse themselves.

A high profile case involving William Beck, who was wrongfully convicted of an offence saw Mr Beck appeal against his conviction only to be denied by the son of the judge who sent him to jail in the first place.

And then at a further appeal, Mr Beck encounter another judge who had prosecuted him and sent him to jail. The judge, Lord Osborne, claimed he had forgot and would have recused himself if he had remembered – yet his explanation has been rubbished by papers submitted to the court in which Osborne’s name as prosecutor appeared. Read more on this 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

It is not so difficult to understand why a register of judicial interests is required.

When taxpayers throw massive £150K-£250K salaries and million pound plus pensions at what is ostensibly a former solicitor who sits in a court for a few hours a day looking old, bored & snored because he knows exactly how he is going to rule from the very outset, it should come as no surprise these same judges make sure their salaries and other undeclared earnings are dealt with in as tax efficient and income generating a way as possible. After all, they are in a position to ensure this, they have the influence to do this and they have written their own rules so no one can view this.

Indeed, such are the scale of the judges financial interests and undeclared earnings, it is little wonder Lord Gill felt safe enough to tell msps on the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee that it would be almost impossible for judges to detail all their interests .. because if they did, there is a good chance hardly any case in Scotland’s courts could ever again be viewed as honest.

And even without all these revelations, the reasons why the judiciary should be required to comply with a register of interests are very simple to understand.

As serving members of the judiciary who claim to be bound by oaths and rules which now appear to have little credibility, these same judges have confirmed there is something to hide. It simply cannot be that the entire class of judiciary are exempt from the same levels of transparency as other branches of government and civil servants are required to follow. There is no excuse, no legitimate exemption.

The judiciary, and the Lord President himself, by opposing transparency to the point of threatening the foundations of the Scottish Parliament itself, have all lost sight of their service to the wider community, their obligations to the same levels of transparency they enforce in their own courts, and the needs of transparency in all branches of government in Scotland and the rest of the country.

If Scotland’s justice system is to be trusted, a fully transparent and detailed register of judicial interests with rules and guidance policed by an independent authority not connected to the judiciary, must be created.

Otherwise, litigants, court users, accused persons and even those solicitors who do try for their clients, are simply attending what is little more than a board meeting of a bunch of directors who more often than not have a vested interest in YOUR access to justice being denied.

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.”

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 deliberations on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Fees please, not Justice: Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill encounters more opposition from lawyers vested interests in hearings at Scottish Parliament

Reforming Scotland’s courts for easier public access is opposed by legal profession. SCOTLAND’S “Victorian” civil justice system will be turned into even more of a train wreck” than it currently is, by the Scottish Government’s proposed Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, according to representatives of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers who faced the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee earlier this week. The proposals to slightly widen Scots access to justice which are currently under consideration by the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee were originally recommended by the current Lord President, Lord Brian Gill in his 2009 Scottish Civil Courts Review.

The latest opposition from the vested interests of the legal profession to the planned changes to Scotland’s inaccessible courts come after last week’s evidence from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates who are both traditionally opposed to any reforms to the courts which allow the public greater and easier access to justice without having to go through expensive solicitors and QCs.

The overall tone of all opposition currently put before msps against the planned changes to the courts boils down to this – don’t allow people to access justice on the cheap, or do it themselves without a battalion of expensive lawyers and other so-called legal professionals.

The coverage from Tuesday’s session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee is available here :

Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill Justice Committee - Scottish Parliament: 25th March 2014

One of the more controversial aspects of the Courts Reform bill, that of transferring most of the Court of Session's existing workload to the sheriff court by allowing sheriff courts to hear cases up to the value of £150,000, has drawn special ire from lawyers and advocates who claim the sheriff courts are currently overwhelmed with work and cannot cope with the increased workload.

However, the more obvious factor in many from the legal profession opposing the switch from Scotland’s Court of Session to the sheriff courts is that of fees.

It is well known solicitors, law firms and advocates, both junior & senior counsel would rather operate in the expensive exclusive and tightly controlled environment of the Court of Session in Edinburgh rather than scuttle around Scotland having to attend cases and possibly pick up a lot less in fees.

The Scottish Government have included in the bill plans for a specialist personal injury court which would take many of the cases being transferred from the Court of Session. However, msps heard more from lawyers who attacked this plan as being "seriously underfunded".

In further evidence, Mr Ronnie Conway, who is the Scottish co-ordinator of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers also maintained that projected savings to the legal aid fund were "illusory" because 85% of legally aided cases were successful and costs were recovered from the defender.

Laughably, Alan Rogerson of the Forum of Scottish Claims Managers, told msps that insurers wanted cases to settle rather than ending up in litigation. Not really. Not if it the claim has anything to do with the Master Policy or is a negligence case involving a lengthening list of professions and public bodies.

The Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates have previously given evidence against the reforms, which are also opposed by trade unions for the effect they are said to be likely to have on damages claims brought by their members. Typically, the legal profession has come out against the court reforms, with both the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates opposing the changes. However, Citizens Advice Scotland and the consumer body Which? are among those who support the plans, on the ground that they would simplify the process of litigation.

The Scottish Government issued a Press Release earlier this week showing that while the number of civil cases being heard at sheriff court level has been declining – down 10 per cent between 2011-12 and 2012-13, a 43 per cent drop since 2008-09, the number of civil cases being heard at the Court of Session has remained steady. Personal injury cases accounted for 79 per cent of cases raised in the General Department of Court of Session .

Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill said: “The latest civil law statistics underline why we need to reform Scotland’s courts and in particular ensure that the right cases are heard in the right courts, at the right time. As highlighted by Lord Gill, our civil justice courts have remained relatively unchanged for more than a generation and need to be made more effective and efficient.”

“At present too many cases, particularly lower value personal injury cases, are being raised in the Court of Session – clogging up the system and resulting in higher costs and delays for the parties involved. Through our court reforms we will ensure such cases can be heard at a new, national specialist personal injury court, where they can be dealt with more swiftly at a lower cost. This will have little impact on the sheriff courts themselves – representing only a three per cent transfer of civil cases – but will have a considerable impact on the Court of Session, enabling it to focus on more complex cases.”

Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill v Vested Interests: Law Society warns against taking £150K claims away from ‘Victorian’ Court of Session’s stranglehold on Scots access to justice

Can a Sheriff tell the difference between £5K & £150K? Law Society thinks not. REFORMING Scotland’s Courts is never going to be an easy task when the judiciary, the legal profession and some of the people who actually run the courts system have vested significant financial interests in maintaining the current way of how things are done in our expensive, mostly out of reach and much derided justice system.

When a business is highly profitable, closed shop and draws in billions for lawyers, law firms, judges, their relatives, and anyone else who earns their keep from Scotland’s justice system, then why change it? - the Law Society of Scotland told msps earlier this week in their submissions to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee who are considering the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill

After all, the poor little Scots client and their family, matters little to lawyers with pound signs in their eyes and the wealthy, secretive judges clinging desperately to their hidden interests and fat Fred Goodwin style pension books.

Unless by chance, that same poor little Scots client and their hard working family has a legal case, a family tragedy, or a damages claim which can be milked for fees right up to the last minute before the lawyer walks off into the sunset, leaving the client unrepresented on the steps of Scotland’s ‘highest court’ – the Court of Session – also known as the worst, most abrasive, most intimidating and most expensive highest court in the entire European Union.

And then, lets not forget those hard working Scots clients who happen to have a property or land which a solicitor works out could be his at the end of the case, leading to a not too lengthy repossession to pay extortionate legal fees, handed over to the solicitor in a wink by some smiling happy judge who fails to disclose his own wife runs the very same law firm who are also known to fiddle their fee notes on a regular basis.

Then of course, there are the criminal cases where, if there is a prospect of extorting a few more million from Scotland’s publicly funded annual £150 Million legal aid budget, it’s full steam ahead for lawyers and the legal aid board have to fork out or else.

So you just know when the idea of reforming Scotland’s courts comes along to the Scottish Parliament, the vested interests crowd will be there protesting about tweaks, turns and a lot of what is effectively window dressing, because fiddling about with the current stitch up may impinge on lawyers profits. Easy to spot, about as easy to spot as a judge lifting his tax dodging offshore trust from one island and making off with it to another.

This week, a number of vested interests published their submissions to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee on the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. Unsurprisingly, the Law Society, Faculty of Advocates and the Solicitor Advocates all came out against many of the key proposals in the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill 18 March evidence session at Justice Committee, Scottish Parliament

The Law Society of Scotland said in it’s own submission that the proposals contained in the bill could adversely affect access to justice due to the insufficient resources being allocated to implement the major reforms.

The Law Society went on to express concern at the dramatic increase in the threshold for cases to be heard in the Court of Session (up to £150,000 from £5,000) and warned that this will result in a large transfer of cases from the Court of Session (where no one without a deep pocket and a bent brief obtains justice) to the sheriff courts – without a matching increasing in the number of sheriffs.

The Law Society also expressed concern about the proposed changes to judicial review in Scotland, which will introduce a three month time limit on judicial review cases. The Law Society has already warned that this will restrict access to justice, although anyone who actually bothers to read some of the Judicial Reviews handed down by the Court of Session may well wonder why anyone bothers asking help from what is effectively a wave through for injustice and the vested interests of big business.

Adding to the profession’s mission to keep the money rolling in, the Faculty of Advocates claimed the reforms will put the best legal representation out of reach for ordinary men and women and favour those with deep pockets – as if it doesn't already. Ever heard the one about the QC, the bung and the ruined client? It’s a common joke around Parliament Square …

The Faculty went on to claim that one reason litigants pursue their cases in the Court of Session is because of the right to instruct counsel, who often act for pursuers on a no win no fee basis in personal injury cases. However, the Faculty forgot to explain to msps some of the other less professional ways in which Advocates end up very much in pocket even after allegedly representing someone on a no win no fee case.

In the Sheriff court, the Faculty said, use of counsel has to be sanctioned. Raising the threshold to £150,000 would therefore make it more difficult to instruct counsel, which the Faculty of Advocates claimed would reduce choice.

The Society of Solicitor Advocates also queried the impact of the Bill on access to justice, especially in relation to the lack of automatic sanction for counsel. It also warned that any financial savings that may be brought in by the changes will be “small and disproportionate to the detriment the changes will bring about,” and that the proposals will not make the justice system any more efficient, faster or less costly.

As usual, party litigants, those with out legal representation and anyone with a case which does not draw in big numbers, fails to get any mention.

All submissions of evidence for the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill can be read here: Submissions received on the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill

If the judge has nothing to hide, the judge has nothing to fear: Transparency of interests must apply to all in court, including the wealthy, vested interests of the judiciary

Judges are not accountable without a register of judicial interests. IN the wake of the latest revelations of a further two Scottish judges dodging criminal prosecutions in front of their own colleagues and in their own courts, this time for serious motoring offences, there are growing calls for a much wider scope of judges background, character & now records of criminal activity to be added to a proposal for a judicial interests register being considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee: Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

And, while Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill and his judicial colleagues appear to be more concerned with how accountable they are to each other, rather than how accountable they are to the public, the fact is that without a fully transparent and public register of their interests, Scotland’s judiciary are effectively a law unto themselves who can have little claim to public trust or public confidence in their judgements.

If the Lord President has such confidence in his judicial colleagues that they have nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear.

However when Scotland’s judiciary from the top man down takes a position of such powerful opposition against transparency of judges financial & other interests, and then dares to effectively threaten Scotland's sovereign Parliament with loopholes within the very act of law in the Scotland Act which founded our current Parliament, there is very much something to hide, Lord Gill.

Petition PE1458 calls for a published register of interests documenting full disclosure of judges sizeable financial wealth, hidden family & business connections within the legal profession and controversial topics such as directorships, secret earnings from law firms & big business, criminal records of judges, and offshore ‘tax efficient’ trusts and investments which currently remain secret.

Those who are following the debate on Petition PE1458 will be well aware of support for the petition from Moi Ali, Scotland’s first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR).

In a recent letter to the Petitions Committee, the JCR revealed Lord Gill had made some concessions on changes to the way in which complaints are dealt with my his own office.

Lord Gill will now provide the Judicial Complaints Reviewer with information on the ultimate outcome of complaints referrals made by the JCR to the Lord President’s office. And, complainers will now be provided with at least a summary of the investigation report into their complaint, where previously no further information was given out to complainers about what happened to their complaint.

The JCR also revealed to MSPs that, contrary to the Justice Secretary’s comments regarding the status of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in providing office space for the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, the SLCC did not believe that they should provide the JCR with any administrative support, given the fact the SLCC is paid for by lawyers (who recoup their subscriptions from hiking client fees).

The full text of the letter to the Public Petitions Committee from JCR Moi Ali is reprinted below:

Judicial Complaints Reviewer wrote to msps expressing view on recusals only data. In a letter to the Petitions Committee, Moi Ali, Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer said the Lord President’s proposal was “of limited value” The Judicial Complaints Reviewer told MSPs:

Consideration of Petition PE1458

On 9th October 2013 I followed up my evidence to the Petitions Committee with some additional information. I am now in a position to provide a further update which the committee may find helpful in advance of its deliberations this coming Tuesday.

When I wrote in October, it was to inform the Committee that the Lord President had confirmed that he would not be willing to provide me with information on the ultimate outcome of my referrals to him. I am pleased to report that he has since indicated that he recognises that it is helpful for me to be advised of the result of my referrals and that this will now happen. I very much welcome this development.

Another positive development is that the Lord President has agreed to my suggestion that complainers should, as a minimum, be provided with at least a summary of the investigation report into their complaint; previously they received no indication of what investigation had been carried out.

I am also pleased to see that the Lord President intends to publish information on recusals. While this is a step in the right direction towards greater transparency and accountability within the judiciary, regrettably it does not go far enough to address the concerns that complainers raise when they contact me.

As I understand it, the Lord President's proposal is simply to publish recusal information, but what about the occasions where a judicial office holder is unwilling to recuse despite being challenged to do so? Will such cases be reported upon publicly?

Since I gave my evidence to the committee last year, I have reviewed further cases in which conflicts of interest have been at the heart of the complaint. The recusal information the Lord President intends to publish will not help in situations where an alleged conflict of interest only comes to light after a court case is heard. The publication of a register of interest could actually avert the need for such complaints by enabling participants in a court case to challenge perceived conflicts of interest in advance or at the time, rather than after the case is heard. Without the publication of a register of interests, the publication of recusal data, while welcome, is of limited value.

If the issue were solely one of providing public access to recusal data, the Lord President's proposals would be of value. However, the issue from my perspective –as the only individual in Scotland who deals with judicial complaints reviews –is that the concern raised by complainers is failure to recuse; they do not complain about a dearth of recusal data.

It might be helpful if I outlined a typical scenario to help you see how the publication of recusal data alone will fail to address the concerns that those using my service report. Let us say that a defendant appears in court and the case is heard. Later the defendant discovers a potential conflict of interest and makes a complaint about the judge’s conduct. In my experience it is likely that the complaint will be dismissed as being about ‘judicial decision’(a decision that it is for a judge to make). Even if it proceeds to investigation –and most cases that reach me do not get this far –that investigation will be undertaken by a fellow judge. Should the complainer ask me to undertake a review, my hands are tied because all I can do is check that the complaints handling rules were followed. The rules say that a judge can investigate a complaint in whatever way they wish, so there are severely limited grounds on which I can challenge an investigation. Even if I believe that the wrong decision was reached, I cannot overturn that decision or even ask for it to be reinvestigated. Were there to be a register of judicial interests, individuals would be armed with the information to seek a judge’s recusal if necessary, and would not be left having to deal with the matter after the event using the complaints system. This would be in everyone’s interests.

I hope that you find the above helpful in your deliberations.

I also wanted to take the opportunity to respond to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s letter of 31st October 2013 to the Petitions Committee in respect of the comment that “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.”

The situation is that I arranged to use a shared ‘hot desk’ at the SLCC, but this was unsuitable as I did not know whether it would be available when I needed it and it was difficult to move files and equipment between my home and the SLCC. The SLCC do not believe that they should provide me with any administrative support, as their service is paid for by the legal profession and not the public purse.

You may know that I will not be seeking reappointment when my term of office ends in August. However, I am happy to provide any further information that the committee requires until that time.

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

NOTHING TO DECLARE: Investigation reveals two Scottish judges escaped prosecution from criminal charges as debate heats up on transparency in the judiciary

No declarations as judicial colleagues of top judge escape prosecution EVEN while Scotland’s top judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill was telling msps during a private meeting relating to judicial interests that he had full confidence in his judicial colleagues, an investigation has now uncovered two more Scottish judges have escaped prosecution for serious criminal charges.

However, the two cases involving judges who were charged by Police in connection with serious motoring offences were dropped after a secretive consideration of the cases by ‘independent’ Crown Counsel prosecutors - who claimed there was a ‘lack of evidence’ to prosecute both members of the judiciary.

The latest records of criminal charges involving members of the judiciary were revealed in response to a Freedom of Information response from Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).

These new revelations on the interests and lack of disclosures relating to Scotland’s judiciary come amid increased debate on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary in the Scottish Parliament and the secrecy surrounding the undeclared interests of Scotland’s judiciary’s sizeable financial wealth, hidden family & business connections within the legal profession, criminal records, directorships, secret earnings from law firms & big business and offshore ‘tax efficient’ trusts and investments.

However, as no register of interests for judges currently exists, and with the lack of answers from Scotland’s top judge to serious questions put to the Lord President by MSPs over the  current system of recusals & judicial oaths, there appears to be little to prevent these same judges sitting on cases involving similar criminal offences with no one else in court including accused persons being aware of it.

More Scottish judges beat criminal prosecutions – Crown Office disclosure. In response to a Freedom of Information request, Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) disclosed that since 25 November 2011 COPFS have received two reports from the police in relation to members of the Judiciary. Both of these cases were referred to Crown Counsel to consider.Crown Counsel are the senior, independent lawyers who act on behalf of the Lord Advocate.

One of the reports received from the police related to an allegation in terms of section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, Crown Counsel decided that the evidence, in law, did not amount to an offence under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1998.

Crown Counsel also concluded that, based on the available evidence, it was not in the public interest to prosecute the individual involved for an offence under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The other report received from the police relating to a member of the Judiciary was in relation to two charges in terms of sections 170(2) and (4) and sections 170(3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Having considered the available evidence, Crown Counsel decided to take no action as there was insufficient evidence to prove either charge.

The Crown Office refused to disclose the judges’ identities or whether they are judges, sheriffs or justices of the peace, meaning they could even be close colleagues of Lord Gill sitting in Scotland’s highest court itself.

In the two latest cases, independent Crown Counsel dismissed both without going to prosecution. However legal insiders  have raised doubts of the ability & impartiality of the  ‘independent’ Crown Counsel system to look at such cases, particularly in the light of revelations where the same independent Crown Counsel system was used to drop criminal prosecutions against fourteen members of the legal profession who stood accused of millions of pounds worth of legal aid fraud.

A legal insider told Diary of Injustice today: “It is likely the same prosecutors or close colleagues have been in front of the same judges involved in the two cases of criminal charges. I imagine most people will view this as the justice system once again looking after their own.”

The latest revelations of judges escaping criminal charges come after a recent scandal in 2012 where another member of the judiciary faced charges for cheating the benefits system while his colleagues were found guilty of other offences including motoring offences.

• 3 contraventions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 89 – all pled guilty – sentences of £120 and 4 penalty points; £400 and 6 penalty points and £140 and 3 penalty points.

• 1 contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 143 with an alternative charge of a contravention of section 165 of that Act – pled guilty to the alternative charge – sentence of £100

• 1 contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 5(1)(a) – pled guilty – sentence of £650 and disqualification from driving for 2 years

• 1 contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 3 – pled guilty – sentence of £200 and 4 penalty points

• 1 contravention of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, section 111A(1)(a) – plea of not guilty has been entered and the case is presently ongoing

The full information disclosed by the Crown Office in 2011 can be viewed online here : Crown Office : Criminal Charges against Scottish Judges. However, the Crown Office REFUSED at the time to release any further information on the cases, citing fears the public may be able to speculate on the nature & seriousness of the allegations & criminal charges made against the judges who Scotland’s prosecutors are increasingly relying on to hand down verdicts in cases where the Crown Office fails to present accurate or substantive evidence against those accused of wrongdoing.

Speaking for the Crown Office in late 2011, Mr McGeechan said: “The courts have indicated that the most important safeguard in that regard is an absolute guarantee against publication. In particular, I consider that the details of charges contained within a report to the Procurator Fiscal from the police or other reporting agency are not necessarily a reflection of any charges which the Procurator Fiscal may bring or deem appropriate and to release these to the public could cause speculation over an allegation without it having been tested in open court. Having considered the circumstances of this particular case, I have come to the conclusion that the public interest falls overwhelmingly in maintaining the exemptions in this instance.”

Mr McGeechan also admitted in one of the cases where ANOTHER judge had been charged with committing a criminal offence, there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution. The Crown Office claimed: “The one case that was not prosecuted, having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case, Crown Counsel gave an independent instruction that there was insufficient admissible evidence to justify criminal proceedings.”

Asked for a statement on the information regarding the two judges released by the Crown Office in the FOI response, a spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland told Diary of Injustice: “The Judicial Office for Scotland declined to comment”.

The Sunday Mail newspaper reported on the latest developments in the debate on the register of interests at the Scottish Parliament and on the information disclosed by the Crown Office in relation to charges against judges:

Minister quiz on judges’ interests

Sunday Mail Date 09/03/2014

A parliamentary debate has been demanded to discuss a bid to force Scotland’s judges to come clean over their interests. MSPs on Holyrood’s public petitions committee want Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to be quizzed in the main chamber.

The committee’s call marks an escalation in the clash between cross-party MSPs and the judiciary, headed by Lord President Lord Gill. Scotland’s most senior judge twice refused to attend the committee to discuss Peter Cherbi’s call for a judicial register of interests.

Lord Gill agreed to meet two committee members behind closed doors. He has now agreed to publish details of when judges recuse themselves - stand down - due to conflicts of interest.

Judicial complaints reviewer Moi Ali said it was “a step in the right direction towards greater transparency”. But she added: “It doesn’t go far enough.”

A register could disclose hospitality, gifts, property plus personal or financial links to outside bodies.

SNP MSP John Wilson called for judges to be accountable to the public. He said: “Without a register of interests, how would anyone dealing with a court understand or realise when a judge would have to recuse themselves?”

Lawmen on raps

Sunday Mail Date 09/03/2014

Two judges were charged with serious motoring offences in the last three years - but their cases were dropped by prosecutors.

One was accused of dangerous driving but Crown Office lawyers ditched the case.

Another was reported for allegedly failing to stop or provide details. This incident also did not proceed to trial, a freedom of information request revealed.

The Crown Office refused to disclose the judges’ identities or whether they are judges, sheriffs or justices of the peace.

Judicial Interests & Accountability: ‘What we expect of the judiciary in Scotland and how accountable it is in the public’s eyes, not the eyes of a self serving group of judicial appointees’

Are judges accountable? The lack of judicial interests register gives cause for concern. THE most senior members of Scotland’s judiciary appear to be more concerned with how accountable they are to each other, rather than how accountable they are to the public. The entire issue of judicial accountability in Scotland, and the lack of it has come to the fore during evidence heard  by MSPs of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee who are considering Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

Petition PE1458, raised by law journalist Peter Cherbi calls for a published register of interests documenting full disclosure of judges sizeable financial wealth, hidden family & business connections within the legal profession and controversial topics such as directorships, secret earnings from law firms & big business, criminal records of judges, and offshore ‘tax efficient’ trusts and investments which currently remain secret.

Over the course of the last year, MSPs have heard evidence from Moi Ali, Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), on how the judiciary deal with complaints. The JCR also expressed her support for the petition and said a register of interests would enhance public confidence in the judiciary, reported previously 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

However, MSPs have encountered a brick wall at the hands of Scotland’s top judge the Lord President, Lord Brian Gill - who is overtly hostile against the transparency proposal. Lord Gill has also refused to appear before MSPs and face questions in public or provide answers to the Scottish Parliament’s investigation of the effect a lack of judicial declarations of interest on the justice system.

Private meeting with judge underlined judicial opposition to declarations of interests. Only recently after a private meeting with the Lord President and two MSPs from the Petitions Committee was an offer to publish limited data on judicial recusals. The notes of the private meeting between the judge and two senior politicians also underlined the Lord President’s continued opposition to any further transparency in the form of a register of interests for Scotland’s judiciary.

The clerk’s notes of the meeting indicated Lord Gill went so far to claim that a register of judicial interests was not workable, reported here: Judicial Transparency is “not workable” claims Scotland’s top judge Brian Gill in private meeting with Holyrood msps on register of judicial interests petition

However, the Lord President’s “unworkable” myth has little evidence in fact, considering the Scottish Court Service has operated a register of interests for its own staff for several years, as does Scotland's Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service.

Also contained in the Committee Clerk’s notes of the recent private meeting at Holyrood between the judge and politicians, Lord Gill made the point he had full confidence in his colleagues.

However, at last week’s meeting Petitions Committee member John Wilson MSP pointed out that without a register of interests it would be difficult for members of the public to deal with issues of conflict of interest within the judiciary.

Commenting on Lord Gill’s short letter to the Petitions Committee, offering uncertain detail on recusals only, Mr Wilson said: “The difficulty is that, as far as I understand, it is still down to a judge or a sheriff to decide whether to recuse. Without a register of interests, how would anyone dealing with the courts understand or realise when a judge should recuse? Without any evidence or a register of interests to say otherwise, judges and sheriffs can continue to hear whichever case they want to hear and recuse when they decide to do so.”

“The petition clearly indicates that a judge or sheriff might have financial interests relating to shareholdings in a company or they might hold a company directorship, and that might be directly relevant to a case. Unless there is a register that clearly shows the financial interests of judges and sheriffs and their families, it is difficult for an ordinary member of the public to understand the relationships that judges or sheriffs might have.”

Commenting further on the Lord President’s position regarding his colleagues in the judiciary, Mr Wilson said: “Most importantly, Lord Gill talks about confidence in the judiciary. The committee is here to look at the confidence that the public has in the judicial system in Scotland. That should underlie our investigations into the issue.”

“I welcome Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion that we try to get a chamber debate on the issue, but there are things regarding the petition that we need to examine further, particularly in light of the responses that we have had. We need to get assurances from Lord Gill and the Scottish Government that we can move forward in relation to what we expect of the judiciary in Scotland and how accountable it is in the public’s eyes—not the eyes of a self-serving group of judicial appointees.”

Last week’s Petitions Committee discussion of Petition PE1458 concluded with a proposal for further enquires of Lord Gill. Members also agreed to seek a full debate on the petition in Holyrood’s main chamber which may come after the Summer recess.

The Scottish Parliament have now published the official report of last week’s debate. Therefore, in keeping with maintaining an accurate and publicly accessible record of the debate in Scotland on judicial interests, the full report is reprinted on Diary of Injustice today with accompanying video footage of the parliamentary committee debate.

Petition 1458 Register of Judicial Interests Scottish Parliament 4 March 2014

Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary

The Convener:  The fourth current petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 4. We also have the clerk’s note of the meeting between the Lord President, Chic Brodie and me, and we have the submissions.

I will make a couple of points before we debate the petition. The petitioner suggests that we call the Scottish Court Service to give evidence on its existing staff register of interests. Moi Ali, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, has provided an interesting additional paper in which she makes the powerful point that the issue is the“failure to recuse” and “not ... a dearth of recusal data.”

Her letter is direct and straightforward and she pulls no punches about the issue. The committee might wish to write again to Lord Gill to ask whether he considers that a record of declarations of interests, similar to that for several members of the judiciary in the SCS annual report, could be set up for other judges and sheriffs.

Members will know that only a handful of them are involved in the SCS board; a much greater number are not members of that board, so they are not required to declare interests. Those are key points for the committee. I throw the discussion open to members.

Chic Brodie:  I think that I missed something that happened early on in the process and before I became a member of the committee. The petition calls for a register of pecuniary interests of judges, and I do not know where the recusal bit came in.

On the conversations that we had with Lord Gill, I see from my notes that a request was made regarding the financial interests information that is available via the SCS on three members of the SCS board although, in fact, it turns out that there are seven judicial members of the SCS board. I know that it is difficult, but I still think that it might be worth while trying to keep the issue of financial interests separate from the issue of the declaration of a potential conflict of interest.

We might return to the latter at some stage in the future, but we might want to expand on the information that is already available via the SCS on the financial interests of the judiciary.

The Convener:  If I understand the Judicial Complaints Reviewer’s letter, the crucial issue is recusal before a case. For example, if a judge was dealing with a case in which he or she had some financial interest, they would recuse before it. So, it is about the ability to recuse over a financial issue, which I think is the point that Moi Ali is making.

Jackson Carlaw:  I find no fault in the way in which we have conducted ourselves on the issue. I read the letter from Moi Ali with a great deal of interest.

If it were  possible to divide up the time appropriately, I suggest that we should take the subject to the chamber as part of a Public Petitions Committee debate. It would be useful to go beyond the bounds of the committee to allow some of the issues to be stated more  widely in the chamber and for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to have to respond formally to some of the issues that have arisen.

Although we have moved matters forward in a limited way by the nature of the discussions that we have had, frankly, I do not think that any of us is wholly satisfied with the outcome or totally persuaded by the case that has been made to us.

The Convener:  That is a useful point. I inform the committee that, at the Conveners Group, we put in a bid for a debate on organ donation. That has been agreed, but we are fine tuning whether it will be in April or May. However, any further bids for debates would just join the queue at the Conveners Group. There is always a healthy interest in bids for committee plenary debates. I think that such debates are a useful opportunity. My view is that this petition would be a good subject for a plenary debate. It might have to be after the summer recess but, whenever there is a slot, the committee can be assured that I will argue for it at the Conveners Group.

Jackson Carlaw:  It would be a useful subject for us to take to the chamber. As matters stand, we have probably got as far as we are likely to get with the issue. As I said, I do not think that we are entirely satisfied with the outcome at which we have arrived. It would be useful for us to make that clear and to allow the issue to have a wider profile.

Chic Brodie:  In general, I agree with Jackson Carlaw. I do not think that there was any intended obfuscation when we met the Lord President, but there was the conflation of pecuniary interests with recusals on the basis of family relationships. It is argued that judges do not know whether someone whom they know will come up in a case. If we can separate those issues, I still think that there might be a requirement to focus on the half-commitment that we have on the information that is available through the SCS board on pecuniary interests. After that, we can look at how we might deal with other complaints.

The Convener:  Thank you for that. Do members agree to that course of action?

John Wilson:  The discussion has been useful. One or two members referred to Moi Ali’s timely response to the committee in relation to the issues that have been raised about publishing information on a judge or sheriff recusing himself or herself from hearing a case.

The second paragraph of the Lord President’s letter states: “I am pleased to say that my officials have devised a means by which this can be achieved. Court Clerks will inform the Judicial Office for Scotland when a judge or sheriff has to recuse.”

The difficulty is that, as far as I understand, it is still down to a judge or a sheriff to decide whether to recuse. Without a register of interests, how would anyone dealing with the courts understand or realise when a judge should recuse?

Without any evidence or a register of interests to say otherwise, judges and sheriffs can continue to hear whichever case they want to hear and recuse when they decide to do so.

The petition clearly indicates that a judge or sheriff might have financial interests relating to shareholdings in a company or they might hold a company directorship, and that might be directly relevant to a case. Unless there is a register that clearly shows the financial interests of judges and sheriffs and their families, it is difficult for an ordinary member of the public to understand the relationships that judges or sheriffs might have.

Most importantly, Lord Gill talks about confidence in the judiciary. The committee is here to look at the confidence that the public has in the judicial system in Scotland. That should underlie our investigations into the issue.

I welcome Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion that we try to get a chamber debate on the issue, but there are things regarding the petition that  we need to examine further, particularly in light of the responses that we have had. We need to get assurances from Lord Gill and the Scottish Government that we can move forward in relation to what we expect of the judiciary in Scotland and how accountable it is in the public’s eyes—not the eyes of a self-serving group of judicial appointees.

The Convener:  I thank John Wilson for his comments. He is right to go back to the fundamentals and what the petition is calling for. The register of pecuniary interests is key.

It sounds as though the committee is enthusiastic about bidding for a plenary debate. If that is agreed by members, we will make appropriate urgent requests to get that in the queue for a future meeting. Do members also agree that we write to Lord Gill to clarify whether he would consider setting up a record of declarations of pecuniary interests, similar to the one that already exists for several members of the judiciary?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:  Do we need to cover any other points?

John Wilson:  I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask for its views on the exchanges that have taken place between the committee and those who have provided evidence to us and whether, based on the information that we have, it would consider reviewing its decision not to engage in the process.

The Convener:  That is a fair point. Do members agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

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

RECUSE ME NOT: Concession from Scotland’s top judge on recusals is “of limited value” says Judicial Complaints Reviewer as MSPs seek Register of Judicial Interests debate in Holyrood main chamber

Petitions Committee calls for full debate at Holyrood on judicial interests transparency register. MEMBERS of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee earlier this week agreed to seek a full debate in Holyrood’s main chamber to discuss issues of judicial transparency raised in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The move comes after msps appeared unhappy with a year of refusals from Scotland’s top judge to cooperate with the Scottish Parliament Committee which has been considering transparency proposals to create a full register of the secret undeclared interests of Scotland’s judiciary.

The latest development in the long running debate on judicial interests, amid the obstructive swish of judicial ermine and legal sabre rattling from Lord Brian Gill against msps efforts to get answers out of the anti-transparency top judge comes after Scotland’s top judge recently wrote to the Petitions Committee offering a tiny concession on the collection of recusal data only.

However, no offer was made by the judge on disclosing other interests such as vast financial wealth, hidden family & business connections within the legal profession and controversial topics such as directorships, secret earnings from law firms & big business, criminal records of judges, and offshore ‘tax efficient’ trusts and investments – issues which the judiciary and Lord Gill are vehemently opposed to publishing in any open and presentable format for public view.

MSPs debated the petition including the letter from the Lord President, and further responses from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer and the petitioner, who both continue to call for a full register of judicial interests. Video footage of the Petitions Committee consideration of Petition 1458 on Tuesday 4 March 2014:

Petition 1458 Register of Judicial Interests Scottish Parliament 4 March 2014

Lord Gill’s offer contained in a short letter to msps that his officials had devised a way to collect recusal data of judges in cases where conflicts of interest arise was widely debated. However, as members discussed Lord Gill’s offer on recusals, John Wilson MSP said it would still be down to a judge or sheriff to decide to recuse themselves, and without a full register of interest, how would anyone dealing with the courts understand or realise when a judge has to recuse themselves.

Short note from top judge gives little on transparency. Lord Gill stated to msps in the brief letter: “I  am  pleased  to say that  my officials have  devised  a means  by  which this  can be  achieved.Court  Clerks  will inform  the Judicial Office  for  Scotland  when  a judge  or sheriff has  to recuse.  The reason  for  recusal  will be provided. The  fact of recusal and the reason  for  it  will appear  on the Judiciary of Scotland website. I intend to commence the  collection of information from  1 April  2014 to  give  time for  the administrative  arrangements  to  be put in  place.  The  website  will be updated  as  notification of recusal is  received.”

The concession on recusals by Lord Gill is widely seen as having little value without a full register of interests to accompany it, and comes after the judge spent a year refusing to cooperate with msps looking for answers on the secret world of Scottish judges. Lord Gill also refused at least two invitations from the Petitions Committee to attend evidence sessions and face questions in public from the full Committee. At one point Gill even used loopholes in the Scotland Act to dodge parliamentary scrutiny with an implication judicial cooperation with Holyrood may be withdrawn over the issue.

While a welcome move, the offer by the Lord President does not tackle any of the core issue of calls for greater judicial transparency with the creation of a full register of interests for Scotland’s judiciary - a plan the top judge angrily branded ‘unworkable’, reported earlier here: Judicial Transparency is “not workable” claims Scotland’s top judge Brian Gill in private meeting with Holyrood msps on register of judicial interests petition

And, while Lord Gill continues to call a register of judicial interests ‘unworkable’, papers from the Petitions Committee show that it was earlier revealed to msps the entire Scottish Court Service staff who work in the courts and are headed by a board with Lord Gill himself as its Chair, has maintained its own very much workable SCS register of staff interests & hospitality for years.

Judicial Complaints Reviewer wrote to msps expressing view on recusals only data. In a letter to the Petitions Committee, Moi Ali, Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer said the Lord President’s proposal was “of limited value” The Judicial Complaints Reviewer told MSPs: “As I understand it, the Lord President's proposal is simply to publish recusal information, but what about the occasions where a judicial office holder is unwilling to recuse despite being challenged to do so? Will such cases be reported upon publicly?”

“Since I gave my evidence to the committee last year, I have reviewed further cases in which conflicts of interest have been at the heart of the complaint. The recusal information the Lord President intends to publish will not help in situations where an alleged conflict of interest only comes to light after a court case is heard. The publication of a register of interest could actually avert the need for such complaints by enabling participants in a court case to challenge perceived conflicts of interest in advance or at the time, rather than after the case is heard. Without the publication of a register of interests, the publication of recusal data, while welcome, is of limited value.”

“If the issue were solely one of providing public access to recusal data, the Lord President's proposals would be of value. However, the issue from my perspective –as the only individual in Scotland who deals with judicial complaints reviews –is that the concern raised by complainers is failure to recuse; they do not complain about a dearth of recusal data.”

“It might be helpful if I outlined a typical scenario to help you see how the publication of recusal data alone will fail to address the concerns that those using my service report. Let us say that a defendant appears in court and the case is heard. Later the defendant discovers a potential conflict of interest and makes a complaint about the judge’s conduct. In my experience it is likely that the complaint will be dismissed as being about ‘judicial decision’(a decision that it is for a judge to make). Even if it proceeds to investigation –and most cases that reach me do not get this far –that investigation will be undertaken by a fellow judge.”

“Should the complainer ask me to undertake a review, my hands are tied because all I can do is check that the complaints handling rules were followed. The rules say that a judge can investigate a complaint in whatever way they wish, so there are severely limited grounds on which I can challenge an investigation. Even if I believe that the wrong decision was reached, I cannot overturn that decision or even ask for it to be reinvestigated. Were there to be a register of judicial interests, individuals would be armed with the information to seek a judge’s recusal if necessary, and would not be left having to deal with the matter after the event using the complaints system. This would be in everyone’s interests.”

Lord Gill’s concession on recusals falls far short of register of interests – petitioner. And responding to Lord Gill’s meagre concession, a submission from the petitioner to MSPs stated: “While the Lord President's move to enable the collection and publication of recusal data is a welcome step in the right direction,  and could have been achieved earlier,this falls far short of the requirements of registers of interests which operate in other walks of public life & Government.”

The petitioner continued: “It is an important point to make that  many recusal requests are either refused or not even raised in court due to  the lack of current information on judges interests or the case where legal representatives refuse to raise a recusal issue with the judge, even when asked to do so by their client. Therefore the Lord President's move to publish recusal data in the currently proposed format, will not be a true indicator of how recusals are dealt with, currently, or historically in the Scottish courts.”

The developments earlier this week, seen as a step in the right direction, come after Lord Gill held a controversial private meeting with two msps from the Petitions Committee in place of appearing before the full complement of MSPs to face questions in public about judges’ hidden interests and their opposition to full disclosure. The private meeting was reported earlier, here: CLOSED ENCOUNTER OF THE JUDICIAL KIND: Private meeting with msps, top judge over judicial interests petition raises fears judiciary are dodging official remit of Holyrood committee

After debating the responses, and hearing from its members, the Public Petitions Committee agreed to seek time in the Chamber for a debate on the petition. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government. The full transcript of the meeting will be published in the next few days and made available on Diary of Injustice.

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