MSPs seek detailed views from ‘scripted’ Top Judge & Justice Secretary as Holyrood Committee move for full Parliament debate on Register of Judicial Interests

MSPs seek more details from scripted responses of Lord Gill & Kenny MacAskill. IN the latest round of debate on proposals contained in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary – calling for the creation of a register of interests for Scotland’s judges, members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee have again written to Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, seeking their detailed views on new written evidence received from Moi Ali, Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) – who supports proposals to create a register of judicial interests.

The move comes after JCR Moi Ali recently wrote to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, supplying MSPs with eye opening evidence relating to how poorly the system of judicial complaints handling has operated in Scotland over the past two years, revealing that “..In the first 25 months of the new complaints regime, the Judicial Office's published statistics show that of 221 complaints there were 12 investigations, one judicial office holder apologised for his or her conduct and no judicial office holders were disciplined.”

Petition PE1458 Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary Scottish Parliament Public Petitions

Speaking during the latest debate at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, SNP MSP John Wilson said “We seem to be at an impasse in relation  to  the  petition.  However,  the  latest submission  from  Moi  Ali  opens  up  a  number  of issues.  From  her  unique  position  as  the  Judicial Complaints  Reviewer,  she  has  certainly  brought forward  more  evidence—in  my  view,  anyway—with regard to the current situation.”

Mr Wilson continued: “We  have  had  a  response  from  the  Lord President  and  the  Cabinet  Secretary  for  Justice. However, I am keen that we get their current views in response to the latest information from Moi Ali. I hope that it will  be more than the one-page, three paragraph response that we seem to get from the Lord  President  and  the  cabinet  secretary—it  is almost  as  if  it  is  scripted.  The  Lord  President comments  that  neither  he  nor  the  cabinet secretary is minded to open the matter to review.”

“It  would  be  useful,  prior  to  the  debate  in  the chamber,  for  the  committee  to  ask  the  cabinet secretary and the Lord President for their detailed views  on  the  issues  that  the  Judicial  Complaints Reviewer  has  raised.  Her  submission  raises  a number  of  issues,  in  addition  to  those  that  she raised in oral evidence, that require more detailed scrutiny  and  a  more  detailed  response  from  the Lord President and the cabinet secretary.”

Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali has gone on record supporting the creation of a register of interests. Writing in her letter to the Petitions Committee, Moi Ali said: “The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people’s assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.”

The JCR continued: “Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case –financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”

Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee  during September 2013 on proposals to create a register of judicial interests, 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

After debating the latest evidence & responses to the petition, the Committee agreed to seek further detailed responses from the Lord President and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and a full debate is planned in the Scottish Parliament on the proposal to create a register of judicial interests.

The official record of the Public Petitions Committee consideration of Petition 1458 on 6 May 2014 is published below:

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

The  Convener:  Our  first  current  petition  for consideration  today  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, and the submissions.

Members  will  know  that  we  sought  permission from  the  Conveners  Group  to  get  a  date  for  a plenary  debate  on  the  subject.  The  Conveners Group  looked  at  that  request  and  a  date  will  be allocated in due course. Once we have it, we will ensure that members are informed. Members will also  know  that  the  Judicial  Complaints  Reviewer has  supported  the  petition  and  that  the  petitioner urges  us  to  ask  Lord  Gill  for  hysterical  data  on recusals, which we are still to follow up.

Chic Brodie: “Hysterical”?

Anne McTaggart: “Historical”.

The Convener: I meant “historical”.

Chic  Brodie:  You  were  probably  right  the  first time. [Laughter.]

The  Convener: The  next  step  is  to  consider how  we  will  deal  with  the  petition.  I  suggest  that we  continue  the  petition  until  we  have  had  a  full debate  on  the  matter  in  the  chamber. I  invite members to comment.

John Wilson:  We seem to be at an impasse in relation  to  the  petition.  However,  the  latest submission  from  Moi  Ali  opens  up  a  number  of issues.  From  her  unique  position  as  the  Judicial Complaints  Reviewer,  she  has  certainly  brought forward  more  evidence—in  my  view,  anyway—with regard to the current situation.

We  have  had  a  response  from  the  Lord President  and  the  Cabinet  Secretary  for  Justice. However, I am keen that we get their current views in response to the latest information from Moi Ali. I hope that it will  be more than the one-page, three paragraph response that we seem to get from the Lord  President  and  the  cabinet  secretary—it  is almost  as  if  it  is  scripted.  The  Lord  President comments  that  neither  he  nor  the  cabinet secretary is minded to open the matter to review.

It  would  be  useful,  prior  to  the  debate  in  the chamber,  for  the  committee  to  ask  the  cabinet secretary and the Lord President for their detailed views  on  the  issues  that  the  Judicial  Complaints Reviewer  has  raised.  Her  submission  raises  a number  of  issues,  in  addition  to  those  that  she raised in oral evidence, that require more detailed scrutiny  and  a  more  detailed  response  from  the Lord President and the cabinet secretary.

The  Convener:  Do  members  agree  with  John Wilson’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Angus MacDonald:  I place on record that I am grateful  for  the  additional  information  that  the Judicial  Complaints  Reviewer  has  provided.  It certainly  presents  us  with  some  issues  that  we need to follow up, and I am happy to second John Wilson’s suggestion.

The  Convener: If  there  are  no  further comments, are members happy with the proposed course  of  action?  We  will  continue  the  petition, and there will be a plenary debate, with the date to be  resolved.  We  need  to  chase  up  a  couple  of other  issues  with  Lord  Gill,  in  addition  to addressing the points that John Wilson raised. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Chic  Brodie:  Is  the  letter  from  the  Judicial Complaints Reviewer on the website?

The Convener: Yes.

TOP JUDGE OPPOSES TRANSPARENCY OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS:

Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill fiercely opposes calls for a register of judicial interests which would reveal the judiciary's vast personal, undeclared wealth, extensive family and business connections throughout the legal profession, links to big business, offshore trusts & investments, ownership of numerous and high value properties through a variety of ‘creative’ arrangements, directorships, shareholdings, and even unpublished criminal records of members of the judiciary.

Lord Gill has previously refused two invitations to appear before the Scottish Parliament to give evidence and face questions on his opposition to the proposal to create a register of judicial interests. The top judge has also used the Scotland Act as a loophole to avoid further scrutiny on the matter.

Lord Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media. Writing in a letter to msps, Lord Gill implied cooperation with Parliament would be withdrawn over calls to make judges more transparent in register : “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 media, 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

PROCEEDS OF CRIME: Judicial Interests investigation reveals top Sheriff Principal has shares in company fined £13.9million for Iraq bribes case & mining giant caught in China bribe scandal

MSPs debate judicial interests register, Top judge Alistair Dunlop revealed to have shares in bribes link firm. WHILE the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee continues to investigate proposals to create a register of interests for the judiciary contained in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, it has been revealed in the media that a top Scottish judge holds shares in a firm hit with a £13.9 million Proceeds of Crime fine for bribing Saddam Hussein's regime.

Details of the Sheriff’s investments have come to light in disclosures contained in a limited register of interests covering a select few members of a judicial quango headed by Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord President Lord Brian Gill who is personally opposed to the creation of  a register of judicial interests for all members of Scotland’s judiciary – plans which are currently being discussed by msps at Holyrood.

The latest information, published by the Scottish Sun newspaper reveals that Sheriff Principal Alistair Dunlop QC, who is in charge of Tayside Fife & Central, has shares in Weir Group, which pled guilty to paying ‘kickbacks’ in return for contracts from Saddam Hussein’s government. The Weir Group also admitted facilitating the payment of kickbacks by paying a fee of more than £1.4 m to their agent, an Iraqi national, to the same Swiss bank account. The agent made the payments to the Iraqi government on behalf of Weir.

The paper also revealed that Sheriff Principal Dunlop has shares in British-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto, who were involved in bribes scandal in China where four of its executives including an Australian citizen, were found guilty of accepting millions of dollars in bribes and stealing commercial secrets. The four were given sentences of 7 years to 14 years in prison.

The case saw Rio Tinto accused of using stolen information to harm China’s economic interests, costing Chinese steel mills an additional $150 million a year. From 2003 to 2009, the court said, the four defendants used “improper means” to gain information that allowed Rio Tinto to “jack up the price that China paid for its iron ore imports.”

Further disclosures on investment links between members of Scotland’s judiciary and companies involved in criminal charges, prosecutions and scandals both at home and abroad is expected to be published soon.

The Scottish Sun on Sunday reports:

JUDGE HAS SHARES IN BRIBE FIRM

Stocks Register Plea

EXCLUSIVE: by Russell Findlay
Scottish Investigations Editor The Scottish Sun on Sunday May 11 2014

A TOP judge holds shares in a firm hit with a £13.9million proceeds-of-crime bill for bribing Saddam Hussein's regime,The Scottish Sun on Sunday can reveal.

Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop 62, has a stake in Glasgow based Weir Group, hammered in 2011 for paying kickbacks to land contracts in Iraq.

He also has shares in mining giant Rio Tinto, whose executives admitted bribery in China four years ago.

Sheriff Dunlop - the most senior sheriff in Tayside, Central and Fife - must declare his interests as a Scottish Court Service Board member but they are not made public.

Last night campaigner Peter Cherbi - who led calls for a register to improve transparency - said "I believe judges like Sheriff Principal Dunlop cannot hold investments in firms guilty of breaking the law"

Tory MSP John Lamont added "The public would fully expect judges to be transparent. A register would improve public confidence."

Sheriff Dunlop declined to comment but the Judicial Office for Scotland said investments were "a matter for the individual".

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, 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

Register of judicial interests 'good for judiciary and good for public' says Judicial Complaints Reviewer in written evidence to Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee

Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali supports register of judicial interests. MSPs who are currently investigating proposals to create a register of interests for Scotland’s “incredibly powerful”, yet highly secretive judges contained in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, have considered further submissions of evidence this week from Moi Ali, Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) whose function is to review the way in which judge handle complaints against their own colleagues.

Writing in a letter to members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, Moi Ali, first Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer reiterated her strong support for the creation of a register of interests for Scotland’s judges, telling msps “a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public”.

Moi Ali said: “Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case –financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”

And, responding to claims from Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill that a register of judicial interests was not needed due to “safeguards” put in place by MacAskill in consultation with the same judges who now oppose a register of interests, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer told msps: “As the person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary to review complaints handled under these rules, I can say from experience over nearly three years that the rules are not fit for purpose.”

MSPs were also given a copy of the JCR’s response to a consultation on revising the rules governing complains against judges, and statistics revealing how Scotland’s judges including the Lord President Lord Gill have dealt with complaints against their own judicial colleagues under rules effectively written by themselves and waived through by MacAskill.

Astonishingly, not one Scottish judge has been disciplined in 25 months and very few complaints were actually investigated by the judges against their own colleague, according to the JCR who told msps: “..In the first 25 months of the new complaints regime, the Judicial Office's published statistics show that of 221 complaints there were 12 investigations, one judicial office holder apologised for his or her conduct and no judicial office holders were disciplined.”

MSPs have called for further responses from the Scottish Government and Lord President over the information contained in the evidence submitted by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, published here:

Judicial Complaints Reviewer evidence to MSPs on register of judicial interests: I understand that the Committee is due to consider this petition again shortly. In view of this, and in response to the Cabinet Secretary’s letter of 22nd April 2014, this is an opportune time to pull together the reasons why the Judicial Complaints Reviewer believes that a register of interests for the judiciary is essential.

I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.

I think it likely that the number of complaints against the judiciary would fall were there to be a published register of interest for judicial office holders. I have received complaints about perceived conflicts of interest that have come to light after court proceedings. A register of interests would allow issues to be dealt with at the time, thus averting the need for a complaint. That would be good for the judiciary and for the public.

The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people’s assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.

Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case –financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice states that there are sufficient safeguards already in place, citing the complaints rules as one of these safeguards. As the person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary to review complaints handled under these rules, I can say from experience over nearly three years that the rules are not fit for purpose. I have attached a document I prepared in December 2013, following consultation with members of the public who had made complaints under these rules, to support this assertion.

The Judicial Office’s published statistics demonstrate either that judicial conduct is exemplary, and the public vexatious or unable to understand the rules; or they show that the rules are not fit for purpose. I suggest that it is the latter. For the first year in which the Rules were operational(a 13-month period to 31st March 2012), 107 conduct complaints were made to the Judicial Office and 98 were completed during that year. With one exception, all of them were dismissed without investigation. Only one investigation was carried out, following which the complaint was dismissed as "unsubstantiated".

The latest statistics have yet to be published, but year two figures (to March 31st 2013) show that 114 complaints were made (plus the 9 carried over from year 1). Of 116 concluded during the year, only 11 were investigated. Four of the 11 were still underway at year-end, meaning that 7 investigations were completed in Year 2. Of the 7, one was withdrawn; 2 resolved informally; and 4 were reported to the Lord President. Of the 4 reported to the Lord President, 3 were deemed to be without substance, unsubstantiated or vexatious. For the one remaining complaint, an apology was offered by the judicial office holder and the Lord President deemed that no further action was required.

In summary, in the first 25 months of the new complaints regime, the Judicial Office's published statistics show that of 221 complaints there were 12 investigations, one judicial office holder apologised for his or her conduct and no judicial office holders were disciplined.

My experience in this office leads me to the conclusion that the rules are not a sufficient safeguard. But even if they were, particularly when combined with the judicial oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics, why not go further in enhancing transparency and accountability?

There are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent members of public boards from acting inappropriately –such as robust audit committees, external scrutiny and regulation, board meetings held in public and a rigorous appointments process. Nevertheless, such members are still required –and rightly so –to complete a publicly accessible register of interests in order to demonstrate transparency and accountability. It is right that public appointees and elected politicians are required to do this, and it is also right that the judiciary should too. Registers of interest are the norm now and the judiciary is out of step with standard practice. This undermines their standing with the public.

For all of the above reasons, it is in the interests both of the judiciary and of the public for there to be a register of interests.

I have been frank about my views in this letter, and I hope that I have not given the impression that I do not have a great deal of respect for the judiciary and the difficult work that they undertake for the greater good of society. Their work is essential, their independence vital. An independent judiciary underpins a civilised society. But with independence goes accountability, and a register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability.

I will be standing down from my role as JCR in the summer, but until that time I am happy to provide further information to the committee if that would be helpful.

Last year, Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali attended the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee  to give evidence to msps on proposals to create a register of judicial interests, 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

TOP JUDGE OPPOSES TRANSPARENCY OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS:

Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill fiercely opposes calls for a register of judicial interests which would reveal the judiciary's vast personal, undeclared wealth, extensive family and business connections throughout the legal profession, links to big business, offshore trusts & investments, ownership of numerous and high value properties through a variety of ‘creative’ arrangements, directorships, shareholdings, and even unpublished criminal records of members of the judiciary.

Lord Gill has previously refused two invitations to appear before the Scottish Parliament to give evidence and face questions on his opposition to the proposal to create a register of judicial interests. The top judge has also used the Scotland Act as a loophole to avoid further scrutiny on the matter.

Gill’s use of Scotland Act against MSPs was reported in the media. Writing in a letter to msps, Lord Gill implied cooperation with Parliament would be withdrawn over calls to make judges more transparent in register : “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 media, 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

IN THE COMPANY OF FRIENDS: Hidden links between Scotland’s wealthy judges & big business begin to emerge as Scottish Parliament consider proposals to create a register of judicial interests

Top judge forced to publish limited disclosures of judicial conflicts of interest. INCREASING revelations in the media of undeclared links between Scotland’s wealthy, unaccountable judges and big business, as well as undeclared earnings, secret relationships, undeclared criminal convictions and links to offshore trusts have forced top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill to publish a limited amount of information on how judges recuse themselves from conflict of interests in cases being heard in Scottish Courts.

The move to disclose recusal data only came about after Lord Gill gave an undertaking on the issue to MSPs of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee who are currently investigating proposals contained in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The petition calls for judges to declare all their interests in a published publicly available register of judicial interests.

An Exclusive investigation by the Sunday Herald newspaper revealed Sheriff Principal Alistair Dunlop QC who is in charge of courts in Tayside, Central & Fife, held shares in supermarket giant Tesco while hearing a case against the same company. The articles by journalist Paul Hutcheon also go on to detail significant shareholdings of Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill, who is hostile to the creation of a register of judicial interests:

Pressure grows for register of judges' interests as sheriff hears Tesco case while holding shares in company

Paul Hutcheon Investigations Editor Sunday 27 April 2014

A senior sheriff presided over a court hearing involving Tesco at the same time as he held shares in the multi-national supermarket giant.

Sheriff Principal Dunlop QC did not absent himself because having shares in a company that is party to a court action does not require a member of the judiciary to step down from a case.

A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances.

Members of the judiciary, unlike other senior public servants, do not need to give any details of their external sources of income.

A self-regulating system governing the behaviour of the judiciary is in place instead, with judges and sheriffs taking an oath requiring them to "do right" by people "without fear or favour".

The Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics, issued in 2010, also notes that judges must act impartially and recuse, or remove, themselves in the event of a conflict of interest: "Plainly it is not acceptable for a judge to adjudicate upon any matter in which he, or she, or any members of his or her family has a pecuniary interest," it states.

However, senior members of the judiciary who are board members of the Scottish Courts Service (SCS) do have to submit details of their financial interests.

The rules require disclosure of items including membership of clubs and shareholdings whose value is worth more than £25,000 or greater than 1% of the issued share capital of the company. The value of the holding does not need to be registered.

Sheriff Principal Dunlop, whose territory spans Tayside, Central and Fife, is an SCS board member who declares shares in 29 firms.

These include well-known companies such as Vodafone, Royal Bank of Scotland, G4S, Diageo, Lloyds Banking and Weir Group. He also declares shares in Tesco.

In 2009, Falkirk council licensing board was in dispute with Tesco Stores Ltd - a subsidiary of the PLC - over a premises licence in a service station.

The supermarket giant appealed in 2010 and Sheriff Principal Dunlop, who held the Tesco shares at that time, oversaw a highly technical and procedural hearing in the case.

According to a spokesman for the local authority, the Sheriff remitted it back to the council and the application was subsequently granted by the board. Dunlop is a highly respected legal figure and there is no suggestion of wrongdoing or personal gain. However, the case has again thrown a spotlight on whether the system for declaring and registering judicial financial interests is satisfactory.

Peter Cherbi, a campaigner for judicial accountability, said: "It should be necessary for judges to declare all their interests and in even greater detail than politicians do."

Moi Ali, the outgoing Judicial Complaints Reviewer in Scotland, recently wrote to a Parliament committee to express her support for a register.

"An independent judiciary underpins a civilised society. But with independence goes accountability, and a register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability."

The Judicial Office for Scotland (JOS) recently introduced a register of recusals, which shows cases where judges or sheriffs have absented themselves.

There have been four recusals since March. In a criminal case, Sheriff Veal recused himself as he was "personally known" to a witness.

Lady Wise recused herself from a high court case last week as she had previously acted for a relative of the accused.

A spokesperson for the JOS confirmed the Sheriff Principal held the Tesco shares at the time of the hearing. She added: "In the case involving Tesco and Falkirk Council Licensing Board, Sheriff Principal Dunlop dealt with a procedural issue in order to seek a pragmatic solution to a procedural matter and enable the case to proceed.

"There is well established case law to guide a judge or sheriff on when they should recuse in cases where they may hold shares in a company that is party to an action. Simply being a shareholder is not sufficient to require recusal.

"The Sheriff Principal quite properly dealt with the procedural matter as he was entitled to do and did not consider it necessary to recuse himself."

Revealed: shareholdings of the top judge opposed to register of interests

Paul Hutcheon Investigations Editor Sunday 27 April 2014

A top judge and staunch opponent of a register of interests for the judiciary has shareholdings in several investment funds.

Lord Gill, who has been critical of plans to require judges to publish their financial interests, made the declaration in his capacity as a board member of a courts quango.

It can also be revealed that his predecessor as Lord President, Lord Hamilton, declared shares in dozens of companies when he was in post.

In a written submission to the Scottish Parliament's public petitions committee, Lord Gill argued that a register of interests for judges and sheriffs was unnecessary, adding that their privacy could be impacted by "aggressive media or hostile individuals".

He wrote: "The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary."

The Lord President declined Parliament's invitation to elaborate on his argument in person, a snub he was within his rights to deliver as judges cannot be compelled by law to give oral evidence to Holyrood. The Lord President instead agreed to a private meeting with MSPs.

However, despite his hostility to a register, Lord Gill is required as a Scottish Court Service (SCS) board member to declare shareholdings and membership of outside bodies. Other board members include Lord Justice Clerk Lord Carloway, Sheriff Principal Dunlop, Lord Bannatyne and sheriffs Iona McDonald and Grant McCulloch.

These registers have recently been made available to the Sunday Herald. Lord Gill, the de facto leader of Scotland's judges, declared shares in Henderson UK Growth Fund, Newton International Growth Fund, Aviva Investors UK Equity Fund, Terrace Hill Group and Vestry Court Ltd.

Sheriff McDonald declared shares in seven companies: pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, banks HBOS and Barclays, Royal Dutch Shell, Standard Life, Unilever and Equiniti.

Lord Hamilton, who was Lord President until two years ago, registered shares in 33 firms in 2011. These included Barclays, BSkyB, BP, Centrica, Nestle SA and Rio Tinto.

Also listed were shares in Statoil ASA, National Grid, HSBC bank and Edinburgh Dragon Trust.

The declarations have raised the question of why, if Lord Gill and other senior colleagues can register financial interests as SCS board members, all judges and sheriffs cannot do the same.

However, in a letter to the Committee, Lord Gill said the SCS entries were an "entirely different" matter. "The requirement of those judicial office holders who are members of the SCS to register their interests arises in the context of their membership of a public body," he said. "The disclosure of their interests arises from their work as board members, which may involve the placing of contracts and employment questions. It is not related to their holding judicial office."

Chic Brodie, an SNP MSP, said: "This shows there is no consistency. There should be a consistent set of rules across the judiciary."

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland declined to comment beyond Lord Gill's letter.

The Sunday Mail newspaper also reported on the UK legal first where recusals of judges are now published:

BENCHED: Judges reveal conflicts of interest

by Mark Aitken Sunday Mail 27 April 2014

Scotland's judges are coming clean when they have to step away from court cases because of a conflict of interests.

Scotland’s top judge has decided that for the first time the public can see online why judges and sheriffs have stood down from hearing criminal trials and civil actions.

It comes after the Sunday Mail told of MSPs' anger that the Lord President Lord Gill had dismissed calls for a judicial register of interests and snubbed invitations to discuss his position at a Holyrood committee.

The judiciary of Scotland's website lists four cases in the past month where a sheriff has decided not to hear a case. Reasons include a sheriff being known to a witness and a sheriff having previously represented a client in a civil case. The disclosure by Lord Gill, Scotland's most senior judge, follows his block on a judicial register of interests.

But campaigners say judges should reveal business, professional and financial links and do not believe the latest move goes far enough.

Peter Cherbi has called for a judicial register of interests, which could disclose hospitality, gifts and property, as well as personal or financial links to outside bodies.

He said: "The judiciary have the power to change public life, change the law or even throw out legislation passed by elected representatives. "Any group with such power can't be seen to exempt itself from the public's expectation of similar levels of transparency and accountability which apply to other branches of government and public life."

SNP MSP John Wilson said that until there was a full declarable register for judges, there would be doubts about "the interests that judges may be putting before the legal arguments".

Lord Gill has rejected calls for a register as he fears judges may be harassed by the media and has refused to attend Holyrood's public petitions committee

Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary is due to be heard again at the Scottish Parliament next week on 6 May 2014.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Herald and Sunday Mail newspapers, 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