Thursday, October 09, 2014

Judges should not be above scrutiny: Scottish Parliament MSPs to debate petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland’s judiciary

MSPs to debate proposal for judges to declare interests MSPs in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber will, today, Thursday 9 October  debate a proposal to create a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

The public petition, submitted to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in late 2012 envisages the creation of a single independently regulated register of interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

Since January 2013, members of the Petitions Committee have looked at the issues raised in the petition, and have taken evidence from the now former Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) Moi Ali, who told msps last year there was little transparency or accountability in Scotland’s judiciary.

Moi Ali’s evidence session with MSPs was published in an earlier article along with video footage 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

Moi Ali also supports the proposal to create a register of judicial interests.

To-date, the only opposition to the proposal has come from Scotland’s top judge - Lord President & Lord Justice General Brian Gill.

And, even though the 72 year old top judge who recently enjoyed a 6 day State Visit to Qatar - declares ‘some’ of his assets in a small scale register of interests published in an earlier article here: Scotland's Judicial Rich List, Lord Gill remains adamant he will not create a register of interests for all members of the Scottish judiciary.

While the Scottish Government does not currently support the need for a register of interests, Ministers have said in letters to the Petitions Committee it is up to the Lord President to create a register on his own if he wishes.

However, Lord Gill - who earns £218,470 a year and has already declared a list of investments, directorships and links to companies, has aggressively lashed out at the media, litigants, court users and members of the public, over the call for further transparency. The top judge also refused several invitations to show up at the Scottish Parliament and face questions from MSPs.

Potentially, the debate today in the Scottish Parliament could lead to MSPs agreeing in the future that legal changes should be made to compel judges to reveal their interests.

The key issue for the Committee is whether there is a reasonable public expectation that Scotland’s judges are transparent in their dealings and their interests.

They may ask the question: If MSPs and Members of other Parliaments are required to reveal their interests, then why not Scotland’s judges? Currently, judges in Scotland (and England) are not obliged to reveal their interests.

In considering the petition, the Public Petitions Committee called Lord Gill, Lord President and Lord Justice General and Scotland's longest serving judge, to give evidence to the Committee. Lord Gill opted not attend the Committee. Lord Gill is perfectly within his rights to do this, and a Parliamentary Committee cannot compel a judge to give evidence.

The Parliamentary debate will ‘note the content of the petition’.  It will be led by the Committee’s Convener, David Stewart MSP and closed by Chic Brodie MSP, the Deputy Convener. Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs is likely to respond, as are backbenchers and members of the Parliamentary Justice Committee. 

David Stewart MSP and convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee (PPC) commented: “The Public Petitions Committee is a direct link between the public and the Scottish Parliament. It is the job of the PPC to shine a light into different corners of public life in Scotland. This can mean taking on the establishment on behalf of the petitioner, even where this may cause significant discomfort for elements of that establishment.

“The key issue for the Committee is whether there is a reasonable public expectation that our judges are transparent in their dealings and their interests. If MSPs and Members of other Parliaments are required to reveal their interests, then why not Scotland’s judges? The Committee believes it is crucial we activate the first parliamentary debate on this important topic on behalf of the petitioner.”

Describing the work of the Public Petitions Committee, David Stewart MSP continued: “Petitions to the Parliament are a direct way for individuals, community groups and organisations to raise issues with Parliament. To date we have received more than one-thousand, five-hundred petitions, calling for action on a very broad range of topics. Petitions have resulted in a wide range of actions, including parliamentary debate, changes to law and policy direction and even official government apologies for past wrongs.

“The Committee is at its best when it kick-starts positive change in Scotland, and many petitions are successful. Petitions from the public have been a crucial factor in bringing about better access to cancer drugs and improving school bus safety.  A petition calling for stronger NHS support for chronic pain sufferers led to the Government’s announcement of a new Centre for Chronic Pain earlier this year, while a petition highlighting the devastating impact on women’s health of polypropylene mesh medical devices led to their suspension.

“One of the things I am proudest of as Convener of the Committee is that, unlike the system in place at Westminster, each and every petition lodged on the Scottish Parliament’s petitions system is considered by the Committee at a formal Committee meeting. The PPC consists of seven MSPs from all the main parties. Although we may have our political differences, we wholeheartedly agree that we want many more people, passionate about campaigning for positive change to submit a petition directly to the Scottish Parliament.”

SCOTLAND’S ANTI TRANSPARENCY TOP JUDGE :

Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill fiercely opposes calls for any form of transparency & public accountability of the judiciary and Scotland’s Courts.

Over the course of nearly two years, Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill has focussed his anger on a Scottish Parliament investigation into calls for a register of judicial interests. The register proposal 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 refused three 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 challenge to MSPs declared judicial 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 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.

And, if MSPs were unsure of the depth of Lord Gill’s attitude towards transparency, the top judge went on to refuse to appear before the Scottish Parliament, and used a loophole in the Scotland Act to justify his sweeping declaration he did not require to answer questions from Scotland’s democratically elected politicians.

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 can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gill will be positioning his allies to shut down the entire debate

Anonymous said...

Why should judges be allowed to hide their links to whoever and all their riches?It is just plain wrong this is allowed to go on.Should be made to declare all of it.

Anonymous said...

What will you do if the petition or a register for the judges is not passed?

Anonymous said...

They may ask the question: If MSPs and Members of other Parliaments are required to reveal their interests, then why not Scotland’s judges?

And just who is going to argue against a question where there it is obvious the answer must be judges have to reveal their interests like politicians

Anonymous said...

Lord NONO rides again.Gill will never live this down.

Anonymous said...

Good luck for today and great work you people for sticking with this blog about the legal system

Anonymous said...

Why has Lord Gill not retired?

After all he is well past the age of retiral being 72 years old.

Maybe there is too much cash to be made by staying on?

makes you think...

Anonymous said...

Gill's crowd will have been doing plenty lobbying behind the scenes to water this down as much as possible.Just look at this private meeting the papers wrote about a few months back,shocking having a meeting behind closed doors with a couple of politicians when the petition is about transparency of judges.Proves beyond reasonable doubt the judges have totally lost it and got too used to running the country for their own enrichment.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

No Scottish Judge or Sheriff can be considered impartial or transparent if they have failed to fully disclose their interests to the Scottish People?

Failure to disclose is a reckless attack on the Scottish People and is an undermining of the Scottish Justice System?

Any Scottish Judge or Sheriff who has outside interests likely to cause a Conflict of Interest in their ability to judge impartially should be sacked on the spot?

Anonymous said...

With the Petitions Committee Convenor disclosing that there has been a dozen 'Official Recorded' Recusals in the last 6 months, when the spot-light has been on them.

Makes you wonder how many Recusals there has been in the past when the spot-light of transparency was not shining on them?

Surely, a question must be asked of Scotland's Judges and Neil Findlay Sheriffs as to WHAT are they getting themselves involved in that causes them to clash with their abili to do their jobs?

It seems to me, that Mr Cherbi has touched a nerve on a hitherto secret scandal involving Scotland's Judiciary, where they have been involving themselves in self-interest motivated self-enrichment, which has got in the way of their ability to carry out their jobs and has endangered, no broken the unbreakable law of the Judiciary in a democracy, that is impartiality, fairness and trust?

Very worrying for Justice in Scotland, which has become a dirty word due to the Judiciary and the Law Society of Scotland, where they believe that The Rule of Law does not apply to Scottish lawyers?

Anonymous said...

If judges have nothing to fear regarding any potential for a conflict of interest arising then they have nothing to hide.

Clearly Lord Gill's deeds speak louder than his words.

Anonymous said...

Saw the debate very good Gill will be going nuts about the mentions looking forward to your update!

Anonymous said...

Yes got it in one!

Anonymous said...

I thought it was quite telling when Roseanna Cunningham made comment about Lord Gill seeing all those who made a comment in the Parliamentary debate?

I thought this was a vaguely concealed threat that he would be taking action against those who were not doing as he wanted?

This shows who really has the power in Scotland?

Anonymous said...

Should Lord Gill not have volunteered to bring in a Register of Scottish Judges Interests instead of leaving it to a Public Spirited Citizen to make sure that the Rule of Law is abided by?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I thought it was quite telling when Roseanna Cunningham made comment about Lord Gill seeing all those who made a comment in the Parliamentary debate?

I thought this was a vaguely concealed threat that he would be taking action against those who were not doing as he wanted?

This shows who really has the power in Scotland?

10 October 2014 21:08

================================

Yes & its not the judges anymore.

Anonymous said...

found this sounds like you had a good debate have to post this on 2 comments as google wont let me put it in one

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/judges-interests-register-debate-1.620543

Judges' interests register debate
By Press Association, 9 October 2014 9.01pm. Updated: 10 October 2014 12:24am.

Legal Affairs Minister Roseanna Cunningham insisted "the safeguards currently in place are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary"PA

MSPs have urged the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges - despite ministers indicating there are sufficient safeguards to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary.

Media investigations into members of the judiciary "revealed a number of criminal charges and convictions", SNP MSP David Stewart told Holyrood on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee.

His call for further consideration of a petition by Peter Cherbi calling for a register of interests was unanimously backed by MSPs.

But Legal Affairs Minister Roseanna Cunningham insisted "the safeguards currently in place are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary".

Labour MSP Graeme Pearson said the petition has raised "issues of concern" and suggested the creation of "a register which would not be used by those who would be vexatious to attack or to pursue the judiciary, but at the same time give us confidence that our courts for the future operate to the best outcome".

Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said he was not persuaded that a register is necessary , but criticised Lord President Brian Gill's refusal to appear before the committee to make his case.

Lord Gill's response gave the impression that he was "part of an Edwardian establishment disdain of the right of the hoi polloi, as he sees it, to have any understanding of these matters, and that there was a swish of judicial ermine and velvet that should cow into deference the public and the legislator in relation to our right to understand the issues", Mr Carlaw said.

Mr Stewart said Mr Cherbi's petition was inspired by a bill in New Zealand following the resignation of a former Supreme Court judge who was accused of misconduct for "allegedly failing to disclose a large debt he apparently owed to a lawyer appearing in a case before him".

"The judiciary there (in New Zealand) was not overly enamoured at the suggestion of a register of interests," Mr Stewart said.

"I think that is a fair assessment of the position here to say that is probably true as well as far as the judiciary are concerned."

The committee was disappointed at Lord Gill's refusal to meet with them in public, he said.

Mr Stewart added: "The petitioner has said that the catalyst for his petition was investigations by the Scottish media into members of the judiciary here.

"The petitioner told the committee that the media investigations had revealed a number of criminal charges and convictions.

"The petitioner points out that there is a greater public expectation now in terms of transparency and accountability across all branches of public life. And that the judiciary has a duty to be accountable to the wider community and should be expected to adhere to the same standards as those which apply to others in public life, such as MSPs, ministers, and MPs."

Anonymous said...

2nd part

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/judges-interests-register-debate-1.620543


Ms Cunningham said: "The Scottish Government considers that it is not necessary to establish a Register of Judicial Interests.

"It is our view that the safeguards currently in place are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland."

She cited the findings of the Council of Europe Group of States Against Corruption report on the UK which found "nothing emerged during the current evaluation which could indicate that there is any corruption in relation to judges, nor is there evidence of judicial decisions being influenced in an inappropriate manner".

Mr Pearson said: "My own approach to these things, and it always has been, is that sometimes even though you lose an element of your own privacy it is better to be upfront in these matters and record these things in a register.

"I understand the threat that may attach to that in terms of the pressure that judges could face in the future and I wonder if there is a way, once we give some thought to it, that we could create a register which would not be used by those who would be vexatious to attack or to pursue the judiciary, but at the same time give us confidence that our courts for the future operate to the best outcome."

Mr Carlaw said: "Amongst my parliamentary colleagues, I should say that, without naming anyone, I have been told quite clearly that 'We don't want any of that'.

"But let me say, I think the minister identified quite ably why in fact we should have confidence in the current process, and why I am not persuaded that we do actually need a register of interests."

But he added: "I have to say the response of the Lord President was essentially to say 'Get your tanks off my lawn'.

"In briefing I have heard from the Law Society of Scotland that they don't think the Petitions Committee of the parliament is a grand enough committee for the Lord President to have to command his attention.

"I did myself say that it gave the impression that the Lord President was part of an Edwardian establishment disdain of the right of the hoi polloi, as he sees it, to have any understanding of these matters, and that there was a swish of judicial ermine and velvet that should cow into deference the public and the legislator in relation to our right to understand the issues."

He added: "The appropriate way to have done it would have been for the Lord President to come and in a responsible environment place his case on the record, allow us to have tested it and then quite in all likelihood have agreed with the principle that he had articulated and thereby have advocated why we thought that was the right approach.

"We weren't able to do that and that's why we are having the debate today."

Diary of Injustice said...

The full report on the debate along with video footage will feature on Diary of Injustice this coming week ...

Anonymous said...

"I understand the threat that may attach to that in terms of the pressure that judges could face in the future and I wonder if there is a way, once we give some thought to it, that we could create a register which would not be used by those who would be vexatious to attack or to pursue the judiciary, but at the same time give us confidence that our courts for the future operate to the best outcome."


Could someone please help me to understand this and Lord Gill's stated concern about vexatious attacks by the Scottish Public and by Journalists?

If the Scottish Judges and Sheriffs had characters above reproach and were upholding the standard required of their Office; how would it be possible for the Public or Journalists to attack them?

It seems to me that they are using the excuse of not declaring their interests because if they were forced to do so, then they would be at risk of attacks by the Scottish Public and Journalists?

This seems to be the same crooked logic espoused by the Law Society of Scotland where they claim that no Scottish lawyers are allowed to be sent to jail because if they were they would bump into the criminals they played a part in putting there?

Put simply, the first day that an honest, transparent Register of Scottish Judges and Sheriff's went live, would be the day the Scottish Justice System stopped, as the Scottish Public would see that there have been few or zero real Judges left?

Anonymous said...

Is Kenny MacAskill's decision to make Moi Ali's job untenable, by failing to give her the necessary powers to be able to do her job to ensure that corruption over the non investigation of complaints and the status quo whitewashing of complaints against Scottish Judges and Sheriffs?

Is this not tantamount to ensuring that lessons are not learned and that bad behaviour is prevented from being rooted out and where retraining opportunities are avoided, thereby further eroding the Standards within the Scottish Judiciary?

Is this an impeachable offence, as it is clearly in direct opposition to the rights and interests of the People of Scotland and is nothing other than pandering to Scottish lawyers vested interest and a further confirmation that in Scotland a false perception must be maintained that a Scottish lawyer is above the law, untouchable and incapable of doing any wrong?

Maybe when Nicola Sturgeon takes over as the great leader, she ends the Law Society of Scotland's mandatory self-selection of their choice of Justice Secretary and instead she appoints someone who is or has never been a Scottish lawyer and who does not arrive at their portfolio blinded by bias and selfish outlook?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 13 October 2014 08:12

You have more chance of winning the lotto than there being change at the Law Society of Scotland or the way it and the judiciary influences any and all proposals to reform the legal system.

For example look at Lord Gill's much heralded Civil Courts Review ...

Change has not come for the better, justice is not faster, cheaper or more accessible and the courts can hardly cope.

The Civil Courts Review and the review of the review has become little more than a change of business plan for the legal profession and nothing to do with giving Scots wider and easier access to justice.

Of course, if people stop wasting their money going to see solicitors and start taking charge of their own legal affairs everyone will save on their earnings & assets. It is easy, not rocket science .. and about time people sat down and put their affairs in order, from house purchases to wills and everything else.

Caution should also be exercised in using arbitration in Scotland simply because most arbitration now has links back to law firms who have a vested interest in prolonging cases to the point they end up back in court ...

Anonymous said...

Well that was a swingeing attack on Gill's Civil Courts Review wasn't it.

And of course you are correct again Peter.Pity some do not have your insight into what really goes on in the courts but then again anyone who wants the truth comes here.

I agree with your comment on people putting their own legal matters in order instead of relying on solicitors.

If people stopped feeding the beast with money the beast will shrink to a more manageable size.

And what you say on arbitration well I am not surprised to learn this.Gill and particularly MacAskill's promotion of arbitration always had a ring of scam to it but now we know this is true.

Keep up the good work mate!

Anonymous said...

Given that Scotland has voted a resounding NO in the Referendum and we are all one country for the next hundred years or so, is it not about time the oppressed Scots are given a choice of which Law to be under, or to exercise the right to choose to be under the England & Wales system?

This would be a natural progressive decision and would end the get-rich-quick-culture for Scottish lawyers, Judges and Sheriffs over night and provide Justice for the Scottish People once again?