Saturday, October 25, 2014

No register for Qatar touring, tax dodging, banker friendly fraudster Scots judges - Roseanna Cunningham MSP closing speech in Holyrood register of judicial interests debate

Scottish Parliament debate on register of judicial interests. ON Thursday 09 October 2014, the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber held a detailed ninety minute debate on calls to require judges to declare their significant financial and other interests, as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. On conclusion of the debate, MSPs overwhelmingly supported motion S4M-11078 - in the name of Public Petitions Convener David Stewart MSP on petition PE1458 and urged the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges.

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.

In a move aimed at widening public awareness of the undisclosed interests of Scotland’s judiciary and details contained in the recent debate by MSPs at Holyrood, each day this week, Diary of Injustice is publishing the official record of the speeches given by individual MSPs who participated in the debate along with video footage.

This article focuses on the closing speech given by Roseanna Cunningham MSP (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP). Roseanna Cunningham is the Scottish Government’s Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs.

Roseanna Cunningham MSP closing speech Register of Judicial Interests debate Petition PE1458 Scottish Parliament 9 October 2014

Roseanna Cunningham: The debate has given us the opportunity to discuss issues around transparency and conflicts of interest and whether a register of judicial interests would address those matters. However, I sense that much of the debate has been about the process. Members will forgive me if I do not get too drawn into that aspect of the discussion—it is not really for me to intervene in committee procedures or the calling of witnesses. I am sure that if concerns are expressed about that they might be taken up in another place.

The debate also ranged rather more widely than the motion might have otherwise suggested. That is understandable. We have heard differing views expressed about the need for a register of judicial interests. As I said, some contributions went very widely, indeed. An exchange of views is always welcome.

We all recognise the importance of the need to ensure judicial independence, accountability and transparency. However, as I said in my opening remarks, key safeguards are already in place to ensure the judiciary’s independence and accountability. To repeat, those important safeguards are the judicial oath; the “Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics for the Scottish Judiciary”, which was issued by the Judicial Office for Scotland in 2010; and the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.The debate has given us the opportunity to put on the record that those safeguards exist.

We have seen from the debate that, if the Lord President was to introduce a register, a wide breadth of interests may need to be declared. As raised by a number of members, including Stewart Stevenson and Graeme Pearson, material relationships may in many cases be more relevant than pecuniary interests.

I think that I am right in saying that it was David Stewart who described a situation whereby a judge had to recuse himself because he had been at the same social event as one of the key lawyers in the case. I do not want to misrepresent what he said, but that is my recollection; what he said was along those lines. Frankly, if we took that approach too far, either we would have to cloister judges permanently or no cases would ever be heard, because the way in which our social relationships work in Scotland makes it almost possible to avoid that happening on a number of occasions.

David Stewart:

I understand the minister’s point, but will she say something about the point that I have made a couple of times that we are not discussing a new issue? Before the Supreme Court, law lords registered their interests day and daily for generations. The assumption is that all this is new; the issue is not at all new.

Roseanna Cunningham:

Perhaps the member will allow me to get into my speech, because I want to return to that point.

We have also heard that the Lord President is taking action to increase transparency. The register of judicial recusals recently set up by the Scottish Court Service is an excellent example of that. Over time, that will give us a better understanding of how that process works.

I am sure that the Lord President will read the Official Report of the debate and members’ speeches with interest. I will not be drawn into a discussion of his decision about attending the committee. However, as referred to by Joan McAlpine and others—I am not quite sure if I remember who—he has warned that the introduction of a register of judicial interests could have unintended consequences. He said:

“Consideration requires to be given to judges’ privacy and freedom from harassment by ... media or ... individuals, including dissatisfied litigants.”

A point that no member has raised is that, if publicly criticised or attacked, a judicial office-holder cannot publicly defend him or herself, unlike a politician. We have the opportunity to respond to criticism; a judge would not. They do not have the same right of reply as we have.

I must ask what would be included on a register. If we are agreed that it is far less likely to be financial interests that create problems, the register would somehow have to encompass social, familiar and other relationships. A register that included those relationships would be difficult to compile. Family trees, friendships and all sorts of organisations and affiliations would have to be included. Neil Findlay seemed to suggest that even religious affiliation should be included. How on earth would one know in advance what might cause a problem in a case that was as yet unseen?

It is interesting that all members who have spoken have avoided making reference to a register in anything other than very general terms, although it is clear that it is assumed that any declaration would go beyond financial interests. I have set out some of the issues that would arise if such a register were given closer consideration.

I return to David Stewart’s point about the situation in the House of Lords prior to the creation of the United Kingdom Supreme Court. As I understand it, declarations were confined to financial interests and there was not the kind of register that members have discussed this afternoon. Furthermore, when the Supreme Court was set up in 2009, it was decided that the financial register would not be continued. Instead, a code of judicial conduct was drawn up. The register to which David Stewart referred was not analogous to the register that members have been discussing. We should understand that.

We should also take heed of the outcome of the report of the Council of Europe group of states against corruption—GRECO. I reiterate that that is an important objective assessment of where we are in relation to the judiciary in Scotland and the United Kingdom.

I am aware that other people take a different view on the need for a register. The former Judicial Complaints Reviewer thought that a register would increase transparency and public trust.

As I said, it would be for the Lord President to establish a register of interests, in his capacity as head of the Scottish judiciary. However, the Government does not consider that there is currently evidence that the existing safeguards are not effective. We do not consider that a register is necessary. Indeed, some of the issues that members have raised point us to how difficult it might be to compile the kind of register that people think might be appropriate.

A number of members referred to the register of interests of MSPs. However, the situation is different, because we are directly accountable to the electorate. That is why the register exists—and we are not required to declare religious affiliation, our circles of friends and relatives, and all the social relationships that can give rise to some of the suspicions in respect of judges.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I regret that I must ask you to close.

Roseanna Cunningham:

The debate has presented an opportunity to consider all the issues. I assure members that we will continue to keep the issues under review. However, our current position is that a register is not necessary.

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

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Again Lord Gill's puppet gives the view of the judges.

Good for it to be on record a Scottish Government Minister backs secrecy for corrupt judges on the fiddle.

You cant trust anyone who argues against transparency.No way.Everybody understands this.

Anonymous said...

Your headline says it all - brilliant!

Anonymous said...

Back Slapper!

Anonymous said...

She is/was a member of the Faculty of Advocates so dont expect her to support anything but the party (as in legal profession) line of keep out of our way and watch it.

Anonymous said...

Those who argue against openness are unfit to be a representative of the people.

Anonymous said...

Qatar bribes and terrorist funding not included!

Anonymous said...

She won't be drawn into any discussion that criticises her political views. Seems to be this invisible Ministers war cry when awkward questions are asked that show her for what she really is, a nasty arrogant old dinosaur.

Anonymous said...

I have never actually seen car-crash television until I watched this video, where someone wilfully throws their career down the toilet by revealing to the Scottish Public that she has zero scruples and zero interest in the Scottish Public's Interests and who favours self interest of the status quo instead?

Oh, it's absolutely fine for Scotland to have convicted criminals as Judges and Sheriff's, especially if we keep this a secret from the Scottish People?

Goodbye, please close the door behind you when you leave?

Anonymous said...

Wonder what her constituents think of her and if she bothers to help anyone when it comes to lawyers etc

Any good stories about her?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Those who argue against openness are unfit to be a representative of the people.

25 October 2014 14:23

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

You have no idea how bad this individual is, she's not even fit enough to be classed a human-being never mind represent the public. Why do you think the SNP hid her away on the run up to independence. Not a people person at all just parasitical scum nothing more nothing less just rotten to the core.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Again Lord Gill's puppet gives the view of the judges.

Good for it to be on record a Scottish Government Minister backs secrecy for corrupt judges on the fiddle.

You cant trust anyone who argues against transparency.No way.Everybody understands this.

25 October 2014 12:37
-------------------------------------

I wonder which Law Society of Scotland creep wrote her script?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Back Slapper!

25 October 2014 13:35
XxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX

Gravy Slurper!

Anonymous said...

Surely there should also be a vote of no confidence in Cunningham for her unsavoury comments?

Anonymous said...

It was noted that Roseanna Cunningham glossed over that Lord Gill his keeping it a secret from the Scottish People that Scotland has convicted criminals passing themselves off as Judges?

Presumably she thinks that this is what the Scottish Public deserve?

Anonymous said...

This just goes to prove that Scottish lawyers will look out for each other first before the rights of the Scottish People. Scottish lawyers versus the Scottish People?

Anonymous said...

Gill's friends the Emir of Qatar is coming to rub up to David Cameron Maybe Gill and the judges will be on hand to was his feet!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11188380/David-Cameron-urged-to-press-Emir-of-Qatar-on-terror-funds.html

Anonymous said...

has to be one of the most impressive blogs on the web and pleased to see you stick up for the small guy

Anonymous said...

Given that Scottish Judges and Sheriffs word cannot be relied upon and that there is zero systems in place to ensure honesty and accountability, (the Hollie Greig Scandal springs to mind) is it not time for each Scottish Judge and Sheriff to undergo routine monthly Polygraph testing by a Professional Practitioner to ensure that Scottish Judges and Sheriffs do tell the truth and that they do not continue to subvert the system by holding partial self Interests which undermine their ability to do their job?

Those that fail a Polygraph Test, will be sacked on the spot and manhandled from the building and have their pension scrapped?

This seems like the only way we can guarantee an honest Scottish Judiciary as Polygraph Testing by a trained professional practitioner is 92.8% accurate a far higher test than on the balance of probabilities or beyond all reasonable doubt?

Anonymous said...

Kenny MacAskill must be a coward not to give this speech after he wrote all those letters to the petitions committee about your petition.I read them at the petition link.
What a horrible thing to do.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Kenny MacAskill must be a coward not to give this speech after he wrote all those letters to the petitions committee about your petition.I read them at the petition link.
What a horrible thing to do.

27 October 2014 13:11
@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I am not sure it has even occurred to the bold Ken to be embarrassed that he has been so comprehensively humiliated and passed over in this debate?

After all, he changed his mind so often from one extreme to the next he had inherited the nickname the French sandal merchant?