Saturday, October 11, 2014

THE UNRECUSED: Not one financial recusal for £200K a year wealthy judges in six months leads to suspicion over ‘wigs list’ used by top judge to dodge questions on judicial interests

No recusals on financial grounds for wealthy judiciary. RECUSAL DATA published by Scotland’s top judge for the past six months appears to corroborate claims from within the legal system that high earning members of the judiciary typically on annual salaries of up to £220K a year are refusing to declare significant financial wealth & property holdings which could require judges to recuse themselves from hearing cases in the courts.

In the six months to October, beginning on April 1, Scotland’s top judge Lord President & Lord Justice General Brian Gill undertook to msps who sit on the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee that he would publish recusal data of judges standing aside in court cases after conflicts of interest became clear.

However, a glaring omission in the albeit limited number of fourteen recusals published to-date, show that out of hundreds of cases currently in the courts being heard by wealthy, property owning judges, there is not one recusal by a judge on financial grounds or any wealth linked reason.

Scotland’s judges, from Sheriffs to Senators on the Court of Session earn salaries of up to £220K a year accompanied by up to £1million pound pension pots, high value shareholding portfolios, earnings links to big business, banks & law firms and multi million pound property portfolios, yet not one judge has declared a financial interest, not even a declaration of using the same High Street bank that a litigant or even a law firm may well be suing in court.

Today, the figures currently published by the Judiciary of Scotland have been described by a solicitor as “Make believe written up during a lunch hour.”

He said “There are no references to the cases in question where the recusal allegedly took place, no reference of the subject matter of the case, no identification of legal agents or litigants, and the reasons listed for a recusal are at best, vague, bordering on dishonesty in at least one case I have been made aware of.”

He continued: “Is the Lord President operating a don’t ask don’t tell policy on recusals? Without specifics or accurate references to the cases in question, the data has little value to members of the public who have the right to know.”

The deal to publish recusal data was only arrived at earlier this year, after months of wrangling between Scotland’s top judge and the Scottish Parliament over a proposal to create a register of interests for Scotland's judiciary as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

Lord Gill previously ignored several requests from msps to provide the Petitions Committee with historical recusal data - to enable a more independent analysis of the information to understand if in fact judges were actually recusing themselves at all.

Gill was eventually forced to admit no information on recusals had ever been recorded in Scotland’s courts up to this year.

Now, six months on from the beginning of publication of recusal data, a slightly clearer picture is beginning to emerge of how Scotland’s judges treat conflicts of interest in court cases. Simply, they don’t.

And when a recusal issue is raised, it has been reported some judges have become angry, expressing an underlying hostility to litigants and solicitors who raise matters for recusal.

Members of Scotland’s judiciary, from justices of the peace – who are currently, conveniently excluded from the recusal list, right up to Senators of the Court of Session who are required to recuse, often regard conflicts of interest as a non-issue. They act as judge in their own cause, and routinely dismiss any suggestion an interest put to them could influence their decision or position in a case they are currently hearing.

Notable recusals currently published include Scotland's top judge himself – the Lord President Lord Brian Gill who was forced to recuse himself from court after his own son appeared before him in a case which the Scottish Court Service refuse to identify.

Top judge Lord Gill stepped aside from case due to son’s involvement. SCOTLAND’S top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill was forced to stand aside from hearing an unidentified case in the Court of Session because “a relative” - who turned out to be one of Lord Gill’s sons, represented a party involved in the court case.

However, the first ever recoded recusal of the country’s top judge published by the Judiciary of Scotland vaguely described Lord Gill’s withdrawal from the case as due to a “Relative of Senator acts for the respondent” - whereas the “relative” turned out to be the Lord President’s son, advocate Brian Gill.

Initially, the Judicial Office refused to confirm the identity of Lord Gill’s “relative”. A spokesperson for the Judicial Office then stated: “We cannot provide any comment or further details in addition to what has already been published, but we can confirm that the advocate is one of the Lord President’s sons.”

Judicial Recusals - April to August 2014 :

24 March 2014 Livingston Sheriff Court Sheriff Edington (Civil) Court report prepared by spouse of a resident sheriff.
8 April 2014 Forfar Sheriff Court Sheriff Veal (Criminal) Sheriff personally known to a witness.
10 April 2014 Selkirk Sheriff Court Sheriff Paterson (Civil) Sheriff had previously acted for a client in dispute against Pursuer.
23 April 2014 High Court Lady Wise (Criminal) Senator had previously acted for a relative of accused.
16 April 2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court Sheriff Cathcart (Criminal) Sheriff personally known to a witness.
13 May 2014 Haddington Sheriff Court Sheriff Braid (Civil) Known to pursuer's family.
14 May 2014 High Court Judge MacIver Criminal (appeal) Conflict of Interest.
20 May 2014 Court of Session Lord Matthews (Civil) Senator personally known to a witness.
19 June 2014 Dingwall Sheriff Court Sheriff McPartlin (Criminal) Sheriff presided over a trial involving the accused, where the issue to which the new case relates was spoken to by a witness.
20 June 2014 Elgin Sheriff Court Sheriff Raeburn QC (Criminal) Accused appeared before Sheriff as a witness in recent trial relating to same incident.
24 June 2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court Sheriff Crozier (Criminal) Sheriff personally known to proprietor of premises libelled in the charge.
26 June 2014 Court of Session Lord President (Civil) Relative of Senator acts for the respondent.
27 August 2014 Court of Session Lord Brailsford (Civil) Senator personally known to husband of the pursuer.
28 August 2014 Oban Sheriff Court Sheriff Small (Civil & Criminal) Sheriff personally known to a party.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is clear from independent, verifiable reports on this blog that - contrary to the pleadings of at least two of those msp's taking part in the recent debate on the judicial register of interests - FINANCIAL INTERESTS held by the Judiciary most certainly are a matter which can be seen to give rise to a potential for a conflict of interest arising.

I wonder who prompted them to suggest otherwise?

Anonymous said...

Am I missing something here....should it not be a seldom occurrence for a Scottish Judge or Sheriff to HAVE to Recuse themselves?

Either they have too many conflicting interests or their pals are crooks?

In my opinion where it is noticed that a Scottish Judge, on the first day of a trial, that their own son is found out to be representing one side of a trial, then there surely must be a police inquiry as to the fitness of both Scottish Judge and Scottish Advocates fitness to be trusted to do their jobs?

It is simply inconceivable that they and the Court Clerk would not know in advance of the trial of this blatant Conflict of Interest?

One can only think that either this type of Conflict of Interest is commonplace in Scottish Courts or they were just trying it on to see if they could get away with it?

Let's face it, the DOI Journalists have shown that Scottish Judges and Sheriff's are awfy fond of cash and I cannot imagine what would be more lucrative that saying to your Client, it is ok if you were caught red-handed by the police standing over the body with the murder weapon in your hand because I have the perfect way to get you off Scot-Free?

Maybe this was where the term SCOT-FREE came from?

Anonymous said...

The judges are so stuffed with money it makes a Christmas turkey look like a baby chicken.To think we are supposed to respect this lot when really they are against us from day one is just cant find the words really.

Expose the lot of them for what they are A FRAUD ON SOCIETY

Anonymous said...

Didnt realise you also caught out Gill himself on recusals!Very good!
They managed to keep that one quiet until now!

Anonymous said...

You are right about this.
The financial thing stands out given the salaries of these judges and what we already know their wealth to be (much more I am sure in the shadows)
How can no one recuse in six months on a money related thing there has to be something up I am guessing because they dont need to declare assets they are not dclaring so the list is bunkum Lord Gill

Anonymous said...

The list in the judiciary website is not the truth and I know this because my solicitor put in a request the sheriff recuse himself in my case in Edinburgh building maintenance dispute and sheriff refused not surprised because the clerks refused to put in the paperwork for weeks before and I only knew about this because of you and same goes for my lawyer the conflict of interest is relation of sheriff represents building company involved so sheriff rules on case involving relation and nothing in the list on the judiciary of scotland website not even the refusal so can I name the sheriff in another comment or can you do something about it please?

Anonymous said...

Scotland’s judges, from Sheriffs to Senators on the Court of Session earn salaries of up to £220K a year accompanied by up to £1million pound pension pots, high value shareholding portfolios, earnings links to big business, banks & law firms and multi million pound property portfolios, yet not one judge has declared a financial interest, not even a declaration of using the same High Street bank that a litigant or even a law firm may well be suing in court.

About sums it all up,these judges are too interested in their money and interests to give out any fair chance of justice to us.

Think about it folks do you think you get a fair deal from a bank?probably not well the judges are just like banks probably more than we even realise they will have money and shares stuffed away no one will ever find out about and they expect us to take them on trust?Get lost!

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 12 October 2014 15:10

Does your case involve the Edinburgh City Council orders on building repairs? please email scottishlawreporters@gmail.com with more information and the identity of the Sheriff or anyone else you spoke to in the Scottish Court Service.

Anonymous said...

Thought provoking blog.

A suggestion.Ever thought about dropping the "in Scotland" from the title?

No offense intended.I am just saying this because you are writing about issues which cross borders.I am sure some of your readers from outside Scotland such as myself (BC Canada) have experienced similar problems with our own legal systems.

The issue with judges is a frightening one and leads me to suspect our own judiciary are at it as much as yours.

Keep hammering away you guys!

Anonymous said...

Only a complete d*head will buy into the recusal list my mum can write a better recipe for a cake!

btw thanks for teaching me about recusals

Anonymous said...

Scotland’s judges, from Sheriffs to Senators on the Court of Session earn salaries of up to £220K a year accompanied by up to £1million pound pension pots, high value shareholding portfolios, earnings links to big business, banks & law firms and multi million pound property portfolios, yet not one judge has declared a financial interest, not even a declaration of using the same High Street bank that a litigant or even a law firm may well be suing in court.

Do we really want these kind of people making decisions ripping our lives apart????

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
It is clear from independent, verifiable reports on this blog that - contrary to the pleadings of at least two of those msp's taking part in the recent debate on the judicial register of interests - FINANCIAL INTERESTS held by the Judiciary most certainly are a matter which can be seen to give rise to a potential for a conflict of interest arising.

I wonder who prompted them to suggest otherwise?

11 October 2014 19:48
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I also saw that the Law Society of Scotland apologist Roseanna Cunningham did her bit for the Status Quo (and acted in the direct opposite interest of the Scottish People), where she brushed over and avoided that two MSP's in the debate confirmed that the purpose of the Petition was to confront the actual reality that some Judges and Sheriff's according to Newspapers were convicted criminals (who instead of losing their jobs because their judgement can no longer be relied upon because they chose to commit crime, they continued on in their jobs, continuing to inflict decisions on the Scottish Public, picking up their inflated salary and preserving their fat pension pot)

Cunningham, it would appear, sees nothing wrong with this (or at least she is misleading the Scottish Public by saying that sufficient safeguards exist to prevent such crimes)?

It may have been a better use of Scottish Parliamentary time to name and shame these crims, detailing their crimes and then taking positive action to root them out and begin rebuilding Scotland's Judicial System which is nothing other than a whore?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The judges are so stuffed with money it makes a Christmas turkey look like a baby chicken.To think we are supposed to respect this lot when really they are against us from day one is just cant find the words really.

Expose the lot of them for what they are A FRAUD ON SOCIETY

11 October 2014 23:56
"'"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Gravy slurpers!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The list in the judiciary website is not the truth and I know this because my solicitor put in a request the sheriff recuse himself in my case in Edinburgh building maintenance dispute and sheriff refused not surprised because the clerks refused to put in the paperwork for weeks before and I only knew about this because of you and same goes for my lawyer the conflict of interest is relation of sheriff represents building company involved so sheriff rules on case involving relation and nothing in the list on the judiciary of scotland website not even the refusal so can I name the sheriff in another comment or can you do something about it please?

12 October 2014 15:10
££££££££££££££££££££

When a Judge made a Decision against me, after they should have Recused themselves, I was told nothing could be done to rectify the situation in my favour as the Judge was a good guy and if action was taken against them it would 'harm their reputation!'

Shaun Paton

Anonymous said...

It did not go unnoticed that there were several Patriots who spoke up for Truth, Honesty, Transparency and Justice in the debate in Parliament.

And there was Roseanna Cunningham..

Anonymous said...

As the Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali pointed out in her evidence to the Petitions Committee, a lack of records of recusals is clearly worrying but OF EVEN MORE CONCERN is the fact that parties are not able to consider if there are any grounds for them to request a judge to recuse him/herself BEFORE a trial takes place - and it's too late after the event.

Clearly Lord Gill and his cronies want to keep it that way, I wonder why?

Anonymous said...

Really did not know judges failed to declare this kind of stuff and why not spoken about until now?

I dont believe that bit about the judge saying there is no records of it before April 1 this has to be a lie someone must have taken a note or something if a judge was asked about his or her interests so must be too much to hide to make it public anyone is going to come to this conclusion and the judges are telling us lies all along.

Anonymous said...

Obviously they are not going to declare financial holdings after you revealed they are investing in crooked companies and tax dodging!

They must all be at it probably have the same kinds of shares etc and holdings in whatever now we know about it all these secrets must come out!

Anonymous said...

I wonder, what kind of checks and scrutiny is involved when selecting a Scottish Judge or Sheriff for duty?

Is it if they are a member of the Golf Club, a member of the Speculative Society, a Freemason or a Yes Man (or woman)?

It stands to reason that the (cess) pool from which Scottish Judges and Sheriff's are chosen is likely to contain many rogues, swindlers and vagabonds as they have practiced for years in an entirely corrupt regime, where the Law Society of Scotland has made sure that Scottish lawyers are above the law and are totally unaccountable for their actions?

The Law Society of Scotland's control of the environment that Scottish lawyers work in is responsible for the constant diminution of standards over time and they must be held responsible for the terrible state of Scotland's Justice System?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 12 October 2014 23:20

On most occasions when bodies within the legal system are asked for historical data a definitive answer on whether the data exists or not is hardly ever forthcoming.

As in the case of historical data on sectarian offences in Scotland prior to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act (Scotland) the Crown Office were asked by MSPs for such data, then later it was discovered they shredded it so MSPs and independent experts were not able to scrutinise it

The same will be true of some of the historical data relating to recusals, most of which may now be destroyed, although some does exist because certain people now talking have seen it.

There is no doubt among those in the know this was a political decision to shred the historical evidence in that particular case.

@ 13 October 2014 01:02

This is the case ... many members of the judiciary do have the same kinds of investments, offshore trusts, investments in companies found guilty of committing criminal offences, companies providing services to the justice system, and the usual array of trusts designed to minimise payment of inheritance tax and other tariffs.

Many members of the judiciary also have investments in renewable energy firms, as well as some having family members working in these companies ... so next time a wind farm or green energy company is in court spare a thought for the judge who may be making megabucks from the parties before him without anyone bothering to ask about it ...

@ 13 October 2014 08:01

Tap on the shoulder still exists for selecting judges ... a member of the boys club with the same kind investments, habits, perhaps the occasional piece of information which can be used to keep them in line - so said a Law Society Council member in a recent exchange on this subject ...

Anonymous said...

You must be plugged into the justice system to be able to reply as you do.

I read the link also am in no doubt the historical data on sectarian offences was destroyed to make sure of no independent scrutiny.

Getting back to the interests of the judges it is about time the tail stopped wagging the dog and parliament acted to create a judicial register no matter how the judges feel about it.

Anonymous said...

It is worrying although not surprising to learn candidates are being selected for the judiciary based on what some people know about them and this used to keep them in line.

So much for the "trust me I am a judge" line.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Thought provoking blog.

A suggestion.Ever thought about dropping the "in Scotland" from the title?

No offense intended.I am just saying this because you are writing about issues which cross borders.I am sure some of your readers from outside Scotland such as myself (BC Canada) have experienced similar problems with our own legal systems.

The issue with judges is a frightening one and leads me to suspect our own judiciary are at it as much as yours.

Keep hammering away you guys!

12 October 2014 17:30
0000000000000000000000

Sad to hear but if you look through the DOI Journalist archive, the SSDT published decisions and press reports you would see that the jurisdiction in Scotland is notorious as being the worst in the World by far.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Obviously they are not going to declare financial holdings after you revealed they are investing in crooked companies and tax dodging!

They must all be at it probably have the same kinds of shares etc and holdings in whatever now we know about it all these secrets must come out!

13 October 2014 01:02
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The problem is as long as the Scottish Judiciary veto every attempt for action to take action against therm then we always end back at the starting poeint, with the status quo retained.

Anonymous said...

I love this blog!Go get those corrupt judges and put them in the county jail where they belong!

Anonymous said...

What incentive do Scottish Judges have to abide by the Rule of Law, when their pals at the Crown Office and the Law Society of Scotland are crooked Scottish lawyers?

Especially considering that when a Judge or Scottish Lawyer is found to have broken the law, the Law Society of Scotland insist that they be allowed to deal with it in-house (Cover-Up) instead of the individual being investigated by the Police?

Thus, Scottish crooked lawyers are literally allowed routinely to be above the law, so that they can be let off Scot-Free?

This is in effect wilful Treason?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 15 October 2014 13:59

No incentive, it is about money. Judges earn up to £220K a year plus pension etc ... they dont bank the majority of it in their local High Street Bank ... rather it goes off to tax efficient destinations, big business etc ...