Wednesday, December 17, 2014

COMPARE THE JUDGES: MSPs call for US style transparency on judicial declarations as Minister fails to convince Holyrood committee that secretive & wealthy judges should be excluded from a register of interests

Minister fails to convince MSPs judges wealth & links to big business should remain secret. MSPs from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee are now deciding their next moves in their investigation of proposals to create a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, after taking evidence from Paul Wheelhouse - the Minister for Community Safety & Legal Affairs.

The evidence session with Mr Wheelhouse, taking place at Holyrood last Tuesday 9 December, also heard of comparisons with a US register of financial interests for judges which could serve as a model for any register of judges interests in Scotland.

Petition PE1458 – a proposal to increase judicial transparency and 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.

Appearing in place of Scotland’s top judge Lord President Lord Brian Gill and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice – both of whom have refused invitations to appear before the Committee on previous occasions, Paul Wheelhouse said he recognised the public concern about a judiciary which is "shrouded in privacy" and will seek assurances from Scotland's top judge and the judicial complaints reviewer that the voluntary system of declaring interests is "robust". He could not give a guarantee that judges have not presided over cases where they have had an interest in the past, nor could he give a 100% guarantee that they would not do so in the future to Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee.

Scottish Government aides to Mr Wheelhouse who accompanied him to the meeting were also forced to admit they and Mr Wheelhouse had not even met the new JCR, nor the Lord President. It also came out neither the Minister or civil servants had yet had sight of Lord Gill’s proposed changes to the complaints rules – even though the consultation held by the top judge on rules changes had ended over a year ago.

Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse evidence to Petitions Committee Petition 1458 Register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary

During the evidence hearing, it was also revealed the new Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), Gillian Thompson OBE – who authored a report on undeclared interests of Scottish Court Service staff, failed to answer letters from the Petitions Committee or provide MSPs with a copy of the final report of Scotland's first JCR – Moi Ali – who supports the call for 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

Entering the debate for the first time publicly, sacked Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who replaced transparency crusader Chic Brodie MSP on the Petitions committee after losing his job in Nicola Sturgeon's cabinet reshuffle, gave a poor first performance at the Committee, fixating at one point on “football interests” of judges.

Mr MacAskill also attacked the American register of judicial interests, saying the US register had led to judicial candidates being "pilloried". Struggling on the petition he has previously opposed in letters to the Petitions Committee, MacAskill then asked if judges would have to disclose their favourite football team.

However, several MSPs from across the political spectrum said there was no strong argument against a judges' register when MSPs have to disclose their interests.

Mr Wheelhouse then went on to attack the media and the public’s expectation of transparency. Following a script of top judge Gill, who has already attached the press, Wheelhouse claimed that rules requiring judges to disclose their vast wealth, links to big business & other connections, may open the judiciary up to “potentially hostile and aggressive press action”.

The comments sparked ire at the Petitions Committee.

Media articles including The Times reports MSPs want register of judges interests to go ahead. Convener David Stewart said: The big issue that I and my colleagues have been pushing is that it is assumed that those who appear before a judge have some form of psychic powers. How will they know whether there is a conflict? If there is no register, they will not be aware of it.

Until Chic Brodie and I met the Lord President, there was no system for recording recusals. We made that point to the Lord President, and—in fairness—he agreed to put a system in place, but it came into force only in April. It is only since then that we have been able to assess whether judges have recused themselves. Previously, that was a complete mystery; even recusals were a mystery.

You make out that everything is done fairly and is all above board. However, an ordinary person who appears before a judge does not have a clue whether there is any conflict of interest. That is the key point. We want—or rather, the petitioner wants—a system that is similar to the system for other public officials.

Your only real argument is that judges cannot defend themselves. I am sorry, but that is not a very strong argument.

Replying, in similar words used by Lord Gill himself in letters to MSPs, Minister Paul Wheelhouse said : If I may say so, convener, you misrepresent what I said. I did not say that that is the only ground for my view. There are serious concerns about potential influence on the judiciary as a result of revealing their interests in a public register. That would open them up to potentially hostile and aggressive press action, which might apply pressure on them to come down in a particular way in an adjudication.

Mr Wheelhouse's predecessor Roseanna Cunningham was not persuaded by the need for a register, insisting ''the safeguards currently in place are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary''. However, Ms Cunningham failed to persuade MSPs during a full debate on judicial interests at Holyrood in October, which saw a cross party vote and support for the proposal to create a register of judicial interests.

Lord President Brian Gill has declined two invitations to give oral evidence to the committee but has provided written submissions. His latest submission revealed a list of trials where a judge or sheriff voluntarily stepped down or was asked to leave in the last year when a conflict of interest was disclosed.

They included a sheriff whose membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) was seen as an obstacle to presiding over a case involving the RSPB and another who was asked to leave a trial where a report was written by his colleague's wife.

The Lord President personally recused himself from a civil trial at the Court of Session in June because a relative acted for a respondent in court.

Diary of Injustice reported on the case involving the recusal of the top judge - revealing the “relative” of Lord Gill turned out to be his own son, Advocate Brian Gill, who was acting for the respondent. The case in which the recusal was made is still shrouded in secrecy as Scottish Court Service officials & Judicial Office refuse to give any further details to the media.

Speaking at the committee, Mr Wheelhouse said: "I do recognise the concern that the recusal process is, to some extent, shrouded in privacy because it is within the judiciary itself and not open to public scrutiny. "I will look to discuss the degree to which the Lord President and the new JCR have any suggestions on how that should be addressed in future."

Labour MSP Anne McTaggart said she is "not fully convinced yet that there is an argument" for judges to withhold their interests when MSPs have to declare them.

Independent MSP John Wilson asked "who judges the judges?" and called for a 100% assurance that every judge and sheriff will recuse themselves when a conflict arises.

The full official report of the meeting & evidence from Paul Wheelhouse to the Public Petitions Committee will be published next week on Diary of Injustice, to maintain the record of the debate.

TOP JUDGE WHO SAID NO-NO TO TRANSPARENCY & SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT:

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 at least 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 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.”

Even though Scotland’s top judge opposes the creation of a register of interests, MSPs held a debate in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber on Thursday 7 October 2014, which saw cross party support for the proposal. MSPs overwhelmingly supported motion S4M-11078 - in the name of Public Petitions Convener David Stewart MSP on petition PE1458, urging the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges.

The parliamentary debate was reported by Diary of Injustice along with video coverage here: TRANSPARENCY TIME: Top judge & Scottish Government told to rethink refusal on declarations of judges as Holyrood MSPs support calls to create a register of judicial interests

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

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes I heard about this.Wheelhouse made a complete cock up of the whole thing as did his briefing team.

Must have been very embarrassing for the other committee members to watch MacAskill in action.'Shambolic' is how someone was talking about him over the weekend and referred to you and your petition in a lot of detail.

Good work proves you are on the right track when Gill's stand in Minister stand cant even convince msps against openness and transparency.

Anonymous said...

People should be asking

Why is an SNP Scottish Government attacking and accusing the media to protect judges who are tax dodgers and criminals and have shares in bribes companies?

Its not like there is no evidence because we already know what is going on so declare it!

Anonymous said...

There was no misrepresentation on David Stewart's part - Wheelhouse got it wrong as has Lord Gill.

Anyway I imagine you will be happy because all this ministerial effort against your petition and a register of their interests tells us we really need it!

Keep up the good work Peter.

Anonymous said...

Go to 25min55sec on the video clip to see MacAskill accusing the Americans over selection of judges.

As if he can give anyone lessons.No wonder Sturgeon sacked him and if he was sent to the petitions committee to spoil your petition he is making it worse for Gill not better.

Anonymous said...

Gillian Thompson was the choice of the Law Society of Scotland having helped the Law Society of Scotland out of a seriously big hole in her former role as Chief Executive of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, which she was forced out of because of this untenable link?

Anonymous said...

Given Mr Wheelhouse' astounding if lackluster 55 minute argument against transparency for these judges we should now look at his record on Climate change and other issues!

Anonymous said...

This has been all over the newspapers and even STV carried it.Well done!

Anonymous said...

Wheelhouse well out of his depth here his boss Lord Gill will not be amused

Anonymous said...

Keep on digging why dont you Mr Wheelhouse!

How did MacAskill get into that state? He looks umm..you know..

Anonymous said...

Now that Lord NoNo headline is hung around Wheelhouse's neck he will never be rid of it.

Best to bring in this register to law asap

Anonymous said...

So the new JCR is not even bothering to meet the politicians or even reply to MSPs on a matter of such importance as this.

Must be a lot of secrets to hide when so many politicians judges and obe types are refusing to show up!

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with Mr Stewart what he said to Wheelhouse

"You make out that everything is done fairly and is all above board. However, an ordinary person who appears before a judge does not have a clue whether there is any conflict of interest. That is the key point. We want—or rather, the petitioner wants—a system that is similar to the system for other public officials.

Your only real argument is that judges cannot defend themselves. I am sorry, but that is not a very strong argument."

Anonymous said...

Heh sorry Mr Wheelhouse you sound like you are hiding something just like the judges.

What politician gets up and defends a group of people wearing 18th century wigs and gowns who go around threatening the free press and parliament and anyone who question their ways and what they get up to.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry but we cannot have Ministers lying in a Public Forum in front of the Public Petitions committee?

How can he say that he has full confidence in Scotland's Judiciary and that the Public has confidence in the Scottish Judiciary, when we know that we currently have Judges & Sheriff's who are willfully passing themselves off as Judges when they are convicted felons?

The very fact they are convicted felons is paper evidence that their Judgement has been corrupted to the extent that they have chosen to break the law and have been convicted for breaking the law?

This is cast iron proof that these Judges judgement cannot be trusted?

The fact that the Scottish Court Service,n the Scottish Crown Office and Ministers have sought to keep this a secret from the Scottish Public is most likely an offence in itself as it allows these convicted felons to continue to act like a Judge when their judgement cannot be relied upon and where every decision they have reached whilst having a compromised judgement will now need to be annulled?

So let's not have anymore lies and bowing to The Lord President's Rule of Command, when he has shown that he is incapable of being trusted in any way, shape or form?

Get on the programme Minister, or you will be going the same way as your pal MacAskill, who was also an apologist for the unacceptable?

Anonymous said...

What about when the SSDT Chairman, SSDT Clerk and the Law Society of Scotland's Prosecuting Fiscal were all forced to Recuse themselves recently when the defendant before the SSDT said he would have them all questioned under oath before their own SSDT Panel for having previously let him off for the same serious offences.

Especially as The Lord President is currently investigating this matter.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill sounds like he hates the USA

Anonymous said...

Very interesting all these people Gill is wheeling out to put his arguments across without actually showing up.

Wheelhouse did just as bad a job as Roseanna Cunningham.I watched the video clip of the debate and found her just as annoying in her defence of judges rights to hide what they want up their robes.

Makes no sense.These are not super state secrets some judge being a tax dodger or drunk at the wheel or a property magnate or whatever.We do have a right to know!

Anonymous said...

Just seeing a judge in an old silly get up like that is enough reason to reform the courts so lets be having all their interests declared as well instead of everybody running around trying to hide and meet in the classroom corner like a bunch of snitches.

Anonymous said...

So the man who freed a convicted mass murderer thinks he knows best about choosing judges? Good thing you guys stayed with the UK instead of allowing people like him to brainwash you pffft

Anonymous said...

Chic Brodie must have looked at this and thought MacAskill a right tosser what an absolute waste of space listening to that football drivel at a parliamentary committee and the convener having to welcome him and say that line about experience in government that fails to deliver

loser at justice and now acts the fool to throw a debate bring back Chic Brodie any day at least he knows to ask the right questions and get some answers!

Anonymous said...

No one in their right mind would advocate retaining the status quo in Scotland's Judiciary, unless they were on the Law Society of Scotland's payroll?

Anonymous said...

loser at justice and now acts the fool to throw a debate bring back Chic Brodie any day at least he knows to ask the right questions and get some answers!

17 December 2014 at 22:49

aye compare the politicians as well as the judges MacAskill is rubbish compared with Chic Brodie you can tell that easy

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Heh sorry Mr Wheelhouse you sound like you are hiding something just like the judges.

What politician gets up and defends a group of people wearing 18th century wigs and gowns who go around threatening the free press and parliament and anyone who question their ways and what they get up to.

17 December 2014 at 18:51
£££££££££££££££££££££££££

The irony of the Minister reading from a Law Society of Scotland pre-prepared script will not be lost on the Scottish People if it wasn't so galling?

It's the same old status quo self-serving, back-slapping, gravy-gurgling self interests and all that changes is the face, the message stays the same and they continue to treat the Scottish People with the utmost contempt and revulsion as if we did not have the gumption to put a stop to their cash-grabbing scam?

The sooner we have someone who sticks up for the Scottish People for a change the better, so that we can get an impartial Lord President who has got more interest in the rule of law rather than the amount of their bank balance?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Yes I heard about this.Wheelhouse made a complete cock up of the whole thing as did his briefing team.

Must have been very embarrassing for the other committee members to watch MacAskill in action.'Shambolic' is how someone was talking about him over the weekend and referred to you and your petition in a lot of detail.

Good work proves you are on the right track when Gill's stand in Minister stand cant even convince msps against openness and transparency.

17 December 2014 at 13:27
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The most amazing thing I took away from this address before the Petitions Committee, for all the politeness and eloquence, that Mr Wheelhouse thought that he had done well by the Law Society of Scotland in dutifully reading out their statement?

Another complete misjudgement by the status quo and another classic case of car crash TV?

We cannot have Judges and Sheriffs who cannot be trusted, lie, cheat and steal and keep secrets from the Scottish Public about the criminals they are harbouring?

As long as Scottish Judges stay silent, to keep this a secret from the Scottish People means that their judgement cannot be trusted, notwithstanding that they may be committing a crime by failing to report these convicted criminals to the police for continuing to take the Queens shilling after being exposed as unfit to be a judge?

No if's or but's, the Scottish Justice System has been brought into the most complete disrepute by Scottish Judges and this is why they have the lowest trust ever in the history of law in Scotland from the Scottish People?

Anonymous said...

Wheelhouse "potentially hostile and aggressive press action, which might apply pressure on them to come down in a particular way in an adjudication."

Reality "If the judges declare they are crooks and have their snouts into crooked bankers and the Caymans all hell will break loose!"

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Go to 25min55sec on the video clip to see MacAskill accusing the Americans over selection of judges.

As if he can give anyone lessons.No wonder Sturgeon sacked him and if he was sent to the petitions committee to spoil your petition he is making it worse for Gill not better.

17 December 2014 at 14:36
:;:;:;::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:,::;::,;:,:,:,:;

Discredited Law Society of Scotland robot.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill obviously still thinks he's the bees kness and can elbow his way in putting questions without first being invited - disrespectful to the Committee Chairman and all other members of the Committee.........but typical of the man.

Anonymous said...

It's like the School yard bully getting his supporters to pick on the new kid and beat them up, while he hides back in the shadows laughing at his bully boys for doing his dirty work and laughing at the new kid who's been punched about the head.

The Lord President's continued influence makes the average occasional viewer of The Diary of Injustice truth files get hooked on this State Soap Opera.

Word is that Hollywood is interested in obtaining the exclusive rights for a book, film and merchandise deal. They just could not make up this material...

Anonymous said...

Who was the rubbish speechwriter for Wheelhouse?? Also when MacAskill speaks Wheelhouse tries to make it not look too rehearsed how sad of them cant even get their stories straight!

Anonymous said...

MacAskill's drivel about the USA is nothing more than a smokescreen.

The Petition is about judges registering their interests AFTER they have been appointed. The appointment process is still firmly in the hands of the 'old oy club' aka the Lord President has the final say.

Anonymous said...

Poor excuse for a Minister of Justice and his staff are not much better.This is really how Scottish Government present themselves to your own legislature?
Very unprofessional.Probably the worst I have seen for awhile.

Anonymous said...

Mr Wheelhouse was not able to give a convincing performance even with the script provided by Lord Gill and Kenny MacAskill's one short of a brain interventions..

Anonymous said...

What evidence?
He provided the committee with nothing and couldnt even substantiate his claims.Always revert revert revert and get back to you.Total rubbish.You can see that from the way the other msps excluding MacAskill react to Wheelhouse.The civil servants with the 'minister' were also a disaster.Given msps have already agreed they want the register via that motion in October someone should be taking this forward as a bill to pass into law.

Anonymous said...

"The full official report of the meeting & evidence from Paul Wheelhouse to the Public Petitions Committee will be published next week on Diary of Injustice, to maintain the record of the debate."

And a merry christmas to Lard Gill!!

ps the captcha just got a whole lot more annoying!

Anonymous said...

Yes very good showing you had last week in the media.I hope you checked out what I wrote about Paul Wheelhouse and Qatar because we may end up doing the story after all now he has been outed on your petition as another anti media type.

Anonymous said...

Who is next to be invoked by Lord Gill to decimate transparency and the Scottish Parliament? God himself perhaps?

What an old fool of a judge choosing to wage a ware against openness and the people.

Anonymous said...

What is all this nonsense talked by Mr. Wheelhouse about there being no no evidence the voluntary recusal system is not working.

DOI reported on s spectsculsr exsmple of failure at;

http://petercherbi.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=willie+beck

This was also covered in the mainstream press, then there was the evidenc of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer informing the Committee of complaints she had received about such failures.

Either Mr. Wheelhouse hasn't done his homework or he is deliberately relying on a stubborn ignorance of the facts to protect the wholly unsatisfactory status quo.

Anonymous said...

Who judges the judges? - well this is the problem as the answer currently is the JUDGES judge the judges!

Has to stop and all this nonsense about judicial independence whenever they are asked about their own affairs is just another threat tactic to avoid scrutiny.

As others are saying already make this petition into a law and require the judges to declare otherwise they cannot be judges if they are more concerned with hiding their own interests than delivering justice.

Anonymous said...

jaw dropping blog

Anonymous said...

A friend who works as a clerk in a sheriff court tells me the sheriff often meet up with lawyers to discuss cases before they even appeared in the court and then have to act surprised as if he never heard about it before

Anonymous said...

Mr Wheelhouse - another of the politicians who get their civil serpents to write back and say nothing can be done go bother a public body instead of us.

Keep up the good work Peter.

Anonymous said...

Just as the head of the committee says - not much of an argument to keep the judges interests secret.

There must be a lot of corruption in the judiciary going on when judges can defy the same laws everyone else has to obey.Easy to reach this conclusion with the way they reacted to being asked about their own interests.

Anonymous said...

worth a comment - ex bbc employee today having a laugh at bbcscot colleagues brought in by Lord Advocate desperate to talk up justice/courts successes.turns out beeb hacks told to comply and told to watch levels of praise for nats justice policies.

Anonymous said...

Just like The Lord Advocate Mullholland's barmy comments today, these believers in fiction about the fitness of purpose of the Scottish Judicial and Prosecutorial System are fast becoming the unwitting comedians at their own expense, as the Scottish Public know when they are being taken as fools by fools and know when they are being lied to?

To say that the only place for the truth to be resolved is in a Scottish court is one of the best one liners ever, worthy of winning any Edinburgh Fringe Comedy Festival Awards, such is the absurdness of the statement and it being voted King of oxymorons ever to be uttered?

I wonder if we are observing a very public insanity or whether these liars are being deliberately obtuse through years of habit?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
A friend who works as a clerk in a sheriff court tells me the sheriff often meet up with lawyers to discuss cases before they even appeared in the court and then have to act surprised as if he never heard about it before

19 December 2014 at 10:11
#####################%#%%%

I can tell you better than that, when I was up against the Law Society of Scotland as a Party Litigant, my opposition Advocate came out of the Judges Chambers along with the Judge and said, the Judge is on his way and you are really going to get it now!

Anonymous said...

There must be some very rotten corrupt filthy people going about to replace Mr Brodie on the committee with a politician who was sacked and has such a bad reputation like MacAskill and his contribution to the debate was miserable.

And now I have read some more of your other posts he should have "recused" himself from having anything to do with your petition since he wrote letters on behalf of the judge who opposes it.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 20 December 2014 at 19:58

When Press Releases end up being read out as news items ... viewers with an interest in the subject eventually turn to other sources of information ...

@ 20 December 2014 at 22:28

Justice by PR. Any anniversary is jumped on by politicians, prosecutors and judges to justify their role in any case or law no matter how many questions there are about it.

Another fix on the justice system being put out by the courts is the idea of pre recorded evidence ... allegedly to enable trials to go faster.

However, with the quality and honesty of witnesses in Scottish courts deteriorating almost on a weekly basis, while prosecutors cherry pick what evidence they want to present and leave out this will only cause further injustice.

@ 21 December 2014 at 11:21

Like Bankers praising Bankers, people with a vested legal interest speak up for people with a vested legal interest ... It is not rocket science.

Mr MacAskill signed off on all letters from the Scottish Government refusing to back the petition, he did not even speak for the Scottish Government during the Parliamentary debate in October, and he refused an invitation to give evidence at the Petitions Committee when he was still Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

The public debate on judges, their accountability, their interests, and the petition, goes on ...

Anonymous said...

Another fix on the justice system being put out by the courts is the idea of pre recorded evidence ... allegedly to enable trials to go faster.

However, with the quality and honesty of witnesses in Scottish courts deteriorating almost on a weekly basis, while prosecutors cherry pick what evidence they want to present and leave out this will only cause further injustice.

@ 21 December 2014 at 11:21
__________________________________

I am glad you have drawn this distinction, which shows just how perceptive you are?

Through the excellent and insightful Diary of Injustice in Scotland, we now know that our Justice System has failed, is broken beyond repair and is being run as a closed shop for people who's vested interests are for their own cash enrichment rather than to comply with the law?

This latest gambit, to allow an already crooked lot to be allowed to have witness testimony taken at an early stage, is a cynical ploy to allow the Crown and the Defence lawyers to 'cut deals' between them as to what the outcome should be for their joint benefit?

Similarly too for a commercial case, where the deal cutting looks like it is being given the green light?

This would have ZERO bearing on the speed of the court system and is a complete red-herring?

It is the whole Scottish System that is diseased and until we come up with a radical new system, which focuses on what is right for the two parties in a dispute rather than the 'court players', who are all Scottish lawyers, the status quo is selling the people of Scotland down the river?

55% of all prosecutable cases (i.e. having been investigated by the police, been reported to the Proc Fiscal and the Proc Fiscal recommending the case for prosecution based on the good prospects of a successful prosecution) in Scotland are 'Sifted Out'?

Sifting Out means, all of the cases that are against Scottish lawyers, the Law Society of Scotland and their friends are all thrown in the bin, to get these people off Scot Free?

Thereafter, the majority of the rape cases, child abuse cases, cases against people they have the chance to save from prosecution for favours in return and complicated expensive cases are thrown in the same bin?

This leaves a few cases 45% of the total that are easy, straightforward cases and especially cases where they can generate a headline to make them look good, like concentrating on 'money cases' whereupon they go after bank accounts of free cash, which is loosely recorded and sloshing around so various can dip into them when it suits them to do so?

Anything that these creeps suggest as an improvement is tantamount to them taking the mickey and laughing at the Scottish People for believing such tosh?

The status quo want to keep things exactly as they are thank you very much, so that they can all pass GO and all collect £200?

Scotland's corrupt Monopoly Game?

Anonymous said...

Another one here with no recused.My solicitor pointed out to the advocate the judge has a conflict of interest.
The advocate refused to ask the judge to recused.Outside the court my solicitor told me the advocate threatened to withdraw from representing me if asked again to ask the judge.solicitor said the conflict involving a bank is important and must be reported also he said the judge was told about what happened and he thought the judge knew what was going on as he turned very nasty with my advocate and us after my solicitor passed him the paper in court.I have not named the judge or anyone so please publish the comment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Another one here with no recused. My solicitor pointed out to the advocate the judge has a conflict of interest. The advocate refused to ask the judge to recused. Outside the court my solicitor told me the advocate threatened to withdraw from representing me if asked again to ask the judge. Solicitor said the conflict involving a bank is important and must be reported also he said the judge was told about what happened and he thought the judge knew what was going on as he turned very nasty with my advocate and us after my solicitor passed him the paper in court. I have not named the judge or anyone so please publish the comment.
=========================================================================
Please do not think I am being negative but there is no complaints system. By all means try it but report back when you get nowhere. Many have tried including myself only to find the revolting fact that they are a crooked cartel who want to appear to be honest and decent upstanding members of society when they are really professional criminals. The Judges and Lawyers and their so called professional unions are bought and paid for by big business. They know where their bread is secretly buttered and help themselves to Legal Aid too as a freeby from the taxpayer.

Anonymous said...

If MacAskill is so hot on criticising the selection of judges in the USA he should go across and give them an explanation of how its done here and then take questions!

Anonymous said...

These Scottish gaggle of nincompoops are hilarious.

Anonymous said...

Not a very good performance from Wheelhouse who happens to be my msp!
Why is he protecting judges and trying to keep their money and stuff a secret?
Dont agree with him at all!

Anonymous said...

Watch MacAskill at about 42mins to 43mins20seconds talking about judges and football!

Not very rehearsed eh and the reply from Wheelhouse.Pathetic rehearsed banter trying to detract from the debate.

At least the leader of the committee comes in to save the day after he realised what just happened because it is so obvious to anyone watching it MacAskill does not want this to go ahead and Wheelhouse is there fully compliant with lawyer Kenny always a lawyer

Anonymous said...

When a corrupt rotten politician begins to talk you can hear it shine through no matter how hard they try to disguise it,same goes for these no show judges who are not showing because they are rotten to the core.Nothing to hide?then show up.Something to hide?They write nasty letters and dont appear in public to back up their threats etc

Anonymous said...

To the last comment - yes well pointed out also buckfast sounds/looks as if he is well over the limit!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Watch MacAskill at about 42mins to 43mins20seconds talking about judges and football!

Not very rehearsed eh and the reply from Wheelhouse.Pathetic rehearsed banter trying to detract from the debate.

At least the leader of the committee comes in to save the day after he realised what just happened because it is so obvious to anyone watching it MacAskill does not want this to go ahead and Wheelhouse is there fully compliant with lawyer Kenny always a lawyer

23 December 2014 at 01:38
-----------------------------------------

With any involvement of the Law Society of Scotland you can be sure there is criminality involved?

Anonymous said...

Ya de yah de yah...


If Wheelhouse has shown that he is not part of the solution, then he is part of the problem!

Big Wullie Beck said...

Judges should not be above the law.
If a register of interests is good enough for all MSP's then why not judges.
I fail to see how any MSP does not get this issue.
In any event the courts have the power to deal with any and all who would dare hassle them or cause them any undue distress.
It is a sham where they are afraid the public will see they are sitting on cases they ought not to be doing when for instance they have shares in companies.
Talking from experience I would have objected to judges hearing my appeal had I known one had prosecuted me or the other was my trial judges son.