The move by Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee who met on Thursday 7 December to look for a way forward - comes after the petition secured powerful backing of former Cabinet Secretary Alex Neil MSP (SNP).
In an interview with The National newspaper, and a posting on Mr Neil's Facebook page, Alex Neil said : “It is now time for the Petitions Committee itself to look at using the powers of parliamentary committees to introduce a Bill to set up a judicial register of interests.”
Alex Neil added: ““There is no doubt in my mind at all that it is long overdue. I do not see why judges should be any different from ministers or MSPs, and they should need to declare interests as most people in public service do these days.
“A Bill of this nature is badly needed, and if it can be done on an all-party basis through the Petitions Committee, then the committee’s members should not wait and should act now to sponsor a Bill.
“I am very supportive of the Petitions Committee, which I think is a very good committee, and it is now time for them to seriously consider bringing forward their own Bill on this matter, as I have no doubt that the case for such a register has been thoroughly made out.”
The Public Petitions Committee have now decided to consider the position in private at a later meeting - and formulate letters to Lord Carloway and Justice Secretary Michael Matheson which will be published in due course.
During the short hearing last Thursday, Deputy Convener Angus MacDonald MSP (SNP) who is known to support the petition, commented: “..we must move forward. We have been considering the petition for five years and Mr Cherbi’s latest submission shows a degree of frustration, which I share.”
The published decision states: “PE1458 by Peter Cherbi on Register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. The Committee agreed to consider a letter to the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in private at a future meeting.”
The latest developments in the 22nd hearing of Petition PE1458 on calls to create a register of judges’ interests comes after MSPs previously heard over sixty two submissions of evidence, during twenty one Committee hearings, including a private meeting between two MSPs and a top judge, and fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate spanning from 2012 to 2017.
The judicial interests petition - first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, 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.
A full report containing video footage of every hearing, speech, and evidence sessions at the Scottish Parliament on Petition PE1450 can be found here: Scottish Parliament debates, speeches & evidence sessions on widely supported judicial transparency petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland's judiciary
A report on the Public Petitions Committee meeting of 7 December 2017 & video coverage follows:
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)
The Convener: The fourth and final item today is consideration of five continued petitions. The first petition for consideration under this item is PE1458, from Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary
We last considered the petition in June, when we took evidence from Lord Carloway, the Lord President. We agreed to reflect on that evidence and we have a briefing note that summarises the issues that came up in that evidence session. We also have two submissions from the petitioner that convey his response to the evidence and provide information about additional developments in relation to the recusal of judges.
As members are aware, the petition has been under consideration for five years and we have a good understanding of the arguments for and against the introduction of a register of interests for judges. There has been some movement on that.
Do members have any comments on what we should do next?
Angus MacDonald: As you say, convener, the petition has been on-going for five years. It is worth noting that it was originally based on the consideration of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill in New Zealand, which was dropped after we started to take evidence on Peter Cherbi’s petition.
We have taken extensive evidence on the petition over the past five years, including from the former Lord President, Lord Gill, the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, as well as the former Judicial Complaints Reviewers Moi Ali and Gillian Thompson. We appreciate the time that they have all given to the committee.
The petition has already secured a result, to the extent that there is more transparency because judicial recusals are now published, which did not happen previously. It is worth pointing out that that still does not happen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We should be proud that the petition has achieved that.
However, I note that the petitioner has suggested that we take evidence from Baroness Hale, President of the UK Supreme Court, as well as from the new Judicial Complaints Reviewer. It would stretch the bounds of the petition to take evidence from Baroness Hale, as the petition urges the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests in Scotland. I am not sure that our remit extends to the UK Supreme Court. Mr Cherbi should perhaps take that aspect of the matter to the UK Parliament Petitions Committee, which may have the remit.
The Convener: I sense that we have agreement to the approach outlined by Angus MacDonald, which is not to take further evidence, but to bring together our conclusions and write to the Scottish Government, recognising that there has been some progress. Do we agree to draft a letter on our conclusions in private, although the final letter will be in the public domain?
Members indicated agreement.
Angus MacDonald: I agree, but we must move forward. We have been considering the petition for five years and Mr Cherbi’s latest submission shows a degree of frustration, which I share.
The Convener: We understand that, but there should also be recognition of the fact that there has been some progress.
Do members agree to send the letter to the Lord President as well as the cabinet secretary?
Members indicated agreement.
The National reported on the latest developments and support from former Cabinet Secretary Alex Neil MSP:
Martin Hannan Journalist 7th December 2017
A PETITION calling for judges to openly register their financial and other interests has received its biggest boost to date.
Five years to the day after it was lodged at the Scottish Parliament, former minister Alex Neil MSP will today call on Holyrood’s Petitions Committee to start the process of bringing a Bill before Parliament.
The transparency petition was lodged by legal affairs journalist and campaigner Peter Cherbi on December 7 2012, and it will be considered again today — the 22nd time it has gone in front of the Holyrood committee.
The SNP’s Alex Neil has followed the petition with interest and has actively campaigned for the judicial register of interests to be introduced.
He told The National yesterday: “It is now time for the Petitions Committee itself to look at using the powers of parliamentary committees to introduce a Bill to set up a judicial register of interests.
“There is no doubt in my mind at all that it is long overdue. I do not see why judges should be any different from ministers or MSPs, and they should need to declare interests as most people in public service do these days.
“A Bill of this nature is badly needed, and if it can be done on an all-party basis through the Petitions Committee, then the committee’s members should not wait and should act now to sponsor a Bill.
“I am very supportive of the Petitions Committee, which I think is a very good committee, and it is now time for them to seriously consider bringing forward their own Bill on this matter, as I have no doubt that the case for such a register has been thoroughly made out.”
Both Lord Carloway and Lord Gill, the current and former Lord Presidents of the Court of Session respectively — the senior judge position in Scotland — have opposed such a register of interests.
At least two High Court judges — Lord Carloway and Lady Smith — already declare their interests because they are members of the board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service.
They did so for the first time last month, along with Sheriff Duncan L Murray, after a Freedom of Information request.
Welcoming Alex Neil’s intervention, Cherbi said: “For five years, the Scottish Parliament has considered a petition calling for a register of judicial interests.
“In this time, the petition has generated more than 62 submissions of evidence, 21 committee hearings, a private meeting between MSPs and a top judge, 15 speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate, and two appearances by judicial investigators — who both support the petition.
“In two of those meetings, two top judges were left grasping at straws when asked why the judiciary should be above public expectations of transparency.
“This proposal to create a register of interests for judges applies the same level of transparency to the judiciary which already exists in other parts of the justice system such as the police, prosecutors and court administration and will bring judges into line with all others in public life who are required to register their interests.
“Along the way, the petition has gained wide cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, wide support in the media, and the invaluable and fantastic support of two judicial complaints reviewers — Moi Ali, and Gillian Thompson.
“There is significant public interest in this petition going ahead into legislation, and if the Lord President is still against the idea of judges declaring their interests, our sovereign Parliament must act and set in law what the public expect — that judges register their interests.”
A further report from the National featured developments from the hearing and the decision to move ahead on the petition:
Martin Hannan Journalist 9th December 2017
A PETITION to the Scottish Parliament calling for judges and sheriffs to publicly register their interests seems to be nearing a successful outcome – five years after it was submitted.
The Public Petitions Committee has agreed to finalise its conclusions on the list of signatories submitted in December 2012 by legal campaigner and journalist Peter Cherbi.
The Holyrood committee agreed to consider those conclusions in private at a future meeting before writing to Scotland’s senior judge, Lord Carloway, the Lord President, as well Justice Secretary Michael Matheson.
Committee convener Johann Lamont said members would be aware the petition had been under consideration for five years and they had a “good understanding” of the arguments for and against a register.
Angus MacDonald, SNP MSP for Falkirk East, called for a “move forward” and told the committee: “This petition has been ongoing for five years to this date exactly. It’s fair to say we have taken extensive evidence on this petition over the last five years, not least from the former Lord President Lord Gill and the current Lord President Lord Carloway, as well as judicial complaints reviewers Moi Ali and Gillian Thompson.
“It’s fair to say this petition has already secured a result, to the extent that there is now more transparency, with the publication of judicial recusals [judges excusing themselves from a case due to conflict of interest] which didn’t happen before, and it’s worth pointing out that this still doesn’t happen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, so Mr Cherbi should be proud that his petition has achieved that.”
Cherbi told The National: “It has taken five years for the petition to travel through 22 committee hearings and a full debate in 2014 – during which it was evident from the 15 speeches by MSPs that cross-party support exists for the creation of a register of judicial interests.
“The case has been made for judicial disclosures – there is no rational case against it – now it is time for Holyrood to legislate to require judges to register their interests. What struck me during the public debate and contact with people was that many thought judges already declared their interests and published their recusals.
“People I talked with over the course of these five years were genuinely shocked when they found out the judiciary did neither, instead preferring to duck and dive behind oaths and guidelines the judiciary wrote and approved themselves.
“The public are entitled to expect the highest standards of transparency from all those in public life, and the judiciary are no different.
“Judges must face up to the fact that those who hold the power to take away freedoms, to change or alter the lives of others, to overturn legislation from our elected parliaments – and to do all this without any reasonable scrutiny – must now be brought up to the same, or higher, levels of transparency and accountability as the public expect of those in public life, the justice system, and government.
“Perhaps the move to open up scrutiny of a very closed shop judiciary will also lead to the opening up of judicial appointments and an increased role for the Scottish Parliament in hearing in public from those who want to become members of the judiciary.”
JUDICIAL REGISTER MUST GO FORWARD:
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support, is widely supported in the media and in public debate as a result of media coverage.
The petition secured early support of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali, and her successor as JCR - Gillian Thompson.
Moi Ali – who served as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) - appeared before the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament in a hard hitting evidence session during September of 2013, giving early backing to the proposals calling for the creation of a register of judicial interests.– reported here: Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life.
Scotland’s second Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson OBE also supported the petition and the creation of a register of judicial interests during an evidence session at Holyrood in June 2015.
A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.
A report on Lord Brian Gill’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament in November 2015 can be found here: JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth & interests - Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill’s evidence as “passive aggression”
A report on Lord Carloway’s widely criticised evidence to the Scottish Parliament in July 2017 can be found here: REGISTER TO JUDGE: Lord Carloway criticised after he blasts Parliament probe on judicial transparency - Top judge says register of judges’ interests should only be created if judiciary discover scandal or corruption within their own ranks
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.
32 comments:
and not a moment too soon after FIVE YEARS!
What is all that guff from Lamont
The Convener: I sense that we have agreement to the approach outlined by Angus MacDonald, which is not to take further evidence, but to bring together our conclusions and write to the Scottish Government, recognising that there has been some progress. Do we agree to draft a letter on our conclusions in private, although the final letter will be in the public domain?
Progress you say? This committee has been considering the petition for 5 long years it is high time you made this register law as everyone is entitled to see what the judges are doing and their interests.
Good thing Alex Neil spoke out otherwise the msps would have gone on for another 5 years
However is it not concerning a petition about judicial transparency is now to be debated in a secret private meeting before letters are sent out to Michael Matheson and Lord Carloway who are both dead against the petition and indeed anyone or anything else suggesting there should be transparency around judges?
The public expect to hear the kind of statements Alex Neil made in his comments to the newspapers not the ahhh errm from the committee.
Also why is it only Johann Lamont and Angus MacDonald spoke up.
The 3 msps who remained silent - Brian Whittle Rhona Mackay and Michelle Ballantyne - are they going to remain silent on the conclusions in the wee secret debate behind closed doors or will they be speaking up for vested interests without anyone able to find out?
Incredible it comes to this really.All the deliberations and who says what should be in public to make sure there are no attempts to water down other msps work - after all Whitte Ballantyne and Mackay have given little to zero input into your petition up to now.
Keep us posted Peter and make sure the newspapers cover all of this.Personally I would be looking for all the details of what is said in private and who says what.If you can get this into the papers because the judiciary and Sturgeon will be trying to interfere at every step of the way.
@ 13 December 2017 at 11:24
Yes, will have to keep an eye on this and how matters progress.
There are further cases of concealed judicial conflicts of interest and other issues to be published in due course, along with briefings to judges not in the public domain ... so plenty to keep the debate going and press on for the full register of judicial interests, which will require legislation to be put in place.
In relation to an unpublished comment, can the author please contact the blog via email or established routes.Thanks.
Good work Peter! about time they made this petition of yours law instead of meeting after meeting!
If the Committee does submit a bill supporting a judicial register of interests it still has to get past Nicola Sturgeon, McRoadkill & Co, so don't bet on it happening.
Fingers crossed it does, and not before bloody time!
In anticipation of that happy event I would like to nominate Ms. Moi Ali for the wholly independent position of official overseer of both the Register of Judicial Interests and Judicial Recusals - which your reporting confirms has more holes than Swiss cheese.
It goes without saying that she should also be given the power to suspend Judges who do not conform to the standards vested interests frequently claim for them.
If you watch the video closely Brian Whittle is the only one of the silent three reading the papers the other two skim through the pages with vacant expression
earlier comment who said "However is it not concerning a petition about judicial transparency is now to be debated in a secret private meeting before letters are sent out to Michael Matheson and Lord Carloway who are both dead against the petition and indeed anyone or anything else suggesting there should be transparency around judges?"
Yes very concerning.Why do committees meet in private on a petition about transparency.As you say this needs to happen in public so everyone can see who is saying what!
Good thing Alex Neil spoke up and because he did you are getting a result finally nice to see some msps take on the issues we should all be talking about!
Say they do create a register of interests it will be manned & updated by its own staff more than likely persons promoted from the Law Society of Scotland or SLCC & will be full of complete nonsense & who better to do so than that lot.
I can just see it now when a freedom of information is requested over a breached judge, they will advise, we are sorry that because of the profile of this particular incidence & its status of future development, we are at this moment unable to grant you such a request.
Am I right or am I right?
You have a very good perspective on the judiciary Peter.I was reading your twitter and responses to questions.I can only imagine these arrogant judges must hate all this becoming public and how you stuck to the right arguments within the petition.Bravo!
The writing is on the wall by "Do we agree to draft a letter on our conclusions in private, although the final letter will be in the public domain?"
This is a cover up attempt so that those private conclusions never reveal the true thoughts, position and comments of the MSPs who have to toe the various party lines, as they may lose their seat.
The real fear is that if the Judiciary have to be transparent then maybe the Holyrood Mob will also be under greater scrutiny and transparancy, that will be a huge drain on big brothers powers. All for 1, none for all.
I can truly say with true belief that Scotland is now a dead end as evidenced by a simple process that has taken 5 years and not yet out of the woods. I wish the true and honest people of Scotland the very best for 2018 and the years thereafter.
When I say Scotland is a dead end, I mean the political enormity of getting something so simple, obvious and necessary in a supposedly non Kim Jung Un state is such an affront to democracy and the independence of the judiciary. If the judiciary are independent then they have nothing to hide as they are held by an oath: “I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
Of similar concern are the local bar associations throughout Scotland in which the independent Sheriffs, independent Sheriff courts, state sponsored Procurator Fiscals and SLAB funded lawyers are all seemingly interconnected with meetings and associations in private in which the public are excluded.
If this happens at Sheriff level, what happens at Court of Session and High Court of Judiciary levels? Can such a question even be raised without it becoming sedition?
Definition of sedition - conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
The ultimate authority is presumingly the public in a democracy; however that remains to be seen and exercised.
Peter, I applaud your stamina and perserverence and I simply do not know how you do it.
Congrats on another expose.
A private meeting behind closed doors - what a convenient way to allow Lady Hale answering awkward questions which would have inevitably resulted in the conclusion that the Judicial Register of Interests must be made law...NOW!
If anyone has any doubt that knives are being sharpened to stab this petition in the back then simply read and reflect upon the comment by Angus MacDonald MSP who said;
"The petition has already secured a result, to the extent that there is more transparency because judicial recusals are now published, which did not happen previously. It is worth pointing out that that still does not happen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We should be proud that the petition has achieved that."
The unspoken part being 'So now we can ditch the rest'.
Alex Neil's comment sounds a lot more encouraging than that committee.
I was going to ask how this bunch managed to hold five years worth of hearings except I saw the link to your other post with all the clips and the only one still on the committee is Angus MacDonald.
Given the ominous silence around the table I prefer Mr Neil's approach to the petition than the strained comments from the committee.
Good article as always Peter you better keep the Petitions Committee under the spotlight because as I read the comments many people are suspicious of their motives and I have to say so am I after all this has been going on for five years so we want action not a letter or two around the halls of a busted pretendy government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M80qVP3Lrg
Elizabeth Warren BRILLIANTLY Explains America's Rich Vs. Poor Justice System
Best never to trust this judicial scum, and a lot of the MSP scum that supports them. .
You know what the lawyers and judges really hate, the public wanting reform they detest that. They are immoral wicked people who rigged the system to serve their form of justice and are horrified at anyone who wants the system overhauled. It cannot be overhauled so long as those who rigged it are involved in it, the SLCC is expensive proof of that. I would make them all terminally ill if I could.
I came here after reading your tweets on judges just want to say whoever you are your blog is fantastic!
this is about your twitter I tweeted a reply and you answered it thanks a lot for your help later on receivd msg from someone who says they work for snp and they ask me to ask you questions about some judge I did not want to get involved because he starts on about you saying he is friends of this Lord carlaway I answered another tweet of yours and he does same to me again be aware of this guy he tweets loads of tweets for sturgeon and attacks people on twitter since he talked to me strange people began following my twitter but I see they are all him did this happen to anyone else you know ??
Very good I never trusted judges or the legal profession anyway and this confirms what I always thought.Good work!
You want to know what I really like about your website Peter?
That when you write about some corrupt crook they are a crook and no messing about it all the evidence everything.Not like tv news programmes who spend their time slagging people off them have them on to commentate about some drivel the next week as if nothing ever happened!
Time we all woke up from watching mainstream media because they are all liars and spread their own line!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEVxCzdF6KY
Some similarities to Law Society lackeys in the SLCC, and MSP's probably paid by the legal profession to back their interests.
A private meeting behind closed doors just like the Bilderberg Group, another secretive closed shop for powerful crooks.
Fair and impartial judges do not exist.
Five years on and not a word out of the 'lame-stream' BBC, STV etc.
But of course it would be ridiculous to suggest that censorship exists in 'the cradle of democracy'........(please stop laughing).
That is a very good tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
Simple but very precise info… Appreciate your sharing
this one. A must read article!
A judge who makes judicial decisions based on favours from corporations is not a judge. Wake up people they are scum in powerful jobs who are a law unto themselves. They can only harm you if you use the courts. And the lawyers they steal your house and then their union the Law Society of Scotland do their speciality, cover the crime up. Then you go to another lawyer to sue your crooked lawyer and they won't represent you. Now this is an arrangement for legalized theft and bureacratic persecution when the victim complains. WISEN UP.
They don't understand why you complain.
They think they should have the right to steal your assets reinforced, hence the rejection of a register. Anything that can undermine their fanatical protection system they want rejected.
They look down their supercillious noses at clients and scum to be exploited.
If you can stay away from this mafia who use secrecy and bureaucracy to hammer you into submission. I have been there and I promise you they are the most ruthless bastards I have ever dealt with. They taught me the meaning of hate.
I wonder how many millions of pounds have gone into Judges pockets over the years to swing cases or refuse to hear cases they paymasters want to kill off.
The Scottish Judges are bought and paid for by wealthy individuals and corporations. They are more like CEO's of companies who sit in the Scottish courts. I always look at a Sheriff or Judge as someone who has been paid to destroy the rights of the man in the street. If I am called for Jury service I study the corrupt bastards (before legal proceedings commence) and I think the whole system is rigged and they rat on the bench is not fit to be there. I just think they are all rats the worst type of riff raff I have ever dealt with.
Any MSP who wants to protect these criminals who sit in our courts is not fit to be an MSP. The Judges are criminals because they cannot prove they are not, and don't think they have to and they do not want a Register because they have financial links they would need to hide. They are worse than an invading army because that army can be seen, these criminals operate in secret and are all the more wealthy because of that secrecy.
Merry Christmas and a big thank you to all at DOI, keep up the great work and 'sock it to 'em' in 2018!
Post a Comment