Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.
Partisan politics will probably ensure Kavanaugh nomination succeeds.SCOTLAND’S former top judge once said: “I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is.”
Admittedly, anyone watching last week’s Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing where Judge Brett Kavanaugh - President Donald Trump’s nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States – responded to allegations from Dr Christine Ford that he attacked her, during their school years – may well think Lord Brian Gill’s comments are a beacon of sanity against Kavanaugh’s now widely mocked beer drinking amid the reporting of further allegations against him by at least two other women.
In some respects, Gill is correct.
Would anyone here want a judge like Brett Kavanaugh sitting in the Court of Session?
Most people, certainly outside the strange, ivory tower world of the judiciary & legal clique, would probably say a resounding “No”.
Yet here is the quandary – The world only found out about Kavanaugh’s temper, anger & rage – amid the accusations against him – because the judicial nomination process in the US is televised and open.
Here in Scotland, and the UK – the process of judicial selection and appointment is a very secretive, closed door affair where only in the past few years – due to the Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests – has questions of the judiciary’s attitude against transparency revealed case after case where judges are simply not being honest with litigants, the courts, and ultimately the public with regards to their interests, and cases which come before our own judiciary.
So, even though Lord Gill’s disdain for the US system of judicial selection does have it’s merits, we in Scotland, and the UK still deserve to find out much more about our judiciary and how they are appointed, than a few pages of redacted FOI disclosures, and that very judicial anger for anyone asking for transparency.
Video footage of last week’s Senate Judiciary where Dr Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testified, is well worth a watch:
Developments since the testimony, including details of the allegations by Dr Ford, and others - are widely reported in the US media however, one of the more relevant debates revolves around the tone and demeanour of Brett Kavanaugh during his testimony, revealing a rage from an experienced Judge of 12 years, which the public all across the world should take note of.
A judge and his rage.
The elderly, angry Senate Judiciary members – in their publicly funded jobs, some for up to 40 years, exhibiting the same self centred sense of entitlement exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh - even came out and supported his anger – for reasons they claim that he was unjustly accused.
Yet, if you ever ask a judge to comment on why anyone other than a judge may feel anger at being unjustly accused … you are often met with the same angry response that it is for judges to decide who can and cannot be angry if ‘their court’ convicts the wrong individual for crimes they never comitted.
Indeed, ask a judge why he failed to declare an interest in a multi million pound damages claim, you will often encounter a very rabid response, backed up with the same venom and malignancy we have seen in the Kavanaugh saga.
Quite a thing to see the anger of the judiciary spill out in public, when their sense of entitlement and demand for high office – comes up against scrutiny, and in the case of Kavanaugh – allegations he attacked a woman – Dr Christine Ford – who testified before the same Republican dominated Senate Judiciary Committee which is now hell-bent on sending Judge Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
And – just like how Justice Kennedy’s retirement came out of the blue - watch out for further sudden retirements from the US Supreme Court, which will enable the Trump administration to stack the court even more in favour of vested interests.
One last thing - Kavanaugh said during his opening statement that he travelled with President Bush “…from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham Palace to the Vatican”
It would be quite interesting to see how many interactions Judge Kavanaugh had with the UK judiciary and political system … however, in our ever decreasing transparency & growing anti Freedom of Information culture in the UK, you can be sure little, if anything will ever emerge.
The proposal, 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.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support from a full debate at Holryood in October 2014.
Now, members of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee are set to look at the proposals, already backed by many MSPs and the Public Petitions Committee.
5. Once a petition has been referred to a subject Committee it is for the Committee to decide how, or if, it wishes to take the petition forward. Among options open to the Committee are to: Keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government or other stakeholders seeking their views on what the petition is calling for, or views on further information to have emerged over the course of considering the petition; Keep the petition open and take oral evidence from the petitioner, from relevant stakeholders or from the Scottish Government; Keep the petition open and await the outcome of a specific piece of work, such as a consultation or piece of legislation before deciding what to do next; Close the petition on the grounds that the Scottish Government has made its position clear, or that the Scottish Government has made some or all of the changes requested by the petition, or that the Committee, after due consideration, has decided it does not support the petition;
The Committee may wish to consider what action, if any, it would like to take in relation to the petition. Possible options are set out at paragraph 5 above. If this is an issue that the Committee would like to explore further, it may wish to consider writing to those listed at paragraph 9 to ask whether they had anything to add to their earlier contributions. It could also seek more information on the Norwegian model, and then obtain an updated briefing from SPICe.
Included also in the Committee papers are submissions from the Petitioner, and Moi Ali – Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer – who gave evidence to the Public Petitions Committee in September 2013, supporting the petition’s calls for the creation of a register of judicial interests.
The submission from Moi Ali reads as follows:
This brief submission to the Justice Committee relates to its consideration of a proposal to implement a register of interests for the judiciary. I am writing as an ordinary citizen, but my submission is informed by my experience as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR).
In that previous role I gave evidence to the Petitions Committee in support of a register of interests.
Although now writing in a private capacity, I have served on public boards for nearly two decades and as a Board Member I have (rightly) been required to complete a register of interests for each role, to provide assurance to the public that my dealings are not motivated by money, family connections or friendships.
The Justice Committee members who will take the decision on a register of interests, as MSPs must publish their interests too.
It is time that the judiciary joined the rest of those in public life in taking this small, simple step to improve transparency and accountability, thereby enhancing their own reputation in the process.
I have long campaigned for greater transparency in public life, yet in my role as JCR I occasionally found the judiciary to be needlessly secretive.
I am not suggesting that there was anything to hide, but a failure to be transparent inevitably left the public with whom I dealt feeling suspicious.
I will not rehearse the arguments in favour of a register of interests: they are well known.
However, I would emphasise that although opposed by the judiciary, it is in their own interests as well as the public interest that there be a register of interests.
I would like to conclude by reiterating my respect for the judiciary and the essential work that they undertake. Judicial independence is vital to a democracy, but with independence goes accountability. A register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability. Ms Moi Ali 18 September 2018
In March of this year, after lengthy deliberations & evidence, the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee backed the petition calling for the creation of a register of interests, and concluded the proposal to increase judicial transparency - should become law.
Members of the Committee concluded that such a register should be introduced into law – and cast aside arguments put forward by two top judges that such a register was “unworkable
Petitions Committee Convener Johann Lamont MSP (Scottish Labour) said: “In the course of our consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred—most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide, or be requested, to decline to hear a particular case. “
“The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information that is captured in the register. However, the core action that was requested by the petition was the establishment of a register of financial interests.”
“We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken those arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of this committee that such a register should be introduced.”
Deputy Convener Angus MacDonald MSP (Scottish National Party) added: “This is another long-running petition, having been live since December 2012—for as long as I have been on the committee. It was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn.”
“Along with a wide range of back benchers from across the political spectrum, I spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests during a debate in the chamber in the previous session. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life as well as ensuring that people can have confidence in those holding public office. I believe that a register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that.”
“The petition has already secured a result, which you have referred to, with the introduction of a register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. You also referred to the fact that the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals.”
“I would be keen for the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland to do some further work on the introduction on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested as possibly being the way forward, in the first instance we should refer the petition to the Justice Committee to allow it to move the issue forward.”
The Petitions Committee have since written to the Justice Secretary Michael Matheson, and Lord Carloway.
When responses are received, MSPs will consider further action.
Video footage and a transcript of the Public Petitions Committee hearing follows:
The Convener: The next petition, PE1458, calls for the introduction of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. As members will recall, we have previously agreed to write to the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and have considered a draft letter at previous meetings. The petition has received much consideration since it was lodged in 2012. I express my gratitude to the petitioner for raising the issue and to all those who have engaged in discussions on the issues that are raised in the petition, including the Lord President, Lord Carloway, and his predecessor, Lord Gill.
In the course of our consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred—most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide, or be requested, to decline to hear a particular case. The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information that is captured in the register. However, the core action that was requested by the petition was the establishment of a register of financial interests. We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken those arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of this committee that such a register should be introduced.
In reaching that view, the committee is very clear that it does not consider there to be a basis for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland’s judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making. Rather, it is the view that we have reached, based on the principles of transparency and openness in public life. While that is the view of this committee, we also understand that the Lord President and the Scottish Government have indicated they do not support the introduction of a register.
Would it be appropriate for us to invite the Justice Committee to consider the petition in light of our recommendation? Would members be content to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration? Do members have any comments?
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP): This is another long-running petition, having been live since December 2012—for as long as I have been on the committee. It was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn. Along with a wide range of back benchers from across the political spectrum, I spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests during a debate in the chamber in the previous session. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life as well as ensuring that people can have confidence in those holding public office. I believe that a register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that.
The petition has already secured a result, which you have referred to, with the introduction of a register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. You also referred to the fact that the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals.
I would be keen for the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland to do some further work on the introduction on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested as possibly being the way forward, in the first instance we should refer the petition to the Justice Committee to allow it to move the issue forward.
Rona Mackay: I broadly agree with what my colleague has said. That is a natural way forward for the petition. I do not think that we can take it any further, given the history that we have just heard. I think that it is sensible to send it to the Justice Committee for its consideration.
The Convener: Do we agree to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration?
Members indicated agreement.
Decision:PE1458 by Peter Cherbi on Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out its view that a register of interests should be introduced and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, under Rule 15.6.2 of Standing Orders, for its consideration.
The judicial interests petition – filed at Holyrood in October 2012 and 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.
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 - Gillian Thompson.
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.
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand’s Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.
As you may be aware, the above petition was lodged in December 2012 and has been considered by the current Public Petitions Committee and its Session 4 predecessor. Over this period MSPs have taken on board the arguments for and against a register of interests and the nature of the interests that might be covered in such a register. This letter sets out the conclusions that the Public Petitions Committee has reached on the petition.
In setting out these conclusions, I would emphasise that the Committee absolutely recognises that an independent and well-functioning judiciary is, and must be, an essential part of our system of government.
I also make clear that the Committee’s consideration of the petition, and the views set out in this letter, reflect our viewpoint that there is no basis for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland’s judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making.
The Committee has reached its views based on the wider contemporary picture of transparency and openness in public life wherein preventing the perception of any undue influence is important in ensuring confidence in those holding public office.
Register of recusals
One of the welcome developments in the course of this petition has been the introduction of a register of recusals. The Committee notes that this register was brought into effect in April 2014 directly as a result of the petition and a meeting between the then Lord President, Lord Gill, and representatives of the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee. In recent discussions with the Committee, and the petitioner, you agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals. As a result, the register will now ensure transparency about recusal across courts and tribunals in Scotland. The Committee very much welcomes these measures.
In doing so, we note that this addresses one of the arguments made against a register of financial interests - that it would not capture those instances where consideration of any potential conflict in a case was based on a social or personal connection that may not be known about prior to a case coming to court.
The Committee agrees that the practicalities are such that it would not be possible or proportionate to require advance registration of personal connection with parties that may at some point be relevant within a particular case. However, we do consider that public transparency of such connections is vital and the register of recusals is the tool that strikes an appropriate balance in this regard.
We would also observe that the value of collating information about recusals is that it enables analysis to be undertaken of the way the recusal systems operates and for this analysis to inform ongoing thinking about the administration of justice through the Scottish courts.
Register of financial interests
Turning now to the core question of a register of interests, the Committee’s most recent consideration of the petition focussed on seeking to understand and explore some of the arguments put forward against the introduction of such a register.
These arguments have included—
• a risk of online fraud due to retribution from dissatisfied litigants (which, it was argued, may have an inhibitory effect on the administration of justice if judges start to decline roles on public bodies such as the board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service) and,
• the possibility of the existence of a register of interests having a damaging effect on recruitment.
Members do, of course, have an understanding of the practical operation of a register of interests given the duties that apply to elected members. However, in considering the arguments put forward, we have not considered the role of judges as analogous to the role of elected members or had in mind any particular model for a register of interests that might be appropriate for judges.
Instead, our consideration has been based on an understanding of the expectations that apply to all holders of public office, whether elected or unelected, in relation to disclosure of financial interests. As we noted above, such disclosures not only allow for demonstration that decision-making is not influenced by personal interests but also prevent the perception of the influence of interests on decision-making.
Having considered these arguments and the thinking behind them, the Committee has not been convinced that a register of interests is an unworkable idea and it is the view of the Committee that such a register should be introduced.
Recognising that the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland have indicated that they do not support the introduction of a register, the Committee today agreed to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, inviting that Committee to consider the petition further, in light of our recommendation.
Yours sincerely: Johann Lamont MSP Convener
The National reported on the success of the six year petition calling for a register of judicial interests, in the following articles:
IT’S taken nearly six years and 25 hearings but as The National predicted yesterday, a register of interests for all Scottish judges is set to become law.
The petition for a register by legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi will now go the Justice Committee at Holyrood with a recommendation that the register becomes law.
The current and previous Lord Presidents, Lord Carloway and Lord Gill respectively, both strongly opposed the register which they feel will make it difficult for judges to be recruited.
Committee chair Johann Lamont said: “The committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable and it is the view of the committee that such a register should be introduced.”
She said the committee’s view had been reached with regard to “the principles of openness and transparency in public life”.
Having achieved his success after years of work, Peter Cherbi told The National: “I am delighted to hear the Public Petitions Committee support the creation of a register of interests for judges, and applaud their work on this petition.
“From filing the petition in 2012, being a part of the process to submit evidence, report on hearings, and observing witness evidence, I am very impressed that Holyrood followed this through from committee, to a full debate in the main chamber in October 2014, where the petition gathered overwhelming cross party support, to now, with the decision to recommend the creation of a register of judicial interests.
“Key evidence from Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali in September 2013 was, I believe, the turning point and a key moment where the proposal for register of judicial interests gathered steam.
“MSPs were able to hear for themselves from someone within the justice framework how a register of interests for judges would not only benefit transparency, but also bring back much needed public trust and respect to the justice system and our courts.
“My sincere thanks to MSPs Angus MacDonald, David Torrance, current Convener Johann Lamont, ex-convener David Stewart, Jackson Carlaw, particularly Alex Neil who asked key questions several times in the process, former MSPs Chic Brodie and John Wilson and all members of the Public Petitions Committee past and present who have given their considerable time, effort and input into this petition, have taken the time to study the evidence, and arrive at the conclusion transparency in the judiciary is a good thing, and not as Lord Carloway and Lord Gill claimed ‘unworkable’.”
This is a good day for the Scottish Parliament and for transparency.
The Sunday Mail print edition reported on the Petitions Committee backing for legislation to require judges to declare their interest, and also featured a report on Alex Neil MSP – who supports the judicial transparency proposals and is prepared to bring in a Members Bill to create a register of judges’ interests:
BATTLE TO BRING IN JUDGES’ REGISTER
Sunday Mail 25 March 2018
Ex-minister Alex Neil will defy Nicola Sturgeon with a bill forcing Scotland's judges to declare their interests.
Holyrood's petitions committee have asked the Government to legislate for a register which may include details of financial, professional and personal connections of judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace.
Sturgeon is expected to reject the committee's recommendation. But Neil believes there is enough cross-party support to raise his own bill, in a rare act of SNP backbench rebellion.
He said: "If no bill is brought forward by the Government, I would intend to do so myself, as there is significant support from other MSPs."
Former health secretary Neil backs the register after representing constituent Donal Nolan, who took Advance Construction to court over a land dispute.
It later emerged that judge Lord Malcolm sat on the case despite his lawyer son Ewen Campell acting for the construction firm.
Neil said: "If the committee decide to recommend a bill, it is absolutely necessary as I have seen from cases such as Nolan v Advance Construction where there were undeclared interests."
The Scottish Sun print edition also reported on the Petition Committee’s backing for a register of judicial interests and Alex Neil MSP’s plan for a Member’s Bill:
JUDGE LIST IS BACKED
Scottish Sun 23 March 2018
MSPs defied Nicola Sturgeon yesterday by calling for judges to list their financial ties.
Holyrood's cross-party Public Petitions Committee backed a register of interests for the judiciary.
Its convener Johann Lamont said the move was based on "principles of transparency and openness in public life".
Top judge Lord Carloway claimed the register would hit recruitment and the Government has said it was "not needed".
Last night Nats MSP Alex Neil warned if plans for the list are not backed he is "prepared to do it as a Member's Bill".
AFTER nearly six years and 25 sittings of evidence and debate on the petition to create a register of judges’ interests, The National has learned that the Holyrood Petitions Committee is set to recommend legislation to the Scottish Government.
The petition lodged by legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi in 2012 called for a Register of Pecuniary Interests Bill and when it meets later today, the Petitions Committee will have a draft letter before it suggesting the Scottish Government brings in such a register.
Cherbi’s petition has been strongly supported by MSPs such as Alex Neil and equally strongly opposed by members of the judiciary led by the current and former Lord Presidents, Lords Carloway and Gill respectively, who said it could be harmful to judges and their recruitment.
Cherbi said last night: “Everyone apart from the judiciary, and apparently those with a desire on becoming a judge, gets the idea that judges should declare their interests in a register, just like everyone else in public positions.
“For the judiciary to have stalled this transparency proposal on their reasoning that judges should be given a pass from transparency just because they are judges does not fit in with modern life or expectations by the public of openness in government and the justice system.
“Two top judges have given evidence. Both adopted overwhelmingly aggressive positions to the idea that the same transparency which exists across public life, and which they are charged with enforcing in our courts, should be applied to them.
“Yet amidst their inferences that justice would shut down, judges could not be hired, and the world would stop turning, neither Lord Carloway nor Lord Gill could make a convincing case against creating a register of judicial interests.
“Prosecutors, police, court staff, even the legal aid board – all key parts of the justice system have registers of interest. Therefore there can be no exclusion from transparency for the most powerful members of the justice system – the judiciary itself.
“Who would have thought judges would have been so fearful of transparency and disclosing their own interests, that it would have taken six years for the Scottish Parliament to reach this stage of recommending legislation? Time now to take openness forward for our judiciary, which will ultimately help regain a measure of public confidence in the courts.
“This is a win win for Scotland. We as a team, petitioners, the media, Judicial Complaints Reviewers, those in our courts and even the legal profession who back this move – changed the judiciary’s expectations of openness and requirements of transparency.”
The video timeline of debate at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee from 2012 to 2018 on Petition PE1458:
The Committee decided to call for submissions on the petition from the Lord President, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and Crown Office.
Petition PE1458 by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to legislate to create a Register of Interests for Scotland's judiciary was heard today 5 March 2013. The Committee decided to call for further evidence and also to invite the Lord President Lord Gill and others along to speak to MSPs and be questioned on the matter.
A petition calling for a register of interests for Scotland's judiciary has again been debated at the Scottish Parliament, where upon the Lord President Lord Gill's refusal to attend the Petitions Committee to give evidence, the Petitions Committee decided to repeat its invitation to Lord Gill to attend, and also agreed to seek the views of the Judicial Appointments Board and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.
Members of the PPC decided to invite Moi Ali, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence and also to contact Dr Kennedy Graham MP of the New Zealand Parliament. Dr Graham currently has a bill before MPs in New Zealand calling for a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges. During the debate it was noted Lord Gill has refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to discuss the petition and judge's interests, but has attended the Justice Committee to discuss court closures in Scotland.
Moi Ali, Scotland's Judicial Complaints Reviewer gives evidence to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament regarding Public Petition PE1458 calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary.
Following a private meeting between Scotland's top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill, and the Convener & Deputy Convener of the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament,the Committee agreed today, 28 January 2014 to defer consideration of Petition PE1458 by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to create a register of judicial interests, pending receipt of a letter from the Lord President.
The Convener, David Stewart MSP and Deputy Convener, Chic Brodie MSP reported back to members on what had been said at the private meeting with Scotland's top judge who refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to be questioned on his deep seated opposition to the proposal to requie Scottish judges to declare all their interests, hidden wealth, family & business links and other matters which may impact on cases being heard before judges in Scottish courts.
Committee Member John Wilson MSP requested details of the private meeting with the judge be put on the official record of the Committee, and Jackson Carlaw MSP drew attention to the fact had it not been for the Petitions Committee asking tough questions there would not even be any letters forthcoming from Lord Gill.
The petition will be heard once a letter has been received from Scotland's top judge, who appears to be set against any attendance to face questions on why judges should not be required to register their interests, unlike all other public officials, politicians, Government Ministers and others.
The Committee agreed to seek time in the chamber for a debate on the petition. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government.
The Committee agreed to continue the petition, and is seeking a debate in the main chamber of the Scottish Parliament. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government for more detailed responses.
David Stewart: The committee’s motivation in giving consideration to the issue and in seeking time in the chamber to debate it is a point of principle and comes from the starting point of there being an assumption of openness and transparency in all areas of public life in order to shine a light, if you like, into every corner of Scottish society.
Roseanna Cunningham: The setting up of a register of judicial interests would be a matter for the Lord President, as head of the judiciary in Scotland. The Lord President takes the view that a register of pecuniary interests for the judiciary is not needed. Furthermore, a judge has a greater duty of disclosure than a register of financial interests could address.
Graeme Pearson: Until the petition was discussed, there was no knowledge of recusals in the public domain. I welcome the fact that, as of April this year, the Lord President has introduced a register of recusals. It is fair to say that without the petition and the work of the Public Petitions Committee, such a register would probably not have been considered.
Jackson Carlaw: It is perhaps difficult to take on the judiciary, because judicial independence is always mentioned. As I said, that is a cornerstone of democracy, but because there has been no separation of accountability and independence, it is easy for the judiciary to say, ‘We are independent, so don’t interfere in that.’ Unless independence and accountability are separated, legislation will continue to include no requirement for more openness and transparency.”
Angus MacDonald: If we as elected members have to register and declare our interests, I see no reason why members of Scotland’s judiciary should not be subject to a full and publicly available register of judicial interests.
Anne McTaggart: In Scotland, claims continue to emerge of trials that have been unfair as a result of religious, ethnic or national bias. As long as those claims continue to exist, it is the Parliament’s job to promote fair government. In conclusion, I declare my support for the petition and encourage support from all the other MSPs.
David Torrance: Although I understand that conflicts of interest are on occasion declared in open court prior to taking on a case, the introduction of a register of interests would provide a more consistent and sound basis on which to move forward.
Neil Findlay: We need to do much more to make our society less secretive and less closed, and I think that the register that we are discussing is just one step towards that end. I, for one, give it my full support and urge other MSPs to do the same.
Joan McAlpine: I gently suggest to the Lord President, in whose gift it is to set up a register, as we cannot legislate for it in the Parliament, that he should be mindful of the need for the judiciary to move with the times, along with every other public institution, in order to retain the confidence of the public.
John Wilson: A register of interests for judges is an area in which we could move forward and build more confidence in the system that we have in place.
Elaine Murray: “Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity–but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity.” Therefore, the issue is not that anyone doubts the judiciary’s integrity, but that the public need to see that integrity.
Roseanna Cunningham: 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.
Chic Brodie: There is concern that a register would have unintended consequences—a phrase that has been used often in the debate—for the judiciary’s freedom and privacy and its freedom from harassment from the media or dissatisfied litigants. Those are concerns, but they are no less so for others in public life, including MPs and MSPs, who may be attacked publicly for non-declaration of interests. Although it is argued that the establishment of a register may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary, it might equally be argued that its absence might have the same effect.
The debate at the Scottish Parliament now returns to deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee on Petition PE1458 – A Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s Judiciary:
Minister for Community Safety Paul Wheelhouse gives evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on their investigation of proposals to create a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458. Mr Wheelhouse on behalf of the Scottish Government opposes the creation of a register which will inform the public about what judges have, their interests, links to big business, banks, shares in corporations and tax avoidance scams.
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee discussed Petition PE1458 on Tuesday 12 May 2015. The Committee agreed to call Gillian Thompson OBE - Scotland's current Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence on the creation of a register of judicial interests.
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee discussed Petition PE1458 on Tuesday 23 June 2015. The Committee took evidence from Gillian Thompson OBE - Scotland's current Judicial Complaints Reviewer who gave evidence in support of the creation of a register of judicial interests.
Lord Brian Gill, former Lord President and Lord Justice General of Scotland gives evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee on Petition PE1458 calling for a register of interests for judges.Gill refused two earlier invitations to appear before the Public Petitions Committee in 2013 and was dubbed "Lord No No.". Several times during the debate the 73 year old 'retired' Lord Gill called on the panel of MSPs to show faith in the UK judiciary and scrap the petition along with calls for greater transparency of judges interests.
Petitions Committee member Kenny MacAskill MSP calls for the committee to invite the new Lord President upon their appointment to appear to give evidence. Convener Michael McMahon MSP agrees to write to the new Lord President.
The Committee decided Lord Carloway is to be called to give evidence, MSPs will also contact Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde for evidence.
The Petitions Committee decided to call Lord President Lord Carloway to give evidence, and also hear from Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde.
MSP Angus MacDonald (SNP) moves to call Professor Alan Paterson to give evidence to the committee and for msps to consider evidence from the Professor then to contact the Lord President, Lord Carloway.
Members of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee decide to invite Lord President Lord Carloway to provide evidence before the Committee at a future date, and to invite Alex Neil MSP to appear before the Committee at the same meeting. The decision was taken after Lord Carloway offered concessions on the recusal register of Scotland's judiciary - created as a result of this petition.
Lord Carloway gives evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on a proposal to create a register of judicial interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The proposal has been investigated by the Scottish Parliament for five years, there is wide support for the register, from cross party msps to the media to both Judicial Complaints Reviewers.
The Petition will next be heard on Thursday 7 December 2017 where the Public Petitions Committee will be asked to consider taking evidence from Baroness Hale, President of the UK Supreme Court, and to seek further evidence on the operation of Norway’s 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.
Judiciary, Police & prosecutors failed to act on retired scandal Sheriff. THE WAY in which the Judiciary of Scotland deal with allegations against their own members, was never more evident, and in remiss than when the wife of a now deceased Sheriff tried in vain to report her judge husband to Police and prosecutors.
The late Sheriff Lothian, who it turns out - was well known to judicial figures and even Scottish Court Service staff - for his visits to sauna parlours, rumours of mistreatment of his family and use of prostitutes – is one of the dark, yet not so far away chapters of Scotland’s legal circuit.
Yet to this day, snippets of similar behaviour by sheriffs & senior legal figures from unpublished court documents, hearings in chambers,quietly arranged divorces and even missing Police reports - is as shielded from the public today, as it was during Lothian’s reign in the Sheriff courts.
Far from the image of judicial figures cosying up to First Ministers, Lord Advocates and the reluctant ex top judges lecturing politicians and the public on morality, transparency and accountability - members of the judiciary have recently been caught up in all kinds of seedy accusations, ranging from mega millions in hedge fund linked financial impropriety, to carefully concealed court cases and even divorce, where allegations against judges range from wife battering to drunken rages and smashing objects.
Yet, the public learn very little, if usually nothing of these events - and mysteriously, the courts, prosecutors, even Police, all comply with a very judicial silence.
The “me too” #metoo movement - a campaign to denounce sexual assault and harassment – which has somehow mysteriously skipped Scotland under First Minister Nicola Sturgeon – certainly stands no chance against angry, embittered & wife beating members of the judiciary.
Nor does “me too” stand a chance against shady senior figures in Police Scotland- who support each other when reports of sexual assault or harassment end up buried with a ‘no action’ ticket at the Policeman’s ball.
The history of the demise of Sheriff Lothian – who died in 2016 – is well known.
However, the cover up by colleagues on the bench, who knew of Lothian (and other judicial figures) associations with prostitutes, sauna bars, and the attempts by Lothian’s wife to report her husband to the Police & Crown Office – stands to this day as an example of the dark side of Scotland’s judiciary.
A carefully crafted system of cover up, denial and protection of a 500 year old white male dominated judiciary - which runs from the lowly Justices of the Peace who have criminal records for shop lifting & assault, to the most senior levels of the bench where tax avoidance, failures to declare interests, wife beating & carefully denied allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace never see the inside of a court, the pages of a recusal register or the ink of a charge sheet.
It is also worth noting, many of Scotland’s current senior judges were on the judicial bench during Sheriff Lothian (among others) penchant for boozing, sexual assault, use of prostitutes & reign of terror at home. Yet, to this day, not one judge ever spoke out.
Sheriff Lothian quietly retired on a pension of £7,000 a month.
Documents within the FOI disclosure reveal that under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981, Sheriff Lothian was entitled to a pension of £63,200.00 per annum and a lump sum of £84,547.00 and in addition Lothian would receive a service award of £50,560.00, based on a salary of £126,400.
Additionally, under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, Sheriff Lothian was entitled to a pension of £62,627.00 per annum, and a lump sum of £84,547.00 together with a net service award of £52,920.00 – based on his pensionable pay of £125,253.33.
Exchanges within the documents disclosed by the Scottish Government also reveal the then Justice Secretary – Kenny MacAskill – was not informed of Sheriff Lothian’s sudden decision to quit the bench, and further emails between heads of the justice department show concern at enquiries from newspapers as to the conduct & status of Sheriff Lothian.
In relation to the allegations against Sheriff Lothian of wife beating and other reports to Police - no action was ever taken against him by the Crown Office or Lothian & Borders Police.
A report on the allegations against Sheriff Lothian and the suffering of his wife, which exposed brutality at a judicial level, featured in the former News of the World newspaper.
It may be a grim read for some, but a necessary read for all – and much further afield than Scotland:
SICK SECRETS OF SAUNA SHERIFF
Ex-missus claims Lothian's obsession with vice girls and booze destroyed their marriage Downed sprits daily Begged for 3-way sex Hit wife at Christmas
By MARCELLO MEGA News of the World 15 March 2009
SLEAZY sheriff Andrew Lothian is a wife-beating drunk who's obsessed with prostitutes, his ex-wife reveals today.
The shamed 66-year-old was forced to quit the bench after claims he paid for spanking and whipping sessions with an Edinburgh hooker.
But today the News of the World can expose the SHOCKING secrets of his sordid private life.
According to long-suffering ex-wife Harriet Lothian, the twisted beak TRIED to make her have sex with strangers while he watched
ADMITTED using prostitutes during their marriage
DOWNED at least a bottle of spirits every day, and BATTERED her while their unsuspecting kids slept upstairs.
Speaking at length for the first time since her ex-husband's sauna shame, disgusted Harriet, 57, said: "I'm surprised it took so long for his activities to be exposed.
"I tried repeatedly to alert the police and the Crown to his unsuitability for office because of his behaviour, but to no avail.
"I suffered greatly at his hands, both during our marriage and for many years after I divorced him."
We told last November how Lothian quit his £125,000-a-year job after Crown Office bosses confronted him about allegations over his private life.
But, according to Harriet his obsession with sordid sex had been going on for YEARS.
Lothian's wife of 19 years said: "Sexually, there were problems from an early stage in the marriage.
"I found it so unsettling that I sought advice from my father, who was a doctor, and who I could talk to about anything.
"Andrew was into kinky but fairly inadequate sex. He also had fantasies about introducing third parties, men or women, into the bedroom.
"I had no interest, but he kept asking me to do it to please him.
Repugnant
"I refused because I found the idea repulsive. He said he could pay people to make his fantasies come true." Harriet suspected her hubby was using hookers DURING their marriage.
And she told how her elderly father was forced to confront Lothian about the sleazy claims.
Harriet said: "He confessed without any shame. He told me he had lost his virginity at 16 to a prostitute, and that he'd always been turned on by them.
"I was devastated. I told him I'd never have unprotected sex with him again but he was totally unrepentant.
"Once his obsession was out in the open, he became more demanding. If he was out at a dinner, he would bring men home and want me to have sex with them while he watched.
"I would have to throw them out, which was embarrassing. I found the idea repugnant. Apart from anything else, I had children in the house.
"My father was 68, but was very close to me and he had no hesitation in speaking to Andrew and telling him to shape up."
The couple had married on December 28, 1983, after a whirlwind romance.
Lothian already had a son, also Andrew, from the first of two previous marriages, and Harriet had a young son, James, from a previous relationship.
Two years after their wedding, Harriet gave birth to their son Robert, but already the foundations of the marriage were beginning to crumble.
She says: "By the time Robert came along, I had serious concerns about his father's alcoholism and how terribly ill it was making him.
"He was drinking at least a bottle of spirits a day, and that was just what I was witnessing. He was in a mess.
"I went home with Robert on New Year's Day 1986 and Andrew was in such a terrible state that he became abusive. I threw a milk bottle at him and hit him on the side of the head.
"The next day, I insisted he saw a doctor, and he agreed because his mother was in the house.
Harriet tried to alert senior legal officals to her husband's alcohol abuse but was snubbed at every turn.
Things spiralled further out of control and by Christmas 1996 Harriet demanded Lothian move out.
She said: "His language became more abusive. There were implied threats of violence and the odd punch to the side of the head where no visible marks were left, but I was still shocked by what happened then."
Harriet told how their sons, James, now 27, and Robert, now 23, were in their bedrooms when a huge row erupted on Christmas Eve that year.
She claims Lothian slapped her hard in the face, before punching her full on the nose.
As their shocked mother took refuge in the bathroom, where she tried to stem the flow of blood, both sons plucked up the courage to leave their rooms and go to her aid.
Charade
With her face badly marked and her eyes beginning to blacken, the family went through the motions the next day, exchanging presents and eating dinner — but the mood was understandably bleak.
Harriet said: "Until that point, I'd been trying to hold things together for my sons, but I couldn't go on with the charade.
No child should have to see their mother pouring with blood from a blow their father has struck.
It was a total nightmare." Robert said: "I remember clearly what happened that night and it sickens me the way he behaved. It is more than ten years since I have spoken to him.
"When I was 12 I wrote him a letter telling him I wanted nothing to do with him." Following the attack Harriet demanded that Lothian move out of the family home in Lauder, Berwickshire.
She wept: "I feared for the safety of our sons. I had no choice."
But in SLEAZE: summer 2001 Lothian — then living in Edinburgh — launched a court bid to SELL the house.
She said: "The move was especially hurtful as Robert was about to start his Higher courses.
"It was also difficult to understand as Andrew had inherited a six-figure sum the previous year when his mother died."
Lothian's partner at that time, Eleanor Burns, daughter of Sir John and Lady Eleanor Burns, had also inherited a substantial sum on the death of her mother, just a week before Catriona Lothian's death.
By 2002, when they finally divorced, Harriet claims exclusive that Lothian enjoyed a six-figure salary whilst Harriet took care of their children and could only work part-time as a rape crisis counsellor.
In the end she had to pay Lothian £28,000 to buy him out of the family home and finish the marriage.
Assault
Lothian and his brother Murdoch were subject to an Inland Revenue investigation in 2000 after claiming the contents of their late mother's Stirling home were worth a mere £5,000.
This included antique furniture, jewellery, silver, paintings and pottery.
It's understood the Inland Revenue later valued the list at £300,000.
But Harriet still wishes justice had been done for the assault she endured in 1996. She said: "Successive governments on both sides of the border have claimed to wage war on domestic violence.
"There was an opportunity for the Scottish establishment to show there was substance behind the platitudes by taking action against a senior lawyer. But typically, they covered his back." Now self-employed in horticulture, Harriet added: "I have to work extremely hard to make a living.
Andrew's disgrace has not made life any easier, but I feel vindicated."
Lothian served on the Glasgow bench from 1979 to 1992 before moving to Edinburgh. He's expected to keep his £7,000-a-month pension.
Scotland’s new Top Cop once faced serious sexual assault probe.THE “WRONG” word in a transcribed version of an interview with the officer who is now Scotland’s new Chief Constable – Iain Livingstone – became the subject of bitter exchanges between media officers of Police Scotland and a national newspaper.
Reports from inside the media have revealed the matter became the subject of protracted requests to the Daily Mail newspaper from Police Scotland’s media unit – which includes a Communications officer identified as Chris Starr.
The dispute arose after a mistake was identified in the paper’s published transcript of a television interview asking Iain Livingstone about how he dealt with five allegations of serious sexual assault from a female colleague.
The mistake amounted to one word – “all” .. which should have read from interview as “wrong”.
However, questions have arisen as to why Police Scotland’s media unit hare being used to target the media over the wording of a transcript – a task which should have been allocated to a law firm.
And, while cops have taken issue with reporting of the sexual assault allegations against Scotland’s new Chief Constable, Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority continue to resist full disclosure and publication of the full details of the FIVE allegations of sexual assault made against Iain Livingstone by a female officer who has since left the force.
Livingstone was recently confirmed as Scotland’s new Chief Constable after a gruesome sequence of suspensions of colleagues, a damning report on how Scots Police spied on journalists and whistle-blowers, and the Ministerial backed ousting of former Chief Constable Phil Gormley.
During the BBC Scotland Investigates documentary “A Force In Crisis” - investigative journalist Sam Poling asked Mr Livingstone about the 'allegations of sexual assault' and about him being 'bumped down from superintendent to constable and suspended'.
Mr Livingstone said: “There was a set of circumstances in 2000 whereby at a social event at Tulliallan, at a training event I had too much to drink.
I fell asleep in the wrong place and that was “wrong” and I shouldn't have done that, and clearly I accept that.
I was suspended, I spent time off work. There was a hearing convened where I did accept I fell asleep.
I was cleared of any sexual impropriety.
I was cleared of any level of sexual intent and at that hearing, initially, I was then demoted from superintendent to constable.
I immediately appealed against that and I was reinstated.
I came back to work, I accepted that I made a mistake, I accepted I had learned from it and since that time I have continued to conduct my duties with absolute rigour and professionalism.”
Asked whether he could be the 'strong professional leader with integrity' that the public want as chief constable, Iain Livingstone said: “I think I could discharge the responsibilities of the job. 'One of my main strengths, I think, is the ability to work collectively and to work in a collegiate manner.”
“I do think I could do the job, I just need to be quite clear in my own mind that that's what I want to do for the next three to five years.”
Mr Livingstone was suspended in 2003 after a female officer said she was sexually assaulted at Tulliallan, Scotland's police training college.
At the time he was 36, a father of three, and held a post in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, which used to oversee regional police forces.
There were no legal proceedings - although Mr Livingstone was demoted from superintendent to constable in 2004 following a disciplinary hearing.
Five allegations of serious sexual assault were dismissed but, at an internal misconduct hearing, he admitted being in the woman's room overnight after falling asleep.
The hearing, chaired by the then assistant chief constable of Strathclyde Police, found there had been no sexual impropriety or intent.
The woman, who had been on the accelerated promotion scheme for graduates, was reported to have left the scheme, which guarantees fast-track promotion.
A statement to the Press issued by a Police Scotland media representative in May on the subject of the BBC Scotland interview stated: “This matter was subject to due process by Lothian and Borders Police and was formally concluded under police regulations 14 years ago.”
“A hearing concluded that there was no sexual impropriety or intent on Mr Livingstone's part and he has nothing further to add.”
TIMELINE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TOP COP:
FEBRUARY 2003: Iain Livingstone, then 36, is suspended amid sexual assault claims and admits he is 'shattered'.
AUGUST 2003: Prosecutors drop proceedings against Mr Livingstone - but he faces internal disciplinary proceedings.
JUNE 2004: Mr Livingstone is demoted from the rank of superintendent to constable, which means a loss of more than £1million in salary and pension payments.
AUGUST 2004: Tayside's Chief Constable John Vine upholds Mr Livingstone's appeal and reinstates him, agreeing that the original decision was 'harsh'.
OCTOBER 2015: Now Deputy Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Mr Livingstone emerges as a candidate for the top job after Sir Stephen House quits.
DECEMBER 2015: Former Norfolk Constabulary Chief Constable Phil Gormley is named as the new boss of Police Scotland.
JULY 2017: Mr Livingstone announces his retirement, saying it was a 'privilege to serve the people of Scotland'.
SEPTEMBER 2017: Amid the bullying row engulfing Mr Gormley, Mr Livingstone cancels his retirement plan and takes charge of the single force.
APRIL 2018: Front runner to become the new full time chief, Mr Livingstone is confronted about his conduct in a BBC Scotland TV documentary.
Journalist Sam Poling questioned Iain Livingstone during the BBC Scotland documentary, A Force in Crisis, which aired on Monday 30 April 2018.
The transcript of the interview between Sam Poling & then Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone (now promoted to Chief Constable) reads as follows:
SAM POLING: What about your background?
DCC IAIN LIVINGSTONE: My background as a police officer?
SAM POLING: The allegations of sexual assault. You ended up admitting misconduct, staying in the room of a junior officer.
You were bumped down from superintendent to constable and suspended. Am I right?
DCC IAIN LIVINGSTONE: No, not on that, no you're not right.
SAM POLING: You weren't taken down from superintendent to constable?
DCC IAIN LIVINGSTONE: No, I wasn't taken down from superintendent to constable and then suspended.
There was a set of circumstances in 2000 whereby at a social event at Tulliallan, at a training event, I had too much to drink.
I fell asleep in the wrong place and that was wrong and I shouldn't have done that, and clearly I accept that.
I was suspended, I spent time off work. There was a hearing convened, where I did accept I fell asleep.
I was cleared of any sexual impropriety. I was cleared of any level of sexual intent and at that hearing, initially, I was then demoted from superintendent to constable.
I immediately appealed against that and I was reinstated.
I came back to work, I accepted that I made a mistake, I accepted I had learned from it and since that time I have continued to conduct my duties with absolute rigour and professionalism.
SAM POLING: The public want a strong professional leader with integrity in their chief constable. Is that you?
DCC IAIN LIVINGSTONE: I think I could discharge the responsibilities of the job. One of my main strengths, I think, is the ability to work collectively and to work in a collegiate manner.
I do think I could do the job, I just need to be quite clear in my own mind that that's what I want to do for the next three to five years.
SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TOP COP TO REMAIN SECRET:
A statement from Police Scotland in response to the Freedom of Information request refused any form of disclosure or acknowledgement of the status of any files held by Scotland’s single national Police service read as follows:
“Police Scotland endeavors to provide information whenever possible. However, under section 18(1) of the Act, a public authority may refuse a request where:
• if the information existed and was held by the authority, it would be exempt from release under any of Sections 28 to 35, 38, 39(1) or 41 of the Act; and
• the authority considers that to reveal whether the information exists, or is held by it, would be contrary to the public interest.
In this instance, it is considered that to reveal whether the information you have requested exists, or is held by Police Scotland, would be both exempt from release under the Act and contrary to the public interest. There is a strong public interest in protecting individuals' privacy, and personal information is exempt from release into the public domain under section 38 of the Act if it would be unfair, unlawful or otherwise breach the Data Protection Act.
For these reasons, Police Scotland must refuse your request under section 18(1) of the Act.
This notice should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or is held.”
Material in relation to new complaints made against DCC Iain Livingstone was sought from the Scottish Police Authority in February of this year, after information was received with regards to further serious complaints made against Police Scotland’s current ‘interim’ Chief Constable.
However, the Scottish Police Authority under Susan Deacon deliberately delayed releasing their response to the Freedom of Information request – by a number of months, as members of the Scottish Police Federation and Scottish Government ministers bolstered DCC Livingstone’s position as front runner for the top job – despite the grim details of a case involving 5 allegations of serious sexual assault which were dismissed by a tribunal composed of Livingstone’s male cop colleagues.
The Scottish Police Authority were asked to provide details of :
The numbers of complaints, subject of complaints, and identities (not name, but by rank, status as Police Officer, civilian employee, member of the public or other)
Who have made complaints (and the numbers of complaints) against current DCC Iain Livingstone from 1 April 2013 to the date of this FOI request
The status, and outcomes of these complaints.
However, and some time after discussions over the Freedom of Information request had taken place, inside & outside the SPA - the Scottish Police Authority responded to the FOI request four months late, in early June - denying access to all of the information sought in relation to DCC Livingstone.
In their response, issued months late and outwith Freedom of Information timescales, the Scottish Police Authority wrongly claimed the material sought was “personal data of a third party” in a concerted attempt to conceal further details of complaints against DCC Livingstone from the public.
The Scottish Police Authority stated in it’s letter of response, dated 8 June 201:
The SPA considers that this request constitutes personal data of a third party and is, therefore, exempt in terms of Section 38 (1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Furthermore this information is exempt under Section 34 (3)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 - Investigations by Scottish public authorities and proceedings arising out of such investigations.
Both are absolute exemptions and as such no public interest test has been applied.
A request for review has been lodged, and material also sent to the Scottish Information Commissioner with regards to the SPA’s refusal to disclose the information.
The Scottish Police Authority’s eagerness to conceal information in relation to a senior Police Officer - who has been previously accused of 5 allegations of serious sexual assault, and has faced further complaints including an ‘interaction’ with another officer - raises questions about the impartiality of the recruitment round to appoint a new Chief Constable to Scotland’s crisis hit single Police service.
With reference to the five allegations of serious sexual assault, Iain Livingstone was cleared of sexual impropriety or intent – by a tribunal headed by a male top cop colleague – Assistant Chief Constable John McLean of Strathclyde Police.
The former lawyer and Raith Rovers footballer had been suspended for 17 months after the WPC claimed she had been sexually assaulted during the party.
A qualified lawyer and member of the Law society of Scotland, Mr Livingstone switched careers in 1992, joining Lothian and Borders Police.
In just 10 years, Livingstone – who had also once played for Raith Rovers - had clearly been fast tracked, reaching the rank of superintendent.
At the time of the allegations and ‘internal’ investigation by his Police colleagues, Livingstone was not prosecuted by the Crown Office over the claims.
Instead, Livingstone admitted a less serious allegation about being in the woman's room overnight and falling asleep.
