Monday, February 04, 2019

JUDICIAL REGISTER - MSPs urged to take forward SEVEN year petition to create a Register of Judges’ Interests as Holyrood Justice Committee handed evidence of Scottish Judges serving in Gulf states regimes known to abuse Human Rights

MSPs to consider judicial interests call. A PETITION calling for the creation of a Register of Judges’ Interests in Scotland – which is now in it’s SEVENTH year is to be considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee on Tuesday 5 February 2019.

The latest consideration of Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary comes after members of the Justice Committee initially heard the petition in late September 2018 – with several MSPs supporting the view the petition should be taken forward.

During the Committee’s meeting, John Finnie MSP of the Scottish Greens said: “Future generations will be surprised that we do not have such a register already.”

Daniel Johnson MSP (Scottish Labour) said: “We all need to be mindful that we have a legal duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary, but transparency enhances independence. I very much support the comments that colleagues have made. We should take the petition forward.”

The lengthy Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests has generated over sixty two submissions of evidence, at least twenty one Committee hearings, a private meeting and fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate and has since been taken over by Holyrood’s Justice Committee after a recommendation to take the issue forward from the Public Petitions Committee in March 2018.

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, backing in the media, and crucial support from two of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewers – including Moi Ali

Moi Ali – who served as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) - appeared before the Public Petitions Committee in a hard hitting evidence session during September 2013,and gave full sypport 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.

Video footage of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee’s first consideration of the judciial register petition in September 2018 can be viewed here:

Register of Judicial Interests - Justice Committee Scottish Parliament 25 September 2018

Official Report: Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

Margaret Mitchell MSP (Scottish Conservatives) (Convener) : Under item 4, the committee will consider two petitions. I refer members to paper 4, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 5, which is a private paper. The committee is asked to consider and agree what action, if any, it wishes to take in relation to each petition. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 4. I remind members that if they wish to keep a petition open, they should indicate how they would like the committee to take it forward. If they wish to close a petition, they should give reasons. We will consider each petition in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

This is the first time that the committee has considered PE1458. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a register of pecuniary interests of judges bill, or amend existing legislation, to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests. Do members have any comments or questions?

John Finnie (Scottish Green Party):  I seem to have mislaid the paper, but from memory there were a number of recommendations around requiring further information. I would support that approach. Future generations will be surprised that we do not have such a register already. We need to be best informed, so I suggest that we get that additional information and consider the petition again.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party) :  I agree with my colleague, John Finnie. The Public Petitions Committee believes that a register is not unworkable and recommended it. As John Finnie said, we need to explore the petition further and get as much information as we can so that we can take it forward.

Daniel Johnson (Scottish Labour) : We all need to be mindful that we have a legal duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary, but transparency enhances independence. I very much support the comments that colleagues have made. We should take the petition forward. It makes an awful lot of sense to do exploratory work.

The Convener: Is it the committee’s wish, therefore, that we keep the petition open and seek further information?

Members indicated agreement.

Since the Justice Committee considered the petition last September, there have been explosive revelations in the media in relation to Scottish and UK judges serving in Gulf States regimes and dictatorships, where the same judges are required to swear additional judicial oaths on top of the judicial oaths already sworn in Scotland and the UK.

An exclusive investigation by Investigative Journalist Russell Findlay revealed Scottish judges were serving in Abu Dhabi & UAE courts while serious Human Rights abuses were taking place against British citizens in the same countries.

The report reveals TOP judges are accused of selling the reputation of Scottish justice by working for Middle East countries with toxic human rights records.

Two judges are on the payroll of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where domestic violence against women is legal and where regime critics are tortured and jailed without trial.

The most senior is Lord Hope of Craighead — Scotland’s former top judge, a member of the House of Lords and ex-deputy president of the UK Supreme Court.

Our investigation found that Lord McGhie has been registered to sit in the UAE for the past two years while he was also dispensing justice at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

The investigation also reveals how Scottish and UK judges are lured to the UAE, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar with big money salaries are available here: JUDGES FOR SALE: Special investigation into top lawmen being lured with big money jobs in Qatar and the UAE and here: Scottish judges slammed for being on payroll of oppressive regimes abroad

Two weeks ago, the petitioner was contacted and requested to provide a submission for the Justice Committee’s consideration of the petition.

The submission to the Justice Committee took the following form:

Submission re Petition PE1458 – A Register of Interests for Members of Scotland’s Judiciary

In response to the Justice Committee’s initial consideration of this petition, I agree with the decision by members to seek further and additional information to take the petition forward and create a Register of Judicial Interests for members of Scotland’s Judiciary.

I would also like to submit further developments since members last considered the petition, where reports in the media have revealed senior members of Scotland’s judiciary serving in overseas courts, particularly in the Gulf States such as UAE, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and others.

It should be of interest to members that in the case of Lord McGhie, who is currently listed on the Judiciary of Scotland’s website as Chairman of the Scottish Land Court and President of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, the biography of Lord McGhie’s interests does not mention the fact he also serves on the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts.

Of note, the ADGM Court does list Lord McGhie’s service in Scotland as a member of the judiciary, however the Judiciary of Scotland omit all details of Lord McGhie’s overseas judicial service, as can be noted from the two separate judicial biographies forwarded to the Justice Committee,

An investigation by the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed Lord McGhie has been registered to sit in the UAE for the past two years while he was also dispensing justice at the Court of Session in Edinburgh – yet given there is clearly no mention of his service abroad, and the fact Lord McGhie will be subject to a judicial oath in the UAE as well as adhere to his judicial oath in Scotland, clearly a register of Judicial Interests would require information such as this to be published, while currently, the Judicial Office for Scotland does not publish such information.

It would be useful for the Justice Committee to make enquiries as to the two separate judicial oaths and terms of service which Lord McGhie is subject to, here in Scotland, and in the United Arab Emirates, as clearly, such information should be present in a publicly available Register of Judicial Interests.

The dual service of Scottish judges in overseas jurisdictions, including the Gulf States should be further examined, in the light of the published reports and significant public interest in the cases of lawyer David Haigh, where a Scottish Sheriff accepted Mr Haigh’s account of Human Rights abuses, and torture in Dubai, and the case of Matthew Hedges – held for five months without explanation, then charged with, and found guilty on allegations of espionage.

In recent enquiries with the Judicial Office for Scotland, I have noted there are no recusals by Justices of the Peace since the guidance on recusals was extended to JPs as of January 2018.

However, since Tribunal members interests were added to the recusals register, recusals jumped from around 20 a year to 49 in the past year.

The lack of recusals for Justices of the Peace, who number around 450 and comprise the highest proportion in terms of numbers of Scotland’s judiciary, are worthy of scrutiny, particularly as the Scottish Justices Association have expressed negative sentiments towards reform and transparency in the past, notably in the case of media reports in relation to overseas trips by Justices of the Peace, which are covered in a Sunday Herald investigation forwarded with this submission.

As part of the further information which the Justice Committee may wish to seek on judicial conflicts of interest, I would suggest making enquiries to the Judicial Office on how the guidance on recusals is being implemented, and how far down the line it goes, for instance, in selection and subsequent training of judicial office holders prior to their service on the bench and how such guidance plays a role in every day court proceedings.

The Register of Recusals is available for inspection online http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/68/0/Judicial-Recusals

I also suggest members study the Norway model of a register of judicial interests https://www.domstol.no/en/The-Courts-of-Justice/The-ordinary-courts-of-Norway/Dommeres-sidegjoremal/ and how such a model, with enhancements could be created for Scotland’s judiciary.

From the report of the Justice Committee’s initial consideration of the petition, I agree with the support expressed by members for progressing the petition from Rona Mackay, Daniel Johnson, and John Finnie MSP who stated “Future generations will be surprised that we do not have such a register already.”

The Scottish Parliament, by way of the Public Petitions Committee, MSPs during the full debate in October 2014 and now the Justice Committee have amassed a level of information and submissions on this petition which should go forward in the public interest to create a Registrar of Judicial Interests - and apply the same level of transparency for members of the judiciary, which already exists for all other branches of the Executive and those in public life.

However, the above submission was initially rejected, by a Scottish Parliament clerk – who claimed there was no existing biography for Lord McGhie on the Judiciary of Scotland’s website, and that Lord McGhie was in-fact retired.

The clerk was challenged on his claims after journalists confirmed the existence of the biography for Lord McGhie remained on the Judicial Office website – and that Lord McGhie had in-fact sat as recently as 2018 on cases in the Court of Session, sitting alongside Lady Paton and Lord Drummond Young.

Journalist Peter Cherbi tweeted out the sequence of his findings on twitter, here: Twitter - Content of Judicial Service Bio of Lord McGhie questioned

The clerk, who has since been identified as Seán Wixted – did not reply to the petitioner’s information confirming the existence of the biography of Lord McGhie, nor was any response given as to why court opinions also show Lord McGhie sitting in court, despite the clerk’s claim the judge was retired.

A revised submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee contained the following substitute paragraphs:

It would be useful for the Justice Committee to make enquiries in relation to members of Scotland’s judiciary who serve in overseas jurisdictions and details in relation to the two separate judicial oaths and terms of service which judges swear to, in jurisdictions such as the United Arab Emirates and here in Scotland, as clearly, such information should be present in a publicly available Register of Judicial Interests.

The dual service of Scottish judges in overseas jurisdictions, including the Gulf States should be further examined, in the light recent media coverage of the dual service of Scottish judges and significant public interest in such cases.

and added the following suggestion MSPs experienced in the petition should be asked for evidence:

Lastly, and noting the recommendations listed in papers for members consideration of this petition on Tuesday 5 February 2019, I would like to request the Justice Committee invite members of the Public Petitions Committee to give evidence to the Justice Committee on this petition, given the PPC’s six years of experience, dedication and exceptional work on this petition, which has accumulated significant evidence, testimony and backing from all sections of the community in favour of creating a Register of Judicial Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

It was further noted in emails provided to the media the petitioner was not allowed to inform MSPs of the clerk’s demand the submission was edited at the request of the Committee’s own clerk, Mr Wixted.

Previously, on the Register of Judicial Interests Petition -

A video report of the Public Petitions Committee backing for the petition can be viewed online here: Petition PE 1458 Register of Judicial Interests Public Petitions Committee 22 March 2018

A full report containing video footage of every hearing, speech, and evidence sessions at the Scottish Parliament on Petition PE1458 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.

MSP at Holyrood have previously heard over sixty two submissions of evidence, during twenty one Committee hearings, and a private meeting between two MSPs and a top judge, and two private meetings since early December 2017 to decide a way forward on their six year investigation.

Cross party support for the Petition at the Scottish Parliament saw fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate spanning from 2012 to 2018.

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.

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.

Video footage and a full report on Lord Brian Gill giving 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”

Video footage and a full report on Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) giving 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.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

What happened to your comments section?

Anonymous said...

Smart move publishing the uncensored submission to the committee - let's hope they read it!

Anonymous said...

Why are you not publishing comments?

Anonymous said...

I thought Lord Carloway said only the best candidates with the most experience could be judges and that making their interests public will deter would be judges

In England they are recruiting them from supermarkets!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47407559

From check-outs to court: The magistrate who stacks shelves

From the supermarket check-out to the court room - Luke Penney is not your average magistrate.

Neath-born Mr Penney, 22, works part-time at his local Tesco when he is not dealing with defendants at Swansea Magistrates' Court.

He applied for the role after a woman asked to put up a flyer in the store, recruiting magistrates.

One year into the job, he said he is a "completely different person" in court to when he is behind the tills.

Here he explains what it's like to be a young magistrate.
'My first case? Murder'

When I wake up on the morning of court, I'm Luke the magistrate - professional and independent. Integrity is a big part of the role.

I like the balance between a normal work life in the supermarket and court.

Being a magistrate is challenging, it does test you and your morals. It is just about following your gut instinct.

My first case on the job was murder.

It hit me that this responsibility given to society is huge, to keep everyone safe and to look out for the interests of justice.

Any case you do is challenging, no matter what court you go into.

At the end of the day, mentally, you have to leave your work at the court.

I'm still the normal Luke who gets home, goes on my phone or TV and does the things any other 22-year-old would.

Although it's tough, I'm in this for the long run and want to serve until I'm 70.
'I don't go telling people'

Since being sworn in, my family are very proud, but I don't think that they know what it entails.

My friends didn't believe me at first and immediately asked how much I am paid. But the simple answer is I'm not, it is voluntary.

I don't go around saying "I'm a magistrate". I keep it personal and if they ask then I'll be open about the process.

Criminal court is open and I'd advise anyone to come in and see what we do to see if it's for them.

How do I become a magistrate?

Magistrates are volunteers in their community who hear cases in criminal and family courts

Potential applicants must be aged between 18 and 65, but don't need any formal qualifications or legal training

They must not have a conflict of interest, such as being a serving police officer

The Ministry of Justice for England and Wales look for people who are aware of social issues and are committed to their community.

You can find a full list of criteria for the job on the Ministry of Justice website.

Diary of Injustice said...

In relation to the comments section and the lack of comments, since the article on Justice Kavanaugh, several comments, some of a threatening and demeaning nature were received, particularly from persons angry the blog title had been changed, or that issues outwith Scotland were being covered.

Some of the comments clearly belong to individuals on twitter hiding behind various identities - who are intent on harassing or threatening anyone or any journalist who does not look into their zoomed up story.

While other comments have been noted, in terms of their content and those who gave details contacted, the comments section will now only publish a few comments relevant to the article.

Anonymous said...

Ah so in other words the bitter and malcontents have become jealous of your success with the petition.
To be honest Peter you could dump the comments section entirely as this makes reading your articles much better.
I have refrained from reading online versions of Scottish newspapers due to endless bickering between persons writing comments under multiple names.

Anonymous said...

"several comments, some of a threatening and demeaning nature were received, particularly from persons angry the blog title had been changed, or that issues outwith Scotland were being covered"

Someone worried about a blog name change is either a stalker or a lunatic.Possibly both.

On reading your twitter I found a reply from someone with a dubious twitter handle alleging you have been bought off by judges and/or charged with sedition due to the lack of comments.

Scottish twitter is well known for being toxic,honestly I am surprised you even bother with the platform.

Stick with the blog when you can update as the material here is far more important and credible than twitter.

Anonymous said...

Appreciate you are working on other things however an update on the petition progress would be good.I did read in the National things are moving forward so congrats on that.
Re the threats - No one pays attention to detractors.
Do not waste your time on them.

Anonymous said...

Unsure if my comment passed the overly zealous captcha
In any case keep up the good work Peter and do not waste your time on twitter loons

Anonymous said...

Not noticed any blog title change however my advice is merge this blog with Scottish Law Reporter.Time moves on and so should you.Scots Law is not just about injustice and good to see you recognise this.

For the record I cannot think of another person except yourself who has influenced or changed so much in the Scottish legal system for years.
Accept this praise from a solicitor who admires your work.

Anonymous said...

worth remembering the two biggest most self obsessed loonies in the world right now with armies of nutters to their cause are products of Scotland - Sturgeon and Trump
This is relevant to your petition as I read that letter from Sturgeon about your petition and you can see the same jealousy and hate in her words Trump spews out against the press when they catch him at it

Anonymous said...

Until Scots law deal with the rampant and off the scale injustice, it can never be about justice.

An example of this corruption is outlined in the article on the front page of today's Daily Record about Stephan Sutherland's murder, where a witness going to the police with evidence was told by police to, 'Shut her mouth' but nothing will be done about this apparent crime by the police and after a couple of days it will wither on the vine, except the bar manager is now at risk of harm, from the police for blowing the whistle.

Only in Scotland?

Anonymous said...

How long is this going to run?
Finnie says the right words about people expecting this register to exist now so why are we waiting longer to create the judicial register?

Anonymous said...

Given you have been reporting on the legal profession for around 13 years if people have not learned all the lawyers tricks and avoided the constant rip-offs then they are never going to take any advice from anyone.

As I see things you have done your consumer protection part very well,Peter.

You cannot protect the mad the bad and the sad - aka who love to throw money at lawyers and cry or even lie about it when their case inevitably goes wrong!

Anonymous said...

oh and I forgot to say well done on the petition and your excellent letter to the justice committee

Diary of Injustice said...

@4 March 2019 at 15:19

The problem with Scottish Twitter is the sheer amount of fake accounts - particularly with political parties and backers of vested interests, dodgy senior cops and others who are advancing themselves big time either on the public purse or by affiliations with powerful figures in the professions.

These characters are easy to spot, and at least in some cases they are doing their online damage for a monetary reward from those dodgy figures they support.

Then there are certain spin doctors (also with multiple social media accounts and multiple aliases) who brag about having mandatory access to their msps social media accounts, and the hundreds of declared, possibly even more official Twitter accounts organisations such as PoliceScotland maintain .. it is difficult to get a clear picture of what goes on in Scotland on Twitter unless you follow the journalists rather than the zoomers and thugs.

5 March 2019 at 16:47

Good comparison. Scotland definitely needs term limits for Cabinet Members and First Ministers. This FM wants to go on and on and on ... and takes a personal slight against anyone or the media even daring to suggest transparency - then the online thugs come in and do their worst to the debate.

6 March 2019 at 16:03

I honestly cannot think of one single case the SLCC has properly handled since it came into operation in October 2008.

The SLCC is little more than a £35 million pound scam over 11 years, which clients have been forced to pay for via hiked legal fees to fund the complaints levy.

Anonymous said...

wee naty nippy did you a big favour ranting off about your petition and the press because we now know the judges are shit scared of your petition and hiding even more than they want us to know about

Anonymous said...

Good to see so many appreciative comments regarding your reporting. The Scottish Public is in your debt.

Anonymous said...

Off topic I know, but I remember being staggered by your report on the huge bill the Scottish taxpayer has to pay for legal aid as reported at;

http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/bank-of-legal-aid-1billion-of-public.html

Well it may interest you to learn that a review is currently underway and it does not look as if the costs are going to go down.

"The panel, which meets for the first time next week, will include academics and members of the Faculty of Advocates, the Society of Solicitor Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.................We have already taken steps to demonstrate our commitment to those delivering this vital service, including a three per cent uplift in fees across the board for legal aid lawyers, which will take effect next month."

More at;

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/experts-across-legal-profession-advise-scottish-government-fees-legal-aid