Sunday, May 26, 2019

JUDGE THE JUDGES: Seven years, and one year on from petition passed to Justice Committee, questions on judicial conflicts of interest & Scots judges swearing dual judicial oaths in Gulf States - time to move forward on legislation for register of judges’ interests

Seven years on - Judicial probe. OVER ONE year ago, and amid much positivity – a cross party backed public petition calling for the creation of a register of judges’ interests was passed to the Scottish Parliament’s powerful Justice Committee.

The transfer of the petition came after six years of a Scottish Parliament investigation on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary – including work and evidence heard by Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee.

The Public Petitions Committee’s support for creating a register of judicial interests and transfer of work to the Justice Committee - was reported in detail here: JUDICIAL REGISTER: Holyrood Petitions Committee calls for legislation to require Scotland’s judges to declare their interests in a register of judicial Interests

Now, SEVEN YEARS on from when the petition was first filed at Holyrood, in October 2012 – further evidence from the petitioner, and supporters of judicial transparency – urge MSPs on the Justice Committee to press ahead with work on legislation to create a publicly available register of judges’ interests.

Petition 1458 is to be considered again by members of the Justice Committee on Tuesday 28 May 2019, fourteen months after the Public Petitions Committee agreed to back the petition, and pass it to the Justice Committee for further work.

However, it was revealed last week by Justice Committee clerks - that only one of the branches of the justice system requested to give evidence by the Justice Committee had replied to MSPs request for cooperation.

From the Crown Office, to the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and even the Lord President himself – Lord Carloway –  all refused or ignored requests for evidence from the Justice Committee.

Quizzed on the work done by the Justice Committee in the last year, a Committee clerk informed the petitioner: “Before the Committee last considered your petition on 5 February, clerks approached those who have previously given evidence to the Public Petitions Committee to ask if they had anything to add to their previous submissions.”

“We approached the Lord President, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. Only the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service responded, stating that they had nothing to add”

From contact with the Justice Committee, it also emerged the Justice Secretary -  Humza Yousaf had written to MSPs, claiming judges should be allowed to judge themselves, and that the public must rely on judicial oaths & ethics – written and approved by the judiciary - instead of transparency in courts.

The Justice Secretary also, and erronesouly, claimed existing complaints rules negated the creation of a register of judges’ interests – a claim which prompted former Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali – to write to the Justice Committee in support of the petition, and to give her views on the effectiveness of judicial complaints rules.

Moi Ali’s letter was reported in further detail here: SCRUTINY FOR JUDGES: Former Judicial Complaints Reviewer to MSPs - Judicial complaints rules are no substitute for protection generated by a full register of judicial interests

Mr Yousaf also claimed in his letter that “no further evidence has been provided to the Justice Committee that strengthens the arguments already put forward in favour of the introduction of the register.”

Mr Yousaf’s letter was reported in further detail here: COPY MINISTER: ‘Copied’ content from ex Minister sent by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to Holyrood MSPs - Public must rely on judges judging judges for transparency, Scottish Government will not create register of judges’ interests

However, recent submissions to the Justice Committee including accounts of serving Scottish judges swearing dual oaths for high earning judicial posts in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and other Gulf States point to substantial new evidence submitted to MSPs, backing up the need for a full register of judicial interests.

Evidence and media reports in relation to the Gulf States service of Scottish judges was reported in more detail here: 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

Now, the petitioner has made a submission to the Justice Committee, calling on MSPs to hear further evidence if required, and take the petition forward to create legislation for a judicial interests regiser.

The full submission to the Justice Committee from the petitioner is reprinted here:

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

Noting the previous hearing of the petition, I am grateful to members comments in relation to openness and transparency not being a contradiction to the independence of the judiciary, and proposals by members to investigate the way other jurisdictions handle recusals and judicial declarations.

I would refer members to such jurisdictions as Norway and the USA – which both operate registers of judicial interests, and judicial recusals. I believe both could serve as a model to assist in the creation of a publicly available register of interests for Scotland’s judiciary.

Given members comments in relation to evidence collected by the Public Petitions Committee, I do feel it would be productive for the Justice Committee to hear further evidence from Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer – Moi Ali.

I believe such an evidence session would refresh members views, and support the confidence exhibited in previous expressions of cross party support during the main chamber debate on this petition in October 2014, and enhance the backing of the Public Petitions Committee in requesting the Justice Committee consider this matter.

As I have previously indicated, I believe members would also benefit by hearing in an evidence session - from Petitions Committee members whose work brought this petition forward, and hearing from MSPs such as Alex Neil – who have looked closely at how the judiciary have handled questions of transparency and conflicts of interest.

Noting the Justice Secretary’s response to the Committee, it appears unfortunate the Minister was not informed of new and widely reported evidence submitted to members in relation to senior Scottish judges holding dual judicial posts, both in Scotland and in the Gulf states – and notably with no reference to such by the Judiciary of Scotland.

It is worth noting, that due to the passage of time of this petition – considerable, and regular presentations of new evidence to the Public Petitions Committee - in relation to issues such as a lack of judicial transparency, failure of judges to interact or cooperate with parts of the Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 – particularly interaction with the Judicial Complaints Reviewer - and widely reported developments in court proceedings from conflicts of interest to failures to recuse – depict a markedly different view of the current state of judicial transparency, and how a Register of Interests would benefit both judges, and increase public confidence in the justice system.

None of these matters are in doubt. The Public Petitions Committee evidence – both in written form and live evidence sessions with witnesses – including two of Scotland’s top judges, both previous Judicial Complaints Reviewers, academics and Ministers, gave the Public Petitions Committee the confidence to support this petition and refer it to the Justice Committee for further action.

This is indeed contrary to the Scottish Government’s position that the judicial oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics and the various rules made under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 operate as a ‘safeguard’ when the overwhelming evidence is – they do not work in terms of increasing transparency, accountability or public confidence in the judiciary.

Indeed, the statistics in the Register of Recusals – created as a result of this petition – now total well over 100 instances of judicial conflicts of interest – and it is important to note we would not have known about previous to this petition and the investigative work of MSPs and the media who followed these events.

It is also worth noting the Recusals Register started out in April 2014 as a very bare reference log, without much detail - notably excluded tribunal members and still does not appear to include over 400 Justices of the Peace.

The Register of Recusals has only been reformed into the slightly more detailed state in which it currently exists, due to requests from the Public Petitions Committee, MSPs and direct discussions between myself and the Judicial Office – which I have previously provided to the Petitions Committee during their work.

Clearly, there is still much work to do on the Register of Recusals – and this may be an issue which the Justice Committee could investigate further.

Given the work by MSPs on this petition to-date, and the cumulative evidence collected by the Public Petitions Committee from witnesses and written submissions – from both sides of the debate, it is clear there is a considerable benefit to both the justice system and public expectation of transparency - to creating a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary, in a form at least as already exists for all other branches of public life, including members of the Scottish Parliament.

SCOTTISH JUDGES SERVING IN THE GULF STATES:

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 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

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.

In recent years, retired UK judges have been increasingly lured with big paycheques to new civil courts in Qatar and the UAE states of Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

Lord Hope is chief justice of Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts which also employs Lord McGhie and six other male judges from the UK and Commonwealth.

Another former Lord President, Lord Hamilton, sits in a court in Qatar which is accused of backing international terrorism and using migrant slave labour.

SEVEN YEAR TRANSPARENCY PETITION:

The judicial register petition - first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests.

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.

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.

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.

The judicial register of interests would contain 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.

TOP SCOTS JUDGES FAIL IN HOLYROOD TRANSPARENCY PROBE:

Both of Scotland’s recent top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for judges – even after both Lord Presidents attempted to press home the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by – judges.

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.

Saturday, May 25, 2019

SCRUTINY FOR JUDGES: Former Judicial Complaints Reviewer to MSPs - Judicial complaints rules are no substitute for protection generated by a full register of judicial interests

Ex-Judicial Reviewer – register judges. SCOTLAND’S first Judicial Complaints Reviewer – Moi Ali – has hit out at suggestions complaints rules for judges act as a safeguard against judicial impropriety in place of a register of judges’ interests.

Writing in a letter to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – Ms Ali said she was moved to contact MSPs after reading a letter from Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to MSPs, claiming complaints rules for judges make a register of judicial interests unnecessary.

Moi Ali wrote: “In 2014 when I was Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I wrote to the Public Petitions Committee in support of the Register.”

“I was moved at that time to write in response to the then Justice Secretary’s submission to the Committee that such a register was unnecessary.”

“He cited the complaints rules as being one of the three safeguards that made a register unnecessary.”

“Today I have been prompted to write this letter having seen the current Justice Secretary’s almost identically-worded submission to this committee.”

“It is simply not the case that the complaints rules offer protections such that a register of interest is not required.”

Ms Ali ends her letter by telling MSPs: “I hope that the committee will see that requiring the judiciary to meet the same standards of transparency as others in public life will in no way compromise their independence.”

Moi Ali also submitted a letter she wrote during her term as Justice Secretary, in response to previous end erroneous claims by Kenny MacAskill to MSPs which have since been repeated by Humza Yousaf.

In her letter to the Public Petitions Committee, Ms Ali states: “I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.”

“The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people's assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.”

“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. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case - financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”

Humza Yousaf’s letter to Margaret Mitchell MSP, Convener of the Justice Committee – repeated the claims by former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill that complaints rules for the judiciary meant there was no requirement to create a register of interests for judges.

The letter from the Justice Secretary to Holyrood’s Justice Committee was reported in depth here: COPY MINISTER: ‘Copied’ content from ex Minister sent by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to Holyrood MSPs - Public must rely on judges judging judges for transparency, Scottish Government will not create register of judges’ interests

In the letter, Justice Secretary – Humza Yousaf – told Holyrood’s Justice Committee that judges should be allowed to judge themselves, and the public must rely on judicial oaths & ethics – written and approved by the judiciary - instead of transparency in the courts.

The judicial register petition - first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests.

The judicial register of interests would contain 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 her backing to the proposals calling for the creation of a register of judicial interests.– reported here: Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life.

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.

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.

Holyrood’s Justice Committee are due to consider Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary on Tuesday 28 May next week.

Moi Ali’s full letter to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee reads as follows:

The following submission is for the consideration of the Justice Committee when it meets on 28 May 2019 to discuss a register of interests for the judiciary.

In 2014 when I was Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I wrote to the Public Petitions Committee in support of the Register.

I was moved at that time to write in response to the then Justice Secretary’s submission to the Committee that such a register was unnecessary.

He cited the complaints rules as being one of the three safeguards that made a register unnecessary.

Today I have been prompted to write this letter having seen the current Justice Secretary’s almost identically-worded submission to this committee.

It is simply not the case that the complaints rules offer protections such that a register of interest is not required.

Rather than repeat the arguments again, I have attached the letter I wrote in 2014. It remains as relevant today as it did at back then.

I hope that the committee will see that requiring the judiciary to meet the same standards of transparency as others in public life will in no way compromise their independence.

Yours, Moi Ali

The following is the letter sent by Moi Ali in her capacity as Judicial Complaints Reviewer, to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament, who were considering the petition to create a register of judicial interests:

Assistant Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, Scottish Parliament

Consideration of Petition PE1458

I understand that the Committee is due to consider this petition again shortly. In view of this, and in response to the Cabinet Secretary's letter of 22nd April 2014, this is an opportune time to pull together the reasons why the Judicial Complaints Reviewer believes that a register of interests for the judiciary is essential.

I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.

I think it likely that the number of complaints against the judiciary would fall were there to be a published register of interest for judicial office holders. I have received complaints about perceived conflicts of interest that have come to light after court proceedings. A register of interests would allow issues to be dealt with at the time, thus averting the need for a complaint. That would be good for the judiciary and for the public.

The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people's assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.

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. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case - financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice states that there are sufficient safeguards already in place, citing the complaints rules as one of these safeguards. As the person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary to review complaints handled under these rules, I can say from experience over nearly three years that the rules are not fit for purpose. I have attached a document I prepared in December 2013, following consultation with members of the public who had made complaints under these rules, to support this assertion.

The Judicial Office's published statistics demonstrate either that judicial conduct is exemplary, and the public vexatious or unable to understand the rules; or they show that the rules are not fit for purpose. I suggest that it is the latter. For the first year in which the Rules were operational (a 13-month period to 31st March 2012), 107 conduct complaints were made to the Judicial Office and 98 were completed during that year. With one exception, all of them were dismissed without investigation. Only one investigation was carried out, following which the complaint was dismissed as "unsubstantiated".

The latest statistics have yet to be published, but year two figures (to March 31st 2013) show that 114 complaints were made (plus the 9 carried over from year 1). Of 116 concluded during the year, only 11 were investigated. Four of the 11 were still underway at year-end, meaning that 7 investigations were completed in Year 2. Of the 7, one was withdrawn; 2 resolved informally; and 4 were reported to the Lord President. Of the 4 reported to the Lord President, 3 were deemed to be without substance, unsubstantiated or vexatious. For the one remaining complaint, an apology was offered by the judicial office holder and the Lord President deemed that no further action was required.

In summary, in the first 25 months of the new complaints regime, the Judicial Office's published statistics show that of 221 complaints there were 12 investigations, one judicial office holder apologised for his or her conduct and no judicial office holders were disciplined.

My experience in this office leads me to the conclusion that the rules are not a sufficient safeguard. But even if they were, particularly when combined with the judicial oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics, why not go further in enhancing transparency and accountability?

There are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent members of public boards from acting inappropriately - such as robust audit committees, external scrutiny and regulation, board meetings held in public and a rigorous appointments process. Nevertheless, such members are still required - and rightly so - to complete a publicly accessible register of interests in order to demonstrate transparency and accountability. It is right that public appointees and elected politicians are required to do this, and it is also right that the judiciary should too. Registers of interest are the norm now and the judiciary is out of step with standard practice. This undermines their standing with the public.

For all of the above reasons, it is in the interests both of the judiciary and of the public for there to be a register of interests.

I have been frank about my views in this letter, and I hope that I have not given the impression that I do not have a great deal of respect for the judiciary and the difficult work that they undertake for the greater good of society. Their work is essential, their independence vital. An independent judiciary underpins a civilised society. But with independence goes accountability, and a register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability.

I will be standing down from my role as JCR in the summer, but until that time I am happy to provide further information to the committee if that would be helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Moi Ali, Judicial Complaints Reviewer

TOP SCOTS JUDGES FAIL IN HOLYROOD TRANSPARENCY PROBE:

Both of Scotland’s recent top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for judges – even after both Lord Presidents attempted to press home the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by – judges.

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.

Friday, May 24, 2019

COPY MINISTER: ‘Copied’ content from ex Minister sent by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to Holyrood MSPs - Public must rely on judges judging judges for transparency, Scottish Government will not create register of judges’ interests

Judges should judge judges – Minister. SCOTLAND’S Justice Secretary – Humza Yousaf – has told Holyrood’s Justice Committee that judges should be allowed to judge themselves, and the public must rely on judicial oaths & ethics – written and approved by the judiciary - instead of transparency in courts.

The Justice Secretary’s letter of 3 April to Holyrood MSPs, which was released only late last week – also states the Scottish Government will not create a register of judicial interests in response to the widely supported Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

However, it has emerged Humza Yousaf’s letter of April 2019 - is almost a duplicate of a letter sent in April 2014 by Kenny MacAskill during his time as Justice Secretary.

The recent letter from Mr Yousaf to Margaret Mitchel MSP – Convener of the Justice Committee, effectively re-states the Scottish Government’s refusal to create a register of judges’ interests.

Mr Yousaf also claims in his letter that “no further evidence has been provided to the Justice Committee that strengthens the arguments already put forward in favour of the introduction of the register.”

However, recent submissions to the Justice Committee including accounts of serving Scottish judges swearing dual oaths for high earning judicial posts in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and other Gulf States point to substantial new evidence submitted to MSPs, backing up the need for a full register of judicial interests.

Clerks to the Justice Committee were quizzed on the content of Mr Yousaf’s claims in relation to no new evidence.

In response, a Justice Committee clerk told the petitioner: “Your submission was publicly available to the Scottish Government to refer to, before the Cabinet Secretary provided the letter dated 3 April”

It has also emerged the Lord President – Lord Carloway, and others including the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Crown Office and others have refused to engage with the Justice Committee’s call for views on creating a register of judges’ interests.

A clerk for the Justice Committee informed the petitioner: “Before the Committee last considered your petition on 5 February, clerks approached those who have previously given evidence to the Public Petitions Committee to ask if they had anything to add to their previous submissions.”

“We approached the Lord President, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. Only the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service responded, stating that they had nothing to add”

Mr Yousaf’s letter of 3 April 2019 to the Justice Committee reads as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 20 February seeking my views on the above petition and whether it remains the Scottish Government’s position that a register should not be introduced.

I have given consideration to the matter and I don’t think it is necessary to establish a register of interests. I share the views of both of my predecessors that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary.

These safeguards are the judicial oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics and the various rules made under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 which concern complaints about the judiciary and judicial conduct.

I note that no further evidence has been provided to the Justice Committee that strengthens the arguments already put forward in favour of the introduction of the register.

However, the “the various rules made under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 which concern complaints about the judiciary and judicial conduct” – which include the post of Judicial Complaints Reviewer – remain unchanged since Scotland’s first JCR – Moi Ali gave evidence to the Public Petitions  Committee during 2013.

And, during her time as Judicial Complaints Reviewer – Moi Ali requested increated powers from the Scottish Government – to give the office of JCR a more formidable and independent oversight role on complaints against judges – only to be turned down by the then Justice Secretary - Kenny MacAskill.

The request by Moi Ali to increase powers of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer ws reported here: Scottish Government urged to give more powers to Judicial Complaints Reviewer as MSPs hear lack of judicial scrutiny undermines public confidence in justice system

An earlier letter of 22 April 2014 from Kenny MacAskill – who was Justice Secretary from 17 May 2007 until ‘stepping down’ sacked from the post on 21 November 2014 - to David Stewart MSP – then Convener of the Public Petitions Committee reads as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 6 March 2014 regarding the above Public Petition. I apologise for the delay in responding.

You ask whether the Scottish Government will review its position on whether members of the judiciary ought to register their interests. I note the evidence the Committee has gathered on this issue and, in particular, the arguments presented by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) that a register of interests would increase transparency and public trust in the judiciary.

The JCR considers that there is merit in a register of interests for members of the judiciary. I do not think it necessary to establish such a register. I continue to be of the view that there are already sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary.

These have been set out in previous correspondence and comprise the judicial oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the rules made under the 2008 Act. I do not consider that the case has been made that these existing safeguards are not effective.

It is of note, that after being kicked from the post of Justice Secretary – Kenny MacAskill ended up on the same Public Petitions Committee which was considering the petition calling for a register of judicial interests.

And, during a hearing of the Petitions Committee on 1 December 2015 – MacAskill – by now devoid of Ministerial rank – suggested calling the new Lord President - who was yet to be publicly identified at the time due to the appointments process - but was known to be Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland)

The post of Lord President – with a salary of £220K per year - became vacant after Lord Brian Gill unexpectedly walked out of the top judicial post in May 2015 – giving only 30 days notice he intended to quit.

The 1 December 2015 hearing was reported in more detail here : EVIDENCE, M’LORD: Scotland’s next top judge to be asked to give evidence in Scottish Parliament’s probe on secretive world of undeclared judicial wealth, interests & judges' links to big business

Video footage of Mr MacAskill at the Public Petitions Committee in that meeting can be found here:

Petition PE1458 Register of Interests for Judges Public Petitions Committee Holyrood 1 Dec 2015

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458) 1 December 2015

The Convener: Our next petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on the creation of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note on the committee’s previous consideration of the petition and the submissions from the petitioner.

Do members have any comments?

Kenny MacAskill: We have heard from the previous Lord President and I think that we should hear from the new Lord President, whoever he is likely to be—I do not think that there is a “she” on the shortlist. That appointment is likely to be made in the next week or so, so there is still time for him to appear before us.

The Convener: In that case, we will write to the new Lord President, as we said that we would.

Decision: The Committee agreed to write to the new Lord President once appointed.

PETITION – A REGISTER OF JUDGES’ INTERESTS

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee are currently investigating calls for a probe of Judicial Recusals, as part of their work on considering Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

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.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee and Justice Committee work in  relation to creating a Register of Judges’ Interests - can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

RECUSAL REGISTER: Senators, Judges, Sheriffs & Tribunal members now declare more recusal detail in Conflict of Interest Register – as Holyrood Justice Committee probe petition to create a Register of Judges' Interests

Judges’ conflicts of interest declared. SCOTLAND’S judiciary leads the rest of the United Kingdom in one area of transparency – the publication of Judicial ‘Recusals’ – the term used to describe when a judge or tribunal member has a conflict of interest and must stand aside from hearing a case.

Currently, around one hundred and seventy five recusals of judges and tribunal members have been recorded in the Register of Recusals – which is kept up to date by the Judiciary of Scotland here: Judicial Recusals - Judiciary of Scotland

The Register of Recusals came into being - albeit grudgingly – after Scotland’s now former top judge Lord Brian Gill - held an unprecedented private meeting with Committee Conveners during early 2014.

Gill created the Register of Recusals - as a response to growing calls for MSPs to press ahead with a petition calling for all judges to declare their interests in a publicly available register - Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

However, later in the same year, top judge Lord Brian Gill was forced to recuse himself from a case in which his own son – Advocate Brian Gill – represented one of the parties involved in an action – the details of which, and identities of the parties involved, were kept secret from media enquiries at the time in 2014.

Only recently, with again – grudging reforms to the Recusals Register, enacted only after requests from MSPs and direct discussions between the Judicial Interests petitioner and the Judicial Office itself, do we now know the identities of litigants, case references and extra details now published in the Recusals Register.

Whatever was so secret about publishing the fact the Lord President’s son represented a party in Belhaven Brewery v Assessor for Ayrshire XA 72/14 – causing the recusal of his father Lord Brian Gill from the bench, is still to be adequately explained – but we now know who were involved, just – not the ‘why’.

However, despite recent promises from the Judicial Office that Justices of the Peace – numbering well over 400 - were to be included in the Regster of Recisals – there are, strangely and without explanation, no references whatsoever to one single Justice of the Peace being the subject of a recusal.

Furthermore when enquiries were made of the Judicial Office to reveal more detailsof the JPs, all communications from the Head of Governance stopped after it was queried why no JPs had recused – sparking another mystery to be solved.

The lack of recusals in relation to Justices of the Peace was reported in more detail here : THE UNRECUSED: Mystery as 450 Justices of the Peace fail to register one single recusal in a full year after conflict of interest rules change for Scotland’s secretive army of lay magistrates

Additionally – and worryingly for those who prefer honesty with their judiciary – there is not a single mention of any of the judges who were forced to stand aside in the hearings relating to a multi million pound damages claim against the Lord Advocate and Scotland’s Chief Constable - A295/16 David Whitehouse (represented by Urquharts) v Liam Murphy &c (represented by Ledingham Chambers for SGLD - Scottish Government Legal Directorate)

The case related to legal action taken by former Rangers Administrator David Whitehouse - for wrongful arrest and financial damages against Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC and the Chief Constable of Police Scotland.

A media investigation revelaed the case was incredibly scheduled to be heard by the Lord Advocate’s wife – Lady Sarah Wolffe - who is a judge in the Court of Session.

The case was reported in more detail here: WOLFFE COURT: Lord Advocate James Wolffe and his judge wife at centre of £9million damages claim - Questions remain why Lady Wolffe avoided recusal during emergency judge swap on court case against her own husband

It then emerged a series of judge swapping on the case, saw hearings passed from Lady Sarah Wolffe, to Lady Morag Wise, then Lord Paul Arthurson – and then to a FOURTH judge – Lord Sidney Neil Brailsford.

Yet, despite the blatant conflicts of interest in relation to the Lord Advocate’s own wife who was set to hear the case – there is – importantly – not one mention or reference, even a backdated note, within the Register of Recusals – to explain why, eventually – Lady Wolffe had to step aside from the case yet failed to issue a proper recusal for doing so.

Bizarrely, the case ultimately fell to be heard by Lord Malcolm – made famous after the judge – who’s real name is Colin Campbell QC – heard a case up to eight times where his son represented the defenders - yet saying nothing in court.

Another case which revealed significant problems with how the Judicial Office kept records of judicial recusals was that of an instance involving Lord Bracadale – where, only after media enquiries to the Judicial Office Press Chief, was it admitted a case in which Lord Bracadale had stepped aside from hearing, was not recorded in the Register of  Recusals.

After admitting the ‘mistake’ of failing to record the recusal by Lord Bracadale, clerks for the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service then silently updated the Recusals Register, a year later, and without any note that the recusal had been amended after the ‘mistake’ had been investigated by the media.

The Bracadale recusal issue was reported in greater detail here: RECUSALS UNLIMITED: Doubts over credibility of register of judges’ recusals - as Judicial Office admit court clerks failed to add details of senior judges recusals – then silently altered records a year later.

It is worth noting, Lord Carloway was asked questions about the failure to record Lord Bracadale’s recusal, during the Lord President’s evidence hearing with the Public Petitions Committee in July 2017.

Lord Carloway’s could not offer a satisfactory response, and it is worth noting the Head of Judicial Communications resigned her post during queries into why the Bracadale recusal had been concealed from the publicly available Register of Recusals.

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee are currently investigating calls for a probe of Judicial Recusals, as part of their work on considering Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

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.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee and Justice Committee work in  relation to creating a Register of Judges’ Interests - can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary.

The current list of Judicial Recusals as of the date of publication of this article lists the following members of thejudiciary, court locations, case references, and reaons for their recusal due to a conflict of interest:

Judicial Recusals 2014

DATE

COURT & TYPE OF ACTION

JUDGE

CASE NAME & REF

MOTION BY & REASON

24/03/2014

Livingston Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Edington

A v B*

Defender; Sheriff drew to the parties’ attention a possible difficulty, namely the wife of one of the other resident Sheriffs was the author of a report contained with the proces s . T h e Sheriff asked parties if they wished him to recuse himself. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse himself, which he then did.

08/04/2014

Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Veal

PF v Richard Hughes SCS/2013/148273

Ex proprio motu**; Sheriff personally known to a witness

10/04/2014

Selkirk Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Paterson

MacDonald v Dickson PBL A11/13

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had acted for a client in a previous dispute against the Pursuer

23/04/2014

High Court of Justiciary (Appeal)

Lady Wise

Barry Hughes v Her Majesty’s Advocate H CA/2014-001480- XC

Ex proprio motu; Senator had previously acted for a relative of accused

16/04/2014

Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Cathcart

HMA v Michael J J Houston GLW 2013/013251; GLW2013/015913; GLW 2014/003566

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to the a witness

13/04/2014

Haddington Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Braid

C v D*

Ex p rop rio motu; Sheriff known to pursuer's family

14/05/2014

High Court of Justiciary (Criminal)

Temporary Judge MacIver

Mateusz Zborowski v Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh HCA/2014­002089/XT

Ex proprio motu; Conflict of interest

20/05/2014

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Matthews

E v F*

Ex p ro p ri o motu; Senator personally known to a witness

19/06/2014

Dingwall Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff N McPartlin

PF v Carl J Wheatley SCS/2013-110134

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff presided over a trial involving the accused, where the issue to which the instant case relates was spoken to by a witness

20/06/2014

Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Raeburn QC

PF Elgin v Alistair Simpson

SCS/2014-011055

Ex proprio motu; Accused appeared before the Sheriff as a wi tn e ss in a recent trial relating to the same incident.

24/06/2014

Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff P V Crozier

HMA v Paul Daniels GLW 2014 - 007144

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to proprietor of premises libelled in the charge.

26/06/2014

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Gill

Belhaven Brewery v Assessor for Ayrshire XA 72/14

Ex proprio motu; Relative of Senator acts for the respondent

27/08/2014

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Brailsford

G v H*

Ex proprio motu; Senator personally known to husband of th e p u rs u e r

28/08/2014

Oban Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff W D Small

Etonella Christlieb A22/14 & A23/14

Ex p ro p ri o m otu ; S heriff personally known to a party.

28/08/2014

Oban Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff W D Small

PF v Etonella Christlieb OBN2014-000138

Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party of the action

22/10/2014

Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Cowan

PF v George Mutch SCS/2013/-110352

Defender; Sheriff drew to parties’ attention that she was a member of the RSPB before commencement of a trial as the case involved an investigation carried out by the RSPB and many witnesses were RSPB officers. She invited parties to consider whether she should take the trial. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse herself, which she then did.

08/12/2014

Alloa Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff D Mackie

I v J*

Ex proprio motu; Contemporaneous and overlapping proceedings comprising an appeal and a referral from the children’s hearing relating to children from the same family.

16/12/2014

Court of Session (Civil)

Lady Clark of Calton

Petition: Thomas Orr & another for Order Under Companies Act

P1769/08

Ex proprio motu; Senator personally known to parties of the action.


Judicial Recusals 2014

DATE

COURT & TYPE OF ACTION

JUDGE

CASE NAME & REF

MOTION BY & REASON

24/03/2014

Livingston Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Edington

A v B*

Defender; Sheriff drew to the parties’ attention a possible difficulty, namely the wife of one of the other resident Sheriffs was the author of a report contained with the proces s . T h e Sheriff asked parties if they wished him to recuse himself. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse himself, which he then did.

08/04/2014

Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Veal

PF v Richard Hughes SCS/2013/148273

Ex proprio motu**; Sheriff personally known to a witness

10/04/2014

Selkirk Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Paterson

MacDonald v Dickson PBL A11/13

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had acted for a client in a previous dispute against the Pursuer

23/04/2014

High Court of Justiciary (Appeal)

Lady Wise

Barry Hughes v Her Majesty’s Advocate H CA/2014-001480- XC

Ex proprio motu; Senator had previously acted for a relative of accused

16/04/2014

Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Cathcart

HMA v Michael J J Houston GLW 2013/013251; GLW2013/015913; GLW 2014/003566

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to the a witness

13/04/2014

Haddington Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Braid

C v D*

Ex p rop rio motu; Sheriff known to pursuer's family

14/05/2014

High Court of Justiciary (Criminal)

Temporary Judge MacIver

Mateusz Zborowski v Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh HCA/2014­002089/XT

Ex proprio motu; Conflict of interest

20/05/2014

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Matthews

E v F*

Ex p ro p ri o motu; Senator personally known to a witness

19/06/2014

Dingwall Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff N McPartlin

PF v Carl J Wheatley SCS/2013-110134

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff presided over a trial involving the accused, where the issue to which the instant case relates was spoken to by a witness

20/06/2014

Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Raeburn QC

PF Elgin v Alistair Simpson

SCS/2014-011055

Ex proprio motu; Accused appeared before the Sheriff as a wi tn e ss in a recent trial relating to the same incident.

24/06/2014

Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff P V Crozier

HMA v Paul Daniels GLW 2014 - 007144

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to proprietor of premises libelled in the charge.

26/06/2014

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Gill

Belhaven Brewery v Assessor for Ayrshire XA 72/14

Ex proprio motu; Relative of Senator acts for the respondent

27/08/2014

Court of Session (Civil)

Lo rd Brailsford

G v H*

Ex proprio motu; Senator personally known to husband of th e p u rs u e r

28/08/2014

Oban Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff W D Small

Etonella Christlieb A22/14 & A23/14

Ex p ro p ri o m otu ; S heriff personally known to a party.

28/08/2014

Oban Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff W D Small

PF v Etonella Christlieb OBN2014-000138

Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party of the action

22/10/2014

Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Cowan

PF v George Mutch SCS/2013/-110352

Defender; Sheriff drew to parties’ attention that she was a member of the RSPB before commencement of a trial as the case involved an investigation carried out by the RSPB and many witnesses were RSPB officers. She invited parties to consider whether she should take the trial. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse herself, which she then did.

08/12/2014

Alloa Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff D Mackie

I v J*

Ex proprio motu; Contemporaneous and overlapping proceedings comprising an appeal and a referral from the children’s hearing relating to children from the same family.

16/12/2014

Court of Session (Civil)

Lad y Clark of Calton

Petition: Thomas Orr & another for Order Under Companies Act

P1769/08

Ex proprio motu; Senator personally known to parties of the action.


Judicial Recusals 2015

DATE

COURT & TYPE OF ACTION

JUDGE

CASE NAME & REF

MOTION BY & REASON

22/01/2015

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Extradition)

Sheriff Maciver

Poland v Lukasz Kosowski

**Ex proprio motu; Sheriff involved in case at earlier stage of proceedings

30/01/2015

Dumfries Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff G Jamieson

Browns Hairdressers v Lauren Brown A82/13

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had previously dealt with the issue under dispute

06/02/2015

Greenock Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff I M Fleming

Helen Humphreys v Norna Crabba B593/14

Ex proprio motu; Previous professional relationship between Sheriff's former firm of solicitors and the defender

10/02/2015

High Court of Justiciary (Criminal)

Lady Scott

HMA v John McGregor IND2014-3553

Ex proprio motu; Due to a previous ruling made by the Senator in relation to a separate indictment against the accused

10/02/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Jones

Steven Paterson v David MacLeod & ors PD812/13

Pursuer; Due to a previous finding by the Senator in relation an expert witness whose evidence is crucial to the pursuer's case

13/03/2015

Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff A Cowan

HMA v John Paris Lyon SCS-2015/012519

Ex proprio motu; Accused known by the Sheriff as a reg u l a r observer of court proceedings from the public gallery

17/03/2015

Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Di Emidio

PF v Kevin R Hutcheon SCS 2014-110800

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness

18/03/2015

Lerwick Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Mann

PF v William McCover Ler-2015/000142

Ex proprio motu; Circumstance may give rise to a suggestion of bias.

16/04/2015

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Arthurson QC

David H Kidd v Ronald G Clancy QC SC74/15

Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party of the a ct i on

12/05/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Boyd of Duncansby

K v L*

Defender; Senator was Lord Advocate when a successful prosecution was brought against one of the respondents.

14/05/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Brailsford

M v N*

Defender; Senator previously involved in this case.

14/05/2015

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff McColl

David H Kidd v Ronald G Clancy QC SC74/15

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a party of the action

27/05/2015

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff F Crowe

CEC v James McMillan SD738/14

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had previously deal with a case in which the defender was a witness

29/05/2015

Glasgow Sheriff Court (FAI)

Sheriff Principal Scott QC

FAI - Glasgow Bin Lorry

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to one of the deceased

04/06/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Glennie

Marshall Ronald v Duke of Buccleugh

Ex proprio motu; Senator is an acquaintance of a party to the action

04/06/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Burns

Marshall Ronald v Duke of Buccleugh

Ex proprio motu; Senator previously acted as defence counsel in a criminal trial involving the pursuer

24/07/2015

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff K M Maciver

PF v James McKinstry

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a party in the case

11/08/2015

Banff Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Mann

PF v James J Duguid SCS/2015-086256

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a party of the action, having previously acted on behalf of the family while in private practice

21/08/2015

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Mackie

GE Money Secured Loans Limited v Kenneth More & Shirely More B64/15

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff in dispute with pursuer

28/08/2015

Dundee Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Murray

PF v Peter Whyte and Helen Williams SCS-2015/088655

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness

03/09/2015

Dumbarton Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Turnbull

O v P*

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had previously acted for client in a dispute against the pursuer

04/09/2015

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Mackie

GE Money Home Lending Ltd v Susan Glancy B1078/15

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff involved in a dispute against a party to the action

15/09/2015

Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Stirling

PF v Graham Gordon SCS/2015008686

D efender; Sheriff previously considered and refused i s s u e s wh i ch the accused wished to revisit

01/10/2015

Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff W. J. Taylor

PF v Stanley Lawrence SCS/2014098082

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff was privy to certain i nfo rmati o n a b o ut the accused's credibility

08/10/2015

Lanark Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Stewart

PF v Laura Harrower LAN2015-000186

Ex proprio motu; Accused made complaints against the Sheriff and staff

12/10/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lady Clark of Calton

Rehab Abdel-Rahman for Judicial Review P833/11

Ex proprio motu; Senator an acquaintance of a party to the action

20/10/2015

Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Crozier

HMA v Gilmour and Dean SCS-2015/103172

Ex p ropri o motu; S h eriff personally known to a director of the accused's company

20/10/2015

Inverness Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Sutherland

Church street investments v Julie Doughty SA296-15

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a party of the action

12/11/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Malcolm

MacRoberts LLP v McCrindle Group Ltd CA133/12

Ex proprio motu; Senator acted as Senior Counsel for the defenders in a related action

18/11/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Boyd of Duncansby

Petition: Hunt for Judicial Review

Ex proprio motu; Relative of Senator involved in the action

26/11/2015

Inverness Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff G Fleetwood

The MacKenzie Law Practice v John Holden SA163/15

Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party of the action

27/11/2015

Court of Session (Civil)

Lady Paton

William Beggs v Scottish Information Commissioner XA105/14

Ex proprio motu after intimation to parties and a negative response from the Pursuer; Senator was on the bench for an appeal against conviction by the Pursuer

09/12/2015

Wick Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Berry

PF v Martin McGowan 2015/00289

Ex proprio motu; Complainer personally known to the Sheriff

22/12/2015

Lanark Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Stewart

Q v R[1] [2]

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to both parties of the action


Judicial Recusals 2016

DATE

COURT & TYPE OF ACTION

JUDGE

CASE NAME & REF

MOTION BY & REASON

26/01/2016

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Uist

Andrew MacLeod v Graham Douglas & another A356/14

Pursuer; Senator dealt with same issue and same witnesses in a case being appealed

27/01/2016

Dumbarton Sheriff Court

Sheriff Gallacher

Daniel Macaulay v Robert Whitton & Margaret Whitton SA653/15

**Ex proprio motu; Sheriff involved in previous proceedings

09/02/2016

Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Pasportnikov

PF v Katie & Andrew O'Hare

SCS/2015-137949

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over related case

10/02/2016

Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Pasportnikov

PF v Scott Bate SCS2015- 137058

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over a recent criminal and civil case.

18/03/2016

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Ross

S v T*

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over criminal matter involving appellant

18/03/2016

Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff A Stirling

Dandara Ltd

AB15009178/SCS - 2015 - 1552552

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over civil matter involving accused

14/04/2016

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Braid

PF v John Wyse SCS/2016-041402

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously dealt with the accused in a previous case.

25/04/2016

Ayr Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Montgomery

Thomas Port and Catherine Port v Steven Easton and Easton Kitchens and Bathrooms A147/15

Joint motion; Sheriff previously acted for the defender as a solicitor

03/05/2016

Lanark Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff N C Stewart

PF v Alexander Law Law/2015-000463

Ex proprio motu; Complainer previously represented by Sheriff's husband

20/05/2016

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Bracadale

Donal Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd CA132/11

On the pursuer's motion in relation to the judge's previous decision to refuse the pursuer's appeal at a procedural hearing

23/05/2016

Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff P Di Emidio

HMA v Alexander Sturrock SCS 2016-044654

Ex p ro p rio motu; Sheriff previously granted a search warra n t a n d i s be i n g ch a l l e n ged by the accused

13/06/2016

Glasgow Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff S Reid

Norna Crabbe v Alexander Reid & Others A8111/07

P ursuer; Personally known to a witness

22/06/2016

Perth Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff David Clapham

Commercial Legal Centre LLP v Cargo Bar Ltd SA5616

Ex proprio motu; Pursuer known to Sheriff

09/08/2016

Dunoon Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Thomas Ward

Derke Rodger v Capercaille Books Limited A14/15

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness

19/08/2016

Greenock Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Thomas Ward

PF Greenock v Henry Kerr and Angela Deeney GRE-2016

000548/GR16001177

Ex proprio motu; Accused known to Sheriff from Sheriff's time in private practice

23/08/2016

Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Alison Stirling

PF v Dandara LTD SCS2015155252- SCS2015101495

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff Stirling found the accused's company liable in a civil matter

13/09/2016

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Pentland

William Russell & others v John Morre and others A77/16

Joint motion; Senator previously acted for the first named defender

25/10/2016

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Brailsford

HMA to appt admin re Mohammond Younas P1442/15

Appellant; A close relative is employed by one of the parties involved in the case

10/11/2016

Kilmarnock Sheriff Court (Criminal)

Sheriff Foran

PF v Stewart Daly KIL-2016-000635

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness

17/11/2016

Dumfries Sheriff Court

Sheriff G Jamieson

Ronald Adams v Ronald Bell Dum-A62/16

Defender; Sheriff presided over a related civil proof in another case in which parties were witnesses.

18/11/2016

Court of Session (Civil)

Lord Glennie

Adebayo Aina for Leave to appeal a Decision of the Upper Tribunal XA99/16

Ex proprio motu; Earlier decision on a related issue might reasonable be though to influence any decision in the present case

30/11/2016

Perth Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff R McFarlane

S Koronka

(Manufacturing) Ltd v Musgrave Generators Ltd A103/16

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff acted for the pursuers when p ractising as a solicitor


Judicial Recusals 2017

DATE

COURT & TYPE OF ACTION

JUDGE

CASE NAME & REF

MOTION BY & REASON

30/01/17

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (criminal)

Sheriff Crowe

Robert Wylie (EDI 2016 012008)

**Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over criminal matter involving accused, which might reasonably be thought to influence any decision in the present case

13/02/17

Portree Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff Taylor QC

T v U[3]

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously dealt with a criminal case involving parties

23/02/17

Inverness Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff Fleetwood

Ashwin Bantwal v Vrishali Shenoy

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff presided over a jury trial involving parties

29/03/17

Perth Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff Wade QC

Drysdale Motorcycles v Derek Annand & Edwin McLaren (SE9/15)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff, in her previous role as advocate depute, was heavily involved in preparing the prosecution of one of the parties in the action

06/04/17

Kilmarnock Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff Foran

Lynsey Henderson v NHS Ayrshire & Arran Health Board

(KIL-PD55-14)

Pursuer's motion granted; A witness was a former client of the Sheriff in previous role in private practice

04/05/17

Elgin Sheriff Court (criminal)

Sheriff

Pasportnikov

PF Elgin v Douglas Welsh (ELG2017-000441)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had previous knowledge of the parties through a Children's Hearing matter

16/05/17

Banff Sheriff Court (criminal)

Sheriff Mann

PF Banff v Kate Law (x2) (BAN-2016-172) (BA16000365)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to relatives of the accused

12/06/17

Glasgow Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff Platt

Lucy Bruce v Andrew Bruce (GLW-F619-14)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness

04/08/17

Forfar Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff Murray

Dundee Joinery Limited v Mike Hall (FFR-SG157-17)

Defender's motion granted; Sheriff had acted on behalf of the Pursuer in a civil action against the prospective Lay Representative as a Defender prior to him being appointed as a Sheriff

14/08/17

Elgin Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff Pasportnikov

Ann Hawksley v Gordonstoun Schools Limited (ELG-A80-16)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff has previous knowledge of the parties

23/08/17

Kilmarnock Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff McFarlane

V v W*

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff has previous involvement with the parties

05/09/17

Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil)

Sheriff Tait

W v X*

Ex proprio motu; The outcome of previous proceedings involving one of the parties might reasonably be thought to influence any decision in the present case

10/10/17

Alloa Sheriff Court (Children's Hearing)

Sheriff Mackie

Y v Z*

Ex proprio motu; Appeal arises as a direct consequence of a decision of the same Sheriff

18/10/17

Aberdeen Sheriff Court (criminal)

Sheriff McLaughlin

Bosede Obe Oghughu (SCS/21017-080483)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over a trial involving the same accused and same witnesses.

23/10/17

Dumbarton Sheriff Court (civil)

Sheriff Pender

Promontoria v Colin & David Wilson

Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party in the action

30/10/17

Wick Sheriff Court (criminal)

Sheriff Berry

Robert John Sutherland

Ex proprio motu; Family personally known to Sheriff

14/12/17

Dundee Sheriff Court (criminal)

Sheriff Way

HMA v Megan Sandeman (DUN2017-002839)

Defence motion granted; Written material sent to the court for the Sheriff's attention, also enclosed in a victim impact statement provided by the Crown, may reasonably have impugned the Sheriff's impartiality

19/12/17

Wick Sheriff Court (criminal)

Sheriff Berry

PF Wick v Ian Stuart Sinclair

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness

*Parties anonymised due to sensitive nature of case **Of the judge’s own accord

DATE

NAME OF JUDGE (AND COURT/TRIBUNAL)

CASE NAME (AND/OR REF)

MOTION BY & REASON

8/1/18

Sheriff Montgomery

(Ayr Sheriff Court)

James McColm v Meiqin McColm (F138/16)

**Ex proprio motu; Knowledge of pursuer's family background

19/1/18

Sheriff Fleetwood

(Inverness Sheriff Court)

Ashwin Bantwal v Vrishali Shenoy (INV-SM18-17)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously recused himself in another case involving the parties, having earlier presided over a jury trial involving parties

1/2/18

Lord Justice Clerk

(Court of Session)

Petition to the Nobile Officium by Derek Cooney (P115/17)

Petitioner's motion refused; no valid objection stated

6/2/18

Moira Clark

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

8212/SO63*

Ex proprio motu;Personal conflict of interest

12/2/18

Sheriff A Brown

(Dundee Sheriff Court)

HMA v M Islam and S Smekramuddin (DUN2017-4074)

Ex proprio motu;Witness known to Sheriff

23/2/18

Dr Ross Hamilton

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

8709/S063*

Ex proprio motu; Patient known to the Medical Member, having treated a relative

27/2/18

Graham Harding

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/18/0148

Ex proprio motu; Party is a client of the tribunal member's firm

6/3/18

Dr Ross Hamilton

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

7987/S1012b*

Ex proprio motu; Previously provided second opinion on same patient

15/2/18

Linda Reid

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/17/0480

Ex proprio motu; Potential conflict of interest as the tribunal member has a professional relationship with certain partners and associates of the agents for one of the parties

20/2/18

Nicola Weir

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/18/0150

Ex proprio motu; One of the parties is the tribunal member's family solicitor

28/2/18

Ian Campbell Matson

  (Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

N/A

Ex proprio motu; Work as locum at same hospital

7/3/18

Andrew Upton

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/0250* and CV/18/0251*

Ex proprio motu; The tribunal member's firm acts for the parent company of one of the parties

13/3/18

Dr James Deans

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

9142/S095*

Ex proprio motu; Previously treated patient on compulsory basis

21/3/18

Sheriff Principal Lewis

  (Sheriff Appeal Court)

Gabriel Politakis v RBS & Others

Ex proprio motu; Previously presided in appeal involving appellant

23/3/18

Sheriff A Anwar

(Glasgow Sheriff Court)

GLW-F417-13

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness

3/4/18

Graham Harding

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/18/0233

Ex proprio motu; conflict of interest

9/4/18

Mark Andrew

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/18/0162

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member known to tenants involved in the case

9/4/18

Sheriff Fleetwood

(Inverness Sheriff Court)

PF v Jade Brown (INV 2017-1048)

Joint motion granted; Sheriff was a longstanding agent of a key witness

17/4/18

Gillian Buchanan (Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/16/0210

Ex proprio motu; Respondent has conmnection to member's firm

2/4/18

Lady Paton

(Court of Session)

XA88/16

Motion by party litigant refused; no good reason for recusal

TBC

Patricia Ann Pryce

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/16/0210

Ex proprio motu; Conflict

25/4/18

Gillian Buchanan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/18/0602

Ex proprio motu; Previously acted for landlord

27/4/18

Graham Harding

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RT/18/0586

Ex proprio motu; One of the parties a client of the firm the applicant works for

27/4/18

Gillian Buchanan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RT/18/0586

Ex proprio motu; Respondent known to applicant as client of Member's firm

3/4/18

Sheriff Caldwell

(Falkirk Sheriff Court)

SCS/2018-035424

Sheriff heard evidence in a trial with same accused and witnesses

11/5/18

David Preston

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/17/0315

Ex proprio motu; factor known to applicant

11/5/18

Sheriff Fleetwood

(Inverness Sheriff Court)

A v B*

Respondent's motion granted; The sheriff, having previously made a Permancence Order in respect of the child, declined jurisdiction to hear the adoption proof

14/5/18

Ewan Miller

(Housing and Property) Chamber

CV/18/0981

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member's firm acts for on eof the parties

14/5/18

Susan Napier

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/18/0240

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member's worked for the housing association party when the development concerned was built

23/5/18

Elizabeth Currie

(Housing and Property Chamber)

CV/18/0599

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member works for the local authority and is responsible for landlord registration

23/5/18

Jacqui Taylor

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/1075 and  CV/18/1077

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member's firm has acted for one of the parties

24/5/18

Jim Bauld

(Housing and Property Chember)

RP/18/0961

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member's firm instructed by one the parties

29/5/18

Andrew Cowan

(Housing and Property Chember)

CV/18/1130 and EV/18/1127

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member's firm acts for the applicant

29/5/18

Jim Bauld

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/18/0571

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member's firm acts for the landlord

4/6/18

Jim Bauld

(Housing and Property Chamber)

LM/18/1073

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member's firm acts for factor

5/6/18

Rory Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/1078

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member previously dealt with one of the parties

12/6/18

Sheriff Cook

(Edinburgh Sheriff Court)

PF v Josh Harkness

Defence motion granted; Sheriff had presided over a trial involving same accused and complainer

11/7/18

Lord Brailsford

(Court of Session)

Margaret Paterson v SCCR  (P376/17)

Ex proprio motu; Lord Brailsford was one of a three-judge panel who had refused the petitioner leave to appeal the criminal conviction at second sift. The reason for refusing leave was germaine to the challenge raised in the judicial review.

31/7/18

Helen Miller

(Additional Support Needs Tribunal)

AR/18/0006

Case indirectly involves the school attended by tribunal member's son

27/7/18

Sheriff Ward

(Dunoon Sheriff Court)

PF v Gavin Murphy

Defence motion refused; Sheriff previously dealt with a children's social work referral in relation to the accused where the complainers were witnesses

2/8/18

Andrew Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PR/18/1159

Tribunal member's firm acted for the landlord's agents in separate matters

14/8/18

Andrew Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RA/18/1621

Potential conflic of interest

19/9/18

Sheriff Fleming

(Glasgow Sheriff Court)

National Westminster Bank Plc v Morag Horsey (GLW-B885-18)

Ex proprio motu; prior professional conflict

19/9/18

Sheriff Hamilton QC

(Dumbarton Sheriff Court)

DBN-SG155-18 Amir Smoli v John Currie

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff knows the pursuer

21/9/18

Carolyn Hirst

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/1740

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member has a conflict of interest, having worked as an independent consultant for one of the parties

28/9/18

Sheriff Dickson

(Tain Sheriff Court)

TAI-F43-13

Ex proprio motu; The Sheriff has knowledge of one of the parties in the conext of criminal proceedings

12/10/18

Alison Kelly

(Housing and Property Chamber)

CV/18/1659 and PR/18/1408

Ex proprio motu; Tribnual member knows the letting agent who is acting for the applicant

13/12/18

Temporary Judge Norman Ritchie QC

  (Glasgow High Court)

HMA v Craig Tonnar (IND 2018/1312

Ex proprio motu; Material placed before the court may reasonably have impugned the judge's decision on sentence.

13/12/18

Sheriff Berry

(Wick Sheriff Court)

PF v William Fernie

Ex proprio motu; Accused is well known to the Sheriff

30/1/19

Suzanne Sinclair

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

08500/S063

Ex proprio motu; Psychiatrist who completed a medical report for a CTO application is the Tribunal member's Doctor.

4/2/19

Suzanne Sinclair

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

08622/S050

Ex proprio motu; Appeal against a Short Term Detention Order made by a Doctor who was formerly the Tribunal member's Doctor

6/2/19

Lady Wise

(Court of Session)

AD10/18

Ex proprio motu; The Lord Ordinary having heard Counsel at diet of proof that there was no opposition to the granting of the Petition and the natural parents were consenting, indicated that she was satisfied on the merits of the Petition. Subsequently however, the natural parents withdrew said consent and the matter required to proceed to proof. The Lord Ordinary indicated that as she had stated her view on the merits of the case she was not now in a position to hear the case.

8/2/19

Lord Bannatyne

(Court of Session)

Agilisys Ltd

v

CGI IT UK Ltd

(CA 55/17)

Defender's motion granted; The Lord Ordinary, having made findings in respect of the credibility and reliability of some of the defender's witnesses in the first proof, and being mindful of a real possibility of the perception of bias arising therefrom, recused himself from hearing the second proof, at which some of the same witnesses would again give evidence.

18/2/19

Sheriff Summers

(Aberdeen Sheriff

Court)

Blair Nimmo

v

Richard Dennis

(SQ60-18)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff knows parties involved in the case

27/2/19

Sheriff Anwar

(Glasgow Sheriff

Court)

David Grier

v

Chief Constable,

Police Scotland

Pursuer's motion granted; The sheriff, having previously intimated to parties that recusal may be necessary, declined jurisdiction, given that another sheriff at Glasgow was listed among the potential witnesses.

5/3/19

Rory Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/3486

and

CV/18/3487

Ex proprio motu; case involves a former client of the Tribunal member.

7/3/19

Suzanne Sinclair

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

09471/S063

Ex proprio motu; Doctor who completed a medical report for a CTO application is the Tribunal member's Doctor.

12/3/19

Simone Sweeney

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/18/2240

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member is an employee of one of the parties

19/3/19

Jim Bauld

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/19/0110

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member is an employee of the fim which acts for the letting agent party

20/3/19

Helen Forbes

(Housing and Property Chamber)

CV/19/0143

Ex proprio motu; Legal Member acts for the appplicant's representative

27/3/19

Patricia Anne Pryce

(Housing and Property Chamber)

FTS/HPC/CV/19/0249

Member has conflict with party

2/4/19

Sheriff Thomas Ward

Dunoon Sheriff Court

John & Joanne Ingham v Damien & Sheila Brolly

Sheriff Ward has heard evidence in a previous case in relation to the same parties, involving the same or similar issues.

4/4/19

Rory Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/19/0381

Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member is employed by the Respondent representative

25/4/19

Andrew Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

CV/19/0602

Ex proprio motu; Legal member has previously acted for the applicant

29/4/19

Sheriff Fleetwood

Inverness Sheriff Court

Caroline Brown

v Strathearn Stabling

SG2/19

Ex proprio motu; A person known to the sheriff has a financial interest in the outcome of the case