The petition 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.
Amid strong comments during last Tuesday’s Justice Committee meeting from MSPs supporting the need for action on judicial transparency from the seven year Scottish Parliament investigation – the Committee also decided to call for further evidence from Moi Ali - Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer, and Scotland’s top judge - Lord President Lord Carloway.
Commenting on the petition – John Finnie MSP made extensive observations on evidence presented to Justice Committee exposing involvement of senior Scottish judges in the Gulf States, and submissions from Moi Ali, and Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf.
John Finnie said: “It is very helpful to have all this information here. “There are a number of suggestions. I, for one, cannot understand what the problem with having a register would be.”
“The more people tell me that there is no issue, the more I am convinced that there is a need for a register. The submission from Moi Ali is very helpful. She refers to a letter of 23 April 2014, which is now a bit old.”
“We have also been provided with extracts from news coverage.”
“I do not agree with the idea that anyone connected with the Scottish judiciary could have any role whatsoever in the United Arab Emirates.”
“I looked yesterday at the Human Rights Watch world report, which does a country by country breakdown. The United Arab Emirates is a country that is intolerant of criticism, which has played a leading role in unlawful acts in Yemen, and whose treatment of migrant workers’ rights and women’s rights is shocking. It is a country that permits domestic violence.”
I do not think that any reasonable examination of the role of a public official—and I get the point about the separation of the judiciary—would say that involvement in such a country is acceptable.”
“I believe that we need to do something and I am not content with the cabinet secretary’s response, which is just playing out the same line as before—that there is nothing to see here and we should move on.”
“I do not think that this issue will move on until we have the openness and transparency that people rightly expect of public office.”
Adding to the debate, Daniel Johnson MSP referred to the Nolan principles, from the Committee on Standards in Public Life
Daniel Johnson said: I would like to speak in support of what my colleague John Finnie has just said.
“The Nolan principles are 25 years old this year. They are principles that have guided public life very well, in particular integrity, whereby holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties”;
“openness, which I think is self-explanatory; and honesty, whereby”
“holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest”.
“That is pretty clear. Although the cabinet secretary may well not view that there is a problem, that is not to say that this is not a positive step towards ensuring that we have a judiciary that is open and transparent and whose integrity is beyond question.”
“I absolutely believe in the independence of the judiciary, but I think that in order to maintain that integrity and independence, this step has merit in terms of transparency.
“The committee should think about taking some further evidence, certainly from Moi Ali, which is the suggestion from the petitioner. This is something that we should progress and seek to move forward.”
Liam Kerr added: “I am pretty much in the same place on this. I can see the argument for why we would take this further and hear more.”
“I have looked at the response from the cabinet secretary and the reference to the previous cabinet secretary, whose view has been that there is nothing particularly to examine here.”
“Having considered the force of the argument in favour of exploring it further, I am not convinced that it is good enough to say, “There is nothing here. Don’t worry about it.”
For that reason, I think that we should look at this in more detail.
Liam McArthur said: “I echo what Daniel Johnson has said and much of what John Finnie has said.”
“In reference to the United Arab Emirates, although I might share many of his concerns, I think that the point is that a register would be illuminating”
Minutes from the meeting reveal the Justice Committee agreed to take evidence at a future meeting on issues raised by the petition – which will occur later this year in September.
Video from the Justice Committee meeting, the full official transcript and further reporting follows:
Register of Judicial Interests Petition PE1458 Justice Committee 28 May 2019
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)
The Convener (Margaret Mitchell MSP): Our final item is consideration of petition PE1458. The petition is from Mr Peter Cherbi and asks the committee to consider the merits of establishing a register of interests for members of the judiciary. I refer members to paper 4. Since we considered the petition last time, we have received additional information from Mr Cherbi and also from Moi Ali. We have also received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I invite members to comment on the correspondence and say whether they wish to make any recommendations or suggest further action.
John Finnie MSP: It is very helpful to have all this information here. There are a number of suggestions. I, for one, cannot understand what the problem with having a register would be. The more people tell me that there is no issue, the more I am convinced that there is a need for a register. The submission from Moi Ali is very helpful. She refers to a letter of 23 April 2014, which is now a bit old.
We have also been provided with extracts from news coverage. I do not agree with the idea that anyone connected with the Scottish judiciary could have any role whatsoever in the United Arab Emirates.
I looked yesterday at the Human Rights Watch world report, which does a country by country breakdown. The United Arab Emirates is a country that is intolerant of criticism, which has played a leading role in unlawful acts in Yemen, and whose treatment of migrant workers’ rights and women’s rights is shocking. It is a country that permits domestic violence.
I do not think that any reasonable examination of the role of a public official—and I get the point about the separation of the judiciary—would say that involvement in such a country is acceptable.
I believe that we need to do something and I am not content with the cabinet secretary’s response, which is just playing out the same line as before—that there is nothing to see here and we should move on. I do not think that this issue will move on until we have the openness and transparency that people rightly expect of public office.
Daniel Johnson MSP: I would like to speak in support of what my colleague John Finnie has just said.
The Nolan principles are 25 years old this year. They are principles that have guided public life very well, in particular integrity, whereby
“holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties”;
openness, which I think is self-explanatory; and honesty, whereby
“holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest”.
That is pretty clear. Although the cabinet secretary may well not view that there is a problem, that is not to say that this is not a positive step towards ensuring that we have a judiciary that is open and transparent and whose integrity is beyond question.
I absolutely believe in the independence of the judiciary, but I think that in order to maintain that integrity and independence, this step has merit in terms of transparency. The committee should think about taking some further evidence, certainly from Moi Ali, which is the suggestion from the petitioner. This is something that we should progress and seek to move forward.
Liam McArthur MSP: I echo what Daniel Johnson has said and much of what John Finnie has said. In reference to the United Arab Emirates, although I might share many of his concerns, I think that the point is that a register would be illuminating and, if there is a justification in engaging in order to improve the way in which judicial procedures operate in a third country, at least we would all know what the purpose of that engagement is.
I very much concur with what has been said about the need for transparency and the underpinnings of the Nolan principles.
I see from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service the details of the accountability report. I am not sure that that is a massive leap away from what the petition is seeking, and therefore this may be a bit of a journey that it is on, but I certainly agree that it would be worth the committee continuing to pursue this, and to take further evidence from Moi Ali.
That would seem to be a logical next step, as John Finnie suggested. The earlier evidence was in written form. It was a number of weeks ago. I believe that it would probably benefit us all to hear what she has to say and cross-examine that a little further. I would be very keen to keep the petition open.
Liam Kerr MSP: I am pretty much in the same place on this. I can see the argument for why we would take this further and hear more. I have looked at the response from the cabinet secretary and the reference to the previous cabinet secretary, whose view has been that there is nothing particularly to examine here. Having considered the force of the argument in favour of exploring it further, I am not convinced that it is good enough to say, “There is nothing here. Don’t worry about it.” For that reason, I think that we should look at this in more detail.
Fulton MacGregor MSP: I echo what others have said. John Finnie in particular made a very compelling argument for doing something further on this. Some people have commented on the cabinet secretary’s response. It is not my take on it that he is saying that there is nothing to see here, but I think that we should take more evidence and information in order to work out where to go from here. I agree with what has been said.
The Convener (Margaret Mitchell MSP): If there are no other views, I will summarise. The committee is keen to hear from Moi Ali. Her letter was dated in 2014, but she has said that it is still relevant. It would be good to get an update. The Nolan principles are 25 years old, so perhaps it is time to take some evidence from Lord Carloway, if he is prepared to give a view, and certainly from the petitioner, and to give the cabinet secretary an opportunity to respond more fully than he did in his letter. If there are any other witnesses, we will be looking to do this in September. Are we agreed that that is how we will move forward?
Members indicated agreement.
CROSS-PARTY calls are being made for all of Scotland's judges to declare their interests:
The issue of judicial transaprency and calls for judges to declare their interests was reported in more detail on Scottish Television (STV) - full article by visiting the link here: Scots judges facing pressure to declare their interests
The STV report states: Cross-party politicians on Holyrood's justice committee believe that increased transparency is vital to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
The committee will call Moi Ali, the former Judicial Complaints Reviewer and current Independent Assessor of Complaints at the Crown Prosecution Service, to give evidence.
She told STV News: "This is the 21st century and people have quite high expectations of openness and transparency.
"I don't really understand why one small but very powerful section of society should be allowed not to have to do that. It really doesn't make sense.”
SNP MSP Alex Neil plans to introduce legislation if a register is not introduced.
An in-depth investigation on judicial conflicts of interest and the need for a register of judicial interests to increase public trust in the courts, is featured on STV (full article by visiting the link below)
Judging for ourselves if conflict of interest in courts – By Russell Findlay
“Most people would struggle to name Scotland's top judge or many of the other 700-plus judicial office holders who preside in our civil and criminal courts.”
“His grand title is Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General (previously Colin Sutherland, lawyer) and one of his jobs is to take the swearing-in oath of First Ministers.”
“Yet he and these other largely unknown judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace hold great power - including being able to send people to prison - and their decisions directly or indirectly impact on all our lives.”
“However, there are growing concerns about how little we know about their outside interests and concerns that these could potentially influence decisions on the bench.”
SCOTTISH JUDGES SERVING IN THE GULF STATES:
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.
The Justice Committee’s meeting of Tuesday 28 May 2019, was also reported in The National newspaper, here:
Holyrood committee advance plans for register of judges' interests
By Martin Hannan Journalist 29 May 2019
SCOTLAND’S judges may soon have to register their interests after the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee yesterday defied Justice Minister Humza Yousaf and Scotland’s most senior judges on the issue of transparency.
Seven years after he raised a petition on the issue, journalist and legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi admitted last night he was surprised that Holyrood’s Justice Committee were going to keep his petition “live” and take the matter up with Scotland’s most senior judge, the Lord President, Lord Carloway.
Justice Minister Yousaf had told MSPs a register of interests was not necessary. Lord Carloway and his predecessors have also opposed it.
Cherbi told The National: “I am happy to hear that the Justice Committee are taking this petition forward and the supporting comments from MSPs today who clearly understand the value of bringing a register of interests to Scotland’s courts.
“Thanks to media coverage, including in the National, the issue has remained in the public eye and interest for seven years, and public debate has led to people asking why judges should exempt themselves from transparency and accountability – which are the core principles of any justice system.
“The benchmark evidence from Scotland’s first judicial complaints reviewer, Moi Ali, contributed in great measure to how the Public Petitions Committee took the work forward, with MSPs backing the petition in a major debate at Parliament, and through the seven years of work by the Public Petitions Committee.
“Perhaps it is now time for our judiciary to reflect on why they have resisted calls for transparency for seven long years.
“Where the Lord President and Scottish Government have failed to act, I look forward to the Justice Committee moving forward on this issue, and creating legislation for a publicly available register of judges’ interests, with proper rules and full, independent scrutiny in a manner which is equivalent to the register of interests which many other public servants, including our elected representatives and Scottish ministers, must sign up to.”
The 7 principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in:
- the civil service
- local government
- the police
- the courts and probation services
- non-departmental public bodies
- health, education, social and care services
The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.
1. Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
2. Integrity: Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
3. Objectivity: Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
4. Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
5. Openness: Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
6. Honesty: Holders of public office should be truthful.
7. Leadership: Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
They were first set out by Lord Nolan in 1995 and they are included in the Ministerial code.
For further information on the 7 principles and the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, visit the Committee’s website and blogsite.
SEVEN YEARS JUDICIAL INTERESTS PROBE:
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.
TWO TOP SCOTS JUDGES FAIL IN HOLYROOD JUDICIAL 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.
