JUDGE JET: Sheriffs’ £15K tour of Africa adds to air miles racket of Scots judiciary - as top judges' clampdown on judicial jet set junkets takes flight

Judges’ use of overseas junkets in the dock. A CLAMPDOWN on judicial jet set junkets announced by Scotland’s top judge last October has failed to curb the ever spiralling jet set habits of the judiciary - it can be revealed.

Figures released by the Judicial Office in response to a Freedom of Information request - report the costs of Overseas travel of Scottish judges in 2014-2015 has in fact – increased – from the previous year (2013-2014) – which saw Scots judges take lavish 5 day judicial junkets to international destinations including middle eastern dictatorships.

And the frequency of flights & journeys suggest Scotland’s judiciary are still clocking up air miles regardless of spending cuts across other public services - often at brutal expense & little gain to the justice system.

The latest list of overseas travel – which the Judicial Office claim is necessary for judges to share their understanding of the law and court processes – also includes a five day junket for three Sheriffs who travelled to Africa.

The taxpayer funded £15,000 junket to Zambia - paid for Sheriff Gordon Liddle, Sheriff Lindsay Wood and Sheriff Michael Fletcher to attend a five-day conference hosted by the Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association. The event was held at a hotel by the Victoria Falls and ended with a sunset cruise on the Zambezi.

Speeches at the five day event included "building public confidence through judicial accountability" and "identifying and eliminating corruption in the legal system".

The latest revelations of judges taking taxpayer funded trips to ‘law conferences’ & river tours emerged after last year’s investigation by the Scottish Sun newspaper which revealed Scotland's top judges spent £26,000 on thirty three international trips funded by taxpayers - including journeys to destinations such as Russia, Israel, Switzerland,Germany, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania.

The now retired top judge Lord Gill – who has yet to respond to a third invitation requesting his appearance at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee  to answer questions from msps on judges undeclared wealth & interests - also jetted off on a five day state visit to Qatar during 2014.

Last April, Gill (73) gave a sixteen page speech on ‘judicial ethics’ in the Gulf Emirate of Qatar – a country which stands accused of multiple breaches of human rights, using slave labour and funding terrorism & war.

Asked for further details of Lord Gill’s itinerary in Qatar, a spokesperson for the Judiciary of Scotland said no information could be provided. The Judicial Office claimed there were no photographs or video footage of Lord Gill’s trip to Qatar, even though the trip was paid for by the taxpayer.

In response to media scrutiny of judicial air junkets and mentions in the Scottish Parliament, top judge Brian Gill announced a crackdown on overseas trips made by judges.

The Lord President issued an edict on judicial jet junkets, setting out new rules stating judges would have to make a written business case for clocking up more air miles via taxpayers cash.

However, as total figures for this year reveal, the cost of flying the highly secretive, wealthy & elderly Scottish judges around the globe at taxpayers expense surpassed last year’s £30K figures – and this is only for trips admitted to by the Judicial Office and the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service.

Overseas travel of Scottish judges in 2014-2015:

Listed by: Date, Judicial Office Holder, Reason for Trip & Destination, Cost, Expenses Claimed, Total Cost.
15-18 May 2014  Lord Eassie EAJ Conference in Larnaca   £731.53   £0.00  £731.53
10-13 June 2014  Lord Tyre  ENCJ General Assembly of the ENCJ in Rome  £984.00  £110.90  £1,094.90
10-13 June 2014  Sheriff Normand  ENCJ General Assembly of the ENCJ in Rome  £945.16  £65.00  £1,010.16
21-28 June 2014  Lord Carloway  ISCRCL Conference Vancouver in Canada  £1,885.28   £39.00  £1,924.28
21-28 June 2014  Sheriff McFadyen  ISCRCL Conference Vancouver in Canada  £1,408.31 £0.00  £1,408.31
Jan 14 - June 14  ENCJ Reimbursement -£150.10  -£150.10
Jan 14 - June 14  ENCJ Reimbursement  -£298.00  -£298.00
07 - 11 September 2014  Sheriff M Fletcher CMJA Council meeting and Conference in Zambia £4,624.74  £290.53  £4,915.27
07 - 11 September 2014  Sheriff G Liddle CMJA Council meeting and Conference in Zambia  £4,810.77  £45.78  £4,856.55
07 - 11 September 2014  Sheriff L Wood  CMJA Council meeting and Conference in Zambia  £4,998.30  £119.68  £5,117.98
18-19 September 2014  Lord Tyre  ENCJ project group meeting in Madrid  £336.74  £95.39  £432.13
21 - 23 September 2014  Lord Turnbull  Judicial and Academic visit in Luxembourg  £384.30    £0.00    £384.30
21 - 23 September 2014  Lord Burns Judicial and Academic visit in Luxembourg  £384.00  £0.00  £384.00
13 October 2014  Lord Tyre ENCJ project group meeting - The Hague, Netherlands  £468.01 £82.88  £550.89
16 - 17 October 2014  Lord Brailsford  Judges seminar in Antwerp  £782.27  £0.00  £782.27
17 - 19 November 2014  Lady Rae  Judges Forum in Luxembourg  £270.74  £0.00  £270.74
17 - 19 November 2014  Lord Bannatyne  Judges Forum in Luxembourg  £299.97  £0.00    £299.97
1-2 December 2014  Lord Tyre  ENCJ Project Independence & Accountability 1-2 December 2014- Brussels  £488.04  £70.25  £558.29
08 December 2014  Sheriff Liddle  ENCJ Project group meeting in Dublin £183.19  £0.00  £183.19
Sept 14 - Dec 14  ENCJ Reimbursement -£284.54  -£284.54
25-26 January 2015  Lord Tyre ENCJ Expert Group meeting in Brussels  £487.25  £75.50  £562.75
29 - 31 January 2015  Lord Turnbull ECHR- Strasbourg on behalf of the LP  £847.90  £0.00  £847.90
11-13 February 2015  Lord Tyre  ENCJ Project Group meeting in Bucharest  £466.25  £56.09  £522.34
25-26 February 2015  Sheriff Liddle ENCJ project group meeting in Madrid  £135.25  £0.00  £135.25
23-24 March 2015  Sheriff G Liddle  ENCJ project group Committee Meeting in Amsterdam  £264.18    £7.40    £271.58
09 - 10 April 2015  Lord Tyre ENCJ - Project Group meeting, Lisbon  £452.87  £87.44  £540.31
16 - 17 April 2015  Sheriff G Liddle  ENCJ Project group Meeting in Brussels  £367.52  £0.00  £367.52

Total  for Trips: £26,273.93,  Expenses: £1,145.84,  Total Cost: £27,419.77

Dates, Traveller, Reason for Trip & Destination, Hotel & flight costs, Expenses Claimed
25-28 August 2014  Lord Carloway  Evidence Review Group meeting in Hague & Oslo  *298.26
25-28 August 2014  Lady Dorrian  Evidence Review Group meeting in Hague & Oslo       
25-28 August 2014  Sheriff Principal Scott Evidence Review Group meeting in Hague & Oslo       
25-28 August 2014  Eric McQueen  SCTS Staff  Evidence Review Group meeting in Hague & Oslo   ** £412.96
25-28 August 2014  Tim Barraclough  SCTS Staff  Evidence Review Group meeting in Hague & Oslo  *** £146.60
5 people    £3,712.37  The Hague - Hotel meeting room fees  £146.50   
Subtotals: £3,858.87,   Expenses:£857.82,  TOTAL: £4,716.69

The latest round of judicial jet set junkets was reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper:

Judges' £15,000 Zambia Junket
Fury over sheriffs' bill
By Mark Aitken, 09 August 2015 Sunday Mail

More than £15,000 of taxpayers' cash was spent on three sheriffs going on a junket to Africa - despite a clampdown on overseas trips.

Scotland's judges and sheriffs spent more than £27,000 on overseas trips in 2014-2015.

Destinations included Amsterdam, Rome, Madrid, Vancouver and Lisbon.

The most expensive trip was £14,890 for sheriffs Gordon Liddle, Lindsay Wood and Michael Fletcher to attend a five-day conference in Zambia hosted by the Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association.

Speeches included "building public confidence through judicial accountability" and "identifying and eliminating corruption in the legal system".

The event was held at a hotel by the Victoria Falls and ended with a sunset cruise on the Zambezi.

Before retiring this year as Scotland's top judge, Lord gill ordered a clampdown on overseas trips by sheriffs and judges.

But legal campaigner Peter Cherbi said: "The list of judges on the jet set circuit at taxpayers' expense does not seem to have decreased".

The Judicial Office for Scotland's spokesman said: "Conferences provide judges with opportunities to share knowledge and good practice with practitioners in over jurisdictions.

Judges wishing to attend conferences must first apply for funding and make a business case.

"We hold a budget for conferences and overseas business travel and  guidance exists to ensure that costs are controlled and maximum benefit is gained"

JUDICIAL PROMISE TO CUT BACK ON JETS TAKES FLIGHT:

Late last summer, Lord Brian Gill issued a travel advisory in an attempt to clamp down on judges demanding taxpayer cash to fund jet junkets.

The edict issued by Gill stated that costs of travel, numbers of judges attending, an explanation of the wider benefit of the trip to the judicial system and details of what may be learned - must feature in documents required to be written up by judges and submitted to the Lord President for approval.

Attendance at conferences and authorisation of overseas travel From the Lord President:

I have been reviewing the arrangements to control expenditure to meet attendance at conferences by the judiciary, especially where the conference is taking place outwith the United Kingdom. I have also been considering the arrangements for the authorisation of all other overseas travel to be paid from public funds. With immediate effect the following arrangements are to apply to future requests.

Requests for funding for attendance at conferences and for all other overseas travel should be sought only from the Judicial Office [1] . No request for support to meet attendance at conferences, or other overseas travel should be made to any other part of the Scottish Court Service.

In all cases where funding is being sought I require a business case to be produced by the judicial office holder or the judicial representative body that is seeking funding. The business case does not need to be long, but it must:

(i) identify the nature of the conference;

(ii) the number of judicial office holders it is suggested should attend;

(iii) why that number is necessary if it is more than one;

(iv) the benefit either to those attending or to the judiciary more widely from attendance at the conference;

(v) the likely costs of attendance [2]; and

(vi) the likely impact on the efficient administration of business.

The business case should be sent to the Executive Director of the Judicial Office for Scotland, Stephen Humphreys. He will assess whether funds are available to meet the costs of attendance and if so pass the business case to me.

I will then consider all requests and respond directly to the judicial office holder. I will need a clear justification for any overseas travel. As a general rule it should only be necessary for one judicial office holder to attend a conference overseas. It will only be in exceptional cases that I am likely to consider it necessary for more than one person to attend.

Where support is provided to attend a conference a report is to be prepared and sent to the Executive Director within one month of the end of the conference. The report will be placed on the Judicial Hub and the Judicial website. It is important that as many of the judiciary as possible are able to benefit from the investment of public money in attending the conference.

[1] In respect of attendance at events by Sheriffs, the Sheriffs Association will continue to consider the need for attendance by sheriffs at conferences before preparing the business case and seeking funding. The Association undertakes this activity on behalf of all sheriffs and it considers applications equally from both its members and non-members. If a sheriff wishes to attend a conference he or she should in the first instance contact the Secretary to the Sheriffs' Association. I am grateful to the Association for undertaking this function.

[2] When considering the costs of attendance at a conference, Judicial Office Holders should consult the Judicial Office for an estimate of the likely travel and accommodation costs, if required. Travel and subsistence rules apply to all travel whether inside or outside the UK.

Now,  a year on from the Lord President’s travel guidance - the evidence suggests Lord Gill’s move to make judges more prudent with public cash for travel junkets - has clearly failed.

And – suspiciously - the Judicial Office for Scotland and Scottish Court Service refused to reveal any details of hundreds of taxpayer funded trips taken by Scottish judges around the UK.

When further enquiries were made regarding domestic UK destinations of Scottish judges, staff at the Scottish Court Service switched destinations of Scotland’s second most powerful judge – Lord Carloway from Bristol in England, to Dublin in the Republic of Ireland –  in an attempt to avoid having to disclose the information on UK judicial travel via Freedom of Information legislation.

Full details of trips undertaken by Scottish judges were previously published here: LORD JET SET: Investigation reveals judiciary's international travel junkets spree & LORD FLY-BYE: Scotland's courts in the slow lane as judges prefer law conferences, business & 'diplomatic' trips to life on the bench

Part-time Sheriffs beat full-time colleagues & senior judges in expenses claims as Scots judiciary finally publish judicial expenses online

Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton now publishes his & judicial colleagues expenses online. EXPENSES CLAIMS of Scotland’s Court of Session judges, Sheriffs & Part-Time or Temporary Sheriffs have now been published on the Judiciary of Scotland’s website, after Freedom of Information requests earlier this year first revealed on Diary of Injustice, the true, if at times, staggering expenses claims of members of Scotland’s judiciary where Scotland’s 34 Court of Session judges were revealed to have claimed £78,988 in expenses on top of their already huge salaries ranging from a mere £172,753.00 for ‘outer house judges’ to the Lord President’s staggering £214,165.00, making a a collective annual salary of just over £6.1 million for the 34 Senators of the College of Justice as they are known, to keep the painfully slow wheels of Scots justice rolling & the Court of Session in business.

Quarterly figures now published by the judiciary itself reveal the extent of judges expenses claims. Figures now published by the Judiciary of Scotland website reveal the highs & lows in expenses claims of Scotland’s Court of Session judges, with Lord Kinclaven making the highest claim for travel & subsistence in the last available financial quarter at £3,656.40, closely followed by Lord Uist who claimed £3,011.72, Lord Woolman who claimed £2,217.78, Lord Pentland who claimed £1941.38 and Lady Clark of Calton who claimed £1,613.25, although all these judges are assigned ‘circuit duties’, meaning they sit in various courts throughout Scotland. The Lord President, Lord Hamilton himself claimed £259.90 while Lord Gill, the Lord Justice Clerk claimed £118.60. Several Court of Session judges claimed nothing at all in travel & subsistence, leaving the total expenses claimed by the 34 Court of Session judges at £15,945.99 from 1st April to 30 September 2010, full details available here : Senators of the Court of Session (pdf)

Full time Sheriffs expenses claims finally revealed. Among the Sheriffs, examples of expenses claims range from £4,503.50 for Sheriff R Anderson QC (who sits at ‘remote’ courts), £4,633.02 for Sheriff DO Sutherland, £3,719.01 for Sheriff AD Miller (floating Sheriff & formerly a part time Sheriff), £4,433.30 for Sheriff A Berry (floating Sheriff), and £3,411.51 for Sheriff Principal Sir ST Young Bt QC, to Sheriff MGR Edington, who claimed nothing, Sheriff Edington being one of the few, fine honest lawyers during his time in legal practice I’ve known, also not forgetting Sheriff Principal R A Dunlop QC, who claimed £752.60. The now Sheriff Dunlop was my Senior Advocate for my negligence case against crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso. However, Alistair Dunlop QC as he was then was made a Sheriff the next week and conveniently taken away from my legal team, such is the fairness in the Scottish justice system no other Advocate could be found to take the case.

Many other Sheriffs claimed little or nothing at all, the full details of their expenses claims, which total £7,760.99 for the period 1st April to 30 September 2010 can be found here : Sheriffs Principal and Sheriffs (pdf)

Part-Time Sheriff who was involved in years-long tennis-playing crooked lawyer case, claimed £2,350.55 in expenses this year. A very much higher set of expenses claims are made by the Part-Time Sheriffs, who beat full time Sheriffs & the Court of Session judges by a long way with examples of claims ranging from £6,738.80 for Sheriff G Fleetwood, £5,048.25 for Sheriff DW Hall, £7,624.97 for Sheriff PGL Hammond, £4,252.35 for Sheriff EG Savage, £4,124.30 for Sheriff D McCaffrey, £4,854.98 for Sheriff V Johnston to £2,350.55 for Sheriff PA Reid who ‘prosecuted’ the tennis playing crooked lawyer Michael G Robson on behalf of the Law Society and decided to leave out my testimony for fear of giving me a fair hearing. You can read more about the Michael Robson case, here : Revelations in Court of Session appeal show Law Society & Fiscal deliberately failed to take witness affidavit and excluded crucial evidence

Some Part-Time Sheriffs claimed nothing, although not many. The full details of Part-Time Sheriffs expenses claims, which totalled a whopping £126,399.69 for the same period 1st April to 30 September 2010 can be found here : Part-time judicial office holders (pdf)

Judiciary for Scotland website published judicial expenses after FOI requests revealed cost of Scottish judiciary. The decision by the Judicial Office to publish expenses claims of Scotland’s judicial office holders comes after my earlier investigations into the expenses claims of Scotland’s judiciary, reported in August : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates & here : Justice Delayed ? Not when it comes to expenses claims as high earning Scots judges rake in at least £78K in ‘travel’ claims

The Scottish Government, responding to an initial Freedom of Information request in August of this year from Diary of Injustice on expenses claims by the judiciary stated : ”The total Travel & Subsistence claims from Scotland’s 34 Senators of the College of Justice for the financial year 2009-10 was £78,988 of which, £16,299 was for Inner House judges, and the remaining £62,689 was for Outer House. The Scottish Government said the only other expenses they would record in the accounts are the Wig & Gown allowance, a one-off payment when a new judge is appointed. It transpired no such payments were made during 2009-10”

However, The Scottish Government admitted in FOI responses there were no details held of the individual expenses claims for judges on a central database as the accounts system only recorded the totals charged against headings such as Travel and Subsistence. The new policy of publication of all judicial office holder’s expenses claims in Scotland brings transparency in expenses into line with England & Wales, details of which can be viewed on the English Judiciary’s website, here : Judicial Expenses for England & Wales

Scottish Government FOI release of Judicial Office holder’s expenses claims earlier this year. The figures released by the Scottish Government in September in response to a Freedom of Information request revealed while a Sheriff receives an annual salary of around £128,296 per annum, Scotland’s Sheriffs collectively claimed a further £176,431.37 in expenses in the last financial year 2009/2010, while part time sheriffs who are paid a daily fee of around £575 for each day of service claimed an additional much larger figure of £281,085.07 in expenses. The figures also reveal earlier & current expenses claims of £106,367.09 & £77,259.31 respectively for Scotland’s Court of Session judges (Senators) on salaries ranging from £172,753.00 to the Lord President’s staggering £214,165.00.

Will the increased transparency by way of publishing the judiciary’s expenses claims bring savings to the public purse ? We will just have to wait & see .. and monitor.

However, if anyone from the Judiciary of Scotland website is reading this, I would recommend publishing the expenses claims in normal web available html format as well as in pdf, to ensure taxpayers, constituents & court users can more easily check on how much the judiciary are costing us. Who knows, perhaps one day we may even see performance tables showing, for instance, how long cases take before Sheriffs, along with the decisions handed down etc

More information relating to how the judiciary conducts itself, along with recommendations for more transparency can be found at the following links :

The Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review by the Lord Justice Clerk, the Rt Hon Lord Gill launched in September 2009 gives recommendations in relation to the provision of civil justice, including the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures of the courts.

The Independent Review of Sheriff and Jury Procedure by Sheriff Principal Bowen, published in June 2010 reviews sheriff and jury practice and procedure in Scotland with the aim of ensuring that the system is fair, efficient, modern and effective.

A Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics for the Scottish Judiciary published April 2010 offers guidance and a framework of principles for members of the Scottish judiciary. More information and the full Statement can be found here.

Scottish Sheriffs fear revelations of their past may come back to haunt them ..

Scottish Sheriffs certainly do fear for revelations of their past .. so much so that their Association intervened in the Justice 1 Committee "Regulation of the Legal Profession" inquiry back in 2001 and demanded .. or perhaps .. required .. that the Justice 1 Committee withdraw from any inquiries into Sheriffs .. and you can read Sheriff Lockhart's intimidating letter to the Justice 1 Committee informing the Parliament they might be taken to Court on ECHR grounds if they tried to investigate Sheriffs ..

How's that for fearing transparency ? I'd say ... quite good evidence ... Threaten a Parliamentary Inquiry with Court if they investigate Sheriffs ... quite good evidence of a cover up, by using the threat of Court Action .. which would be judged by one of their colleagues .. no doubt in their favour ...

In Scotland,a Sheriff is a Judge, who is usually assigned to work in a particular local Sheriff Court or who travels around the Sheriff Courts system anywhere in Scotland when they are needed, as a 'floating Sheriff'.

There are now 142 full-time Sheriffs in the various Courts and a number of part-time Sheriffs, all being appointed by a Judicial Appointments Board which is further from transparency than the rules of the Scottish Parliament (a fiddler's charter, one could say).

Sheriff Courts deal with legal cases & procedures which include things like
(1) Solemn and Summary Criminal cases
(2) Large and Small estates upon a death
(3) Fine payments
(4) Civil actions under Ordinary, Summary Cause and Small Claim Procedures
(5) Adoption Cases
(6) Bankruptcy Actions

What & who, are Scottish Sheriffs ?

Well, Scottish Sheriffs are lawyers .. well, former lawyers, and Advocates (fancy name for a lawyer who practices in the Higher Courts of Scotland) .. and so on. So, we shouldn't have any trouble then with them, should we ? Sheriffs, being former lawyers ? .. that should be ok, right ? Not at all ... as events have revealed.

Since Sheriffs come from Scotland's near 10,000 lawyers ... who have about 5000+ complaints made against them each year ... we certainly do need to be concerned about their background ... especially the bits which the Judicial Appointments Board conveniently pass over .. in other words, their regulatory history as a lawyer or advocate .. and in this, lies a problem .. a BIG problem.

A friend of mine, a journalist, has been trying to uncover the history of certain Scottish Sheriffs, and has uncovered some sinister details of the history of certain Sheriffs from when they were lawyers. Nothing of course, which doesn't surprise me ... stuff like, embezzling funds from clients, ruining deceased clients estates & plundering clients wills, overcharging clients for work, intentionally mis-selling clients properties for reduced sums to preferrential clients & personal friends, even, allegations of picking up under age rent boys for sexual adventures ....

How come we never see anything of the complaints histories then, of a lawyer or advocate, who then goes on to be a Sheriff ?

Well, we don't see anything like that, because the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Sheriffs Association, and the Judicial Appointments Board .. don't want us to see it .. because if we did .. there would have to be a few resignations from the Bench.

Isn't it about time that some people started asking to see the regulatory histories of these lawyers who are appointed Sheriffs ?

Well, surprise .. that information - their history as a lawyer, how many complaints they had made against them .. etc .. appears not to be subject to FOI Law .. (Freedom Of Information) .. and that is because, the Law Society of Scotland - who collect regulatory data .. even when they don't want to admit it .. got itself an exemption from the FOI Act ... so .. basically, they can do whatever they want .. and if a crooked lawyer refuses to disclose their regulatory history to the public or the Judicial Appointments Board - then we will never know anything about it.

It goes much deaper than that though ... Sheriffs are still lawyers, even though they are Sheriffs ... still lawyers, licensed to practice law .. and they still pay into the sinister, corrupt Master Insurance Policy run by the Law Society of Scotland & Marsh UK ... and that in itself is an interesting point .. as there are a few Sheriffs now on the Bench in Scotland who were subject to long protracted negligence claims by clients .. but the Law Society of Scotland wiped their records of crooked offences clean .. and hid the dirt so they could go on to become Sheriffs.

So, we have situations where, Sheriffs, who have been caught stealing clients money .. stealing their possessions ... embezzling what they could, as a lawyer ... are now sitting in judgement on other fraudsters .. who of course, can't get away with it so easy .. because of course ... the people up before them .. don't serve the law .. or do they ?

What would happen, for instance, if a crooked lawyer who had embezzled their clients funds, stolen assets, looted wills, possessions, ruined clients lives, fitted up complaints so they got off the hook, etc .. came up before a Sheriff .. who had done the same when they were a lawyer ?

Well, guess what ? It's happened .. and the Sheriff certainly didn't dismiss himself from the case .. because of course, he hadn't told anyone he had been a crooked lawyer in the past .. so he didn't really need to.

Now .. if this were America .. probably, the lawyer representing the client who had a negligence claim against the crooked lawyer, would point out that the Judge ... had been a crooked lawyer too in his past .. but no .. that doesn't work in Scotland .. because the Sheriff is also, still, a member of the Law Society of Scotland ... so lawyers never reveal things like that agains their colleagues .. do they ...certainly not to aid their client against a fellow colleague ...

I found it interesting that a Sunday Newspaper recently ran a story about a lawyer who was subject to some 12 negligence claims. TOP LAWYER AT THE CENTRE OF 12 NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS .. well, there are some who are currently sitting on the Sheriffs Bench .. which the Scottish Executive know all about ... who were also embroiled in negligence claims from clients

Of course, the Scottish Executive, the Judiciary, and the Law Society of Scotland, would prefer this information never got out, and would certainly prefer the public not to ask such questions of their Sheriffs .. even to the point of threatening a newspaper and a journalist's career (or more than his career) .. if word got out .. but I think it's time, people started asking for more of the background of these Sheriffs ... because they are certainly NOT what they seem to be ... as some of us well know. Be nice to see the story eventually break though ...

Here's a little unrelated article from last weeks Scotsman on the rising number of Sheriffs ...

Now go and ask some questions everyone on the appointment of Sheriffs... and just what they have been up to in their past

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1447502006

Number of Scottish sheriffs reaches record levels

NINE appointments have taken the total of Scotland's sheriffs to a record 142, it was announced yesterday.

The appointment of the seven men and two women was approved by the Queen after they were nominated by Jack McConnell, the First Minister.

He did so on the basis of a report to him by the independent judicial appointments board that was set up in 2001.

The appointment of a part-time sheriff was also announced and Mr McConnell said he has asked the board to recommend more part-timers.

The nine sheriffs will serve in some of Scotland's 49 sheriff courts. Some of the newcomers will serve in specific areas where help is most needed.

Mr McConnell said: "These appointments will bring the complement of sheriffs up to a record level of 142. I am sure that they will make an early impact in reducing delays in criminal trials and civil cases being heard."

The new sheriffs are Ruth Anderson QC, 59; solicitor Maxwell Hendry, 50; Martin Jones QC, 50; solicitor Desmond Leslie, 51; solicitor Elizabeth McFarlane, 45; solicitor advocate Alan Mackenzie, 50; Charles Macnair QC, 51; solicitor Thomas Millar, 52, and advocate Nigel Ross, 43.

Scotland`s Judiciary set about arm-twisting the Scottish Executive into backing down from reform of the Judicial system

If your looking for developments on the legal aid dispute between lawyers & the Executive - my sources tell me the Law Society mob want the reforms of independent regulation and fines either delayed or killed off completey ... along with legal aid payments restored a.s.a.p. - didn`t take a genius to work out that one then .. but I can`t reveal what has actually been leaked to me just now let`s save that for another day ...

On to today`s article then ...

Scotland`s sheriffs have stepped into the row over Judicial Reform - for at least the second time, raising accusations that the planned reforms by the Scottish Executive to Scotland`s centuries old Judicial System, would compromise the independence of the judiciary. Sheriffs have even dragged in comparisons to Nazi Germany to the proposed reforms ... however, that is somewhat overstating the issue from the Sheriffs part I think.

Whats all the fuss then ? well - the Scottish Executive wants to bring a bit more oversight into the dark unaccountable world of Sheriffs in Scotland ... while also giving huge responsibilities to the Lord President, who would control all of the Courts in Scotland, but the Sheriffs are resisting this of course, as they certainly don`t want what they term as outside interference in their little unregulated empire.

However, this is not the first time that Scotland`s Sheriffs have reacted with arm twisting and veiled threats towards proposed reforms or inquiries into their conduct. They did the same 5 years ago to the Scottish Parliament ... read on to find out more ...

In 2001, when the Scottish Parliament`s Justice 1 Committee was holding the "Regulation of the Legal Profession Inquiry", the Committee had planned to investigate and examine the role of Scotland`s Sheriffs as part of it`s 2001 inquiry into the legal profession - which sadly fell to be fiddled beyond belief after mass interventions and lobbying from the legal profession to prevent victims cases of injustice by the legal profession being heard by the Committee in public.

The Sheriff`s reaction to this Parliamentary investigation ? - simply put - including Sheriffs in your "Regulation of the Legal Profession inquiry" is incompatible with ECHR and we will defend ourselves (in other words, interdict the Justice 1 Committee from considering the issue and role of Sheriffs in Scotland).

A source from the Parliament at the time told me that the Justice 1 Committee had been threatened by the Sheriffs Association, who were refusing point blank to co-operate with any Parliamentary inquiry or even submit evidence on the grounds that this inquiry would be a stage in the compromising of their independence .. and that the said letter of threat and protest was to be discussed in private before publication .. which it was ... and surprise .... the Sheriffs were excluded from the Justice Committee inquiry - which at it`s conclusion, amounted to nothing more than a whitewash .. which the Law Society of Scotland actually used in it`s public relations defence of Scotland`s crooked legal profession.

Care to read the letter from the Sheriffs`Association to the Justice 1 Committee ? .. well, you can click on the above images, and read it on the Scottish Parliament`s own website in pdf format, at : http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/justice1/inquiries-02/j1-lps-pdfs/lps-094.pdf

What with the Justice 2 Committee tackling the issue of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which aims to bring independent regulation to Scotland`s great band of crooked lawyers and the present failed system of self regulation of lawyers operated by the Law Society of Scotland, the Sheriffs and judiciary must be feeling the heat to drag up insulting comparisons of Scotland with Nazi Germany ... and remember, everyone, these Sheriffs and Judges are of course, lawyers or at least they were, (until they were `elevated` to the bench as Sheriffs)

The key to the Judiciary`s consternation of the planned reforms lies right on page one of Sheriff Lockhart`s letter ...

"Although it is a requirement for appointment that candidates for the shrieval bench be members of the legal profession, once appointed, in the exercise of their judicial functions, they are not subject to the regulatory framework applicable to either branch of the legal profession. The judiciary is independent of and distinct from other practising members of the legal profession.
The constitutional principle of the separation of the pwoers means that the judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature."

Who wants outside interference into what they are up to ? ... certainly not lawyers - they have and are demonstrating that with their naked agression and boycotts of cases over the legal aid reforms and the prospect of independent regulation coming in the "Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill"

So, why should Sheriffs (`elevated` lawyers) who currently don`t actually have much regulation over their activities at all, want independent or outside scrutiny of their own conduct or decisions ? ... - remember - in the words of the Sheriffs` Association`s letter - "they are not subject to the regulatory framework applicable to either branch of the legal profession" ... would that then make them almost immune to anything except a comet on collision with the earth ? ... probably.

Oh .. but you may say .. reading Sheriff Lockhart`s letter, he goes on to say :

"Sheriffs discharge their judicial functions and duties within the framework of the laws of Scotland which provide that decisions by Sheriffs, in civil matters, can be tested on appeal to the Sheriff Principal, the Court of Session and, in appropriate cases to the House of Lords; in criminal cases decisions can be tested on appeal to the High Court of Justiciary. In respect of devolution issues, an appeal can be taken or a reference made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That appellate framework provides effective machinery for the review of judicial decisions."

Well - that hasn`t stopped some strange antics on the Bench from Scottish Sheriffs in the past or all the injustices we read about on a daily basis with regards to Scotlands judicial system ... so, maybe reform is needed ? just as it is desperately needed in the legal profession, currently bending at the knees under 5000+ complaints a year against less than 10,000 lawyers .

What if someone asked to see the regulatory histories of some or all of Scotland`s Sheriffs back when they were practising solicitors ? ... oh my ... what a shock some people would get .... knowing that some of these Sheriffs when they were lawyers .. had long long histories of client complaints against them and poor service .. and that they are the ones now sitting in judgement on civil and criminal cases in Scotland.

Just think of the havoc some honest person could make if it was discovered that a Sheriff(s), in their previous position as lawyers, had been found by clients to have embezzled funds, lied, perhaps mishandled a case fraudulently to get a friend or legal partner off the hook, or had even committed criminal offences - then such complaints were covered up of course by the Law Society of Scotland or whoever else had been involved....

What impression would that give on the quality of Scotland`s Sheriffs then ? ... woudln`t take much doing, would it ? .. but who would print such a story ?

Read on for the article, from "The Herald" Newspaper, on the new attempt by the Sheriffs to stem any reform of their profession ... link at :http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/64162.html

Sheriffs step into row over judicial reform
LUCY ADAMS and ROBBIE DINWOODIE
June 16 2006

SCOTLAND'S sheriffs and Lord Cullen, the country's most high-profile judge, have entered the row with the Scottish Executive, accusing ministers of attempting to undermine the independence of the judiciary.

One sheriff has compared recent proposals to reform the judiciary to moves which helped bring about the dictatorship of Nazi Germany.

The views of sheriffs are normally confidential. In a rare move to make their views public, the Sheriffs' Association, which represents 90% of those who sit at Scotland's courts, claims the executive's proposals are unfounded and outwith the devolved powers of ministers.

The association believes the power to change issues of "great constitutional importance", such as judicial independence, lies in the hands of Westminster. Its members also believe the executive's recent proposals to place the control of all Scotland's courts under one person, the lord president, would undermine judicial independence.

The executive proposes to unify the sheriff and high courts and to make the training, conduct and operation of all courts the responsibility of the lord president.

However, the responses of Lord Cullen, a former lord president, and the sheriffs echo the concerns of a number of senior judges who believe the changes would increase the lord president's already huge workload, forcing him to employ large numbers of civil servants.

Lord Mackay, the High Court judge, Lord McCluskey, a retired judge and the Faculty of Advocates have already criticised the proposals on similar grounds.

In his response, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, who chaired inquiries into the Dunblane massacre and the Piper Alpha disaster, describes aspects of the consultation document as "absurd . . . misconceived and confused".

He wrote: "Further, the statement . . . in the paper that 'judges need to be managed' betrays a lack of understanding of the significance of judicial independence, despite the claim to the contrary."

Their views are backed by individual sheriffs in their responses to the consultation.Sheriff Colin Mackenzie, who sits in Stornoway, wrote:

"Politicians and executive . . . will always try to influence the judges ? it's an inevitable extension of their no doubt natural desire for absolute control . . . it has been recognised as a dangerous tendency in the past and must be resisted in future if freedom from tyranny . . . is to mean something.

"Dictatorship was, I am sure, far from the minds of the educated pre-Nazi state Germans who gave blessing to the legislation which muzzled their judiciary and paved the way for Hitler to come to power."

Sheriff John Montgomery, who sits at Ayr, wrote: "The document alarmingly displays gross ignorance of the concept of judicial independence; it proceeds on false premises, errors of fact and law and unfounded assertions. It is very concerning the minister for justice and lord advocate have put their names to it. The consultation period is insultingly short to Scotland's fine heritage of judicial independence."

Yesterday, it was revealed the programme to introduce the proposals could be delayed until after the Holyrood election next year. Sources have told The Herald the revamp of the judicial system could be put on hold, partly because of the sheer weight of criticism and the fact Holyrood's Justice 1 committee is overstretched.

Cathy Jamieson, Justice Minister, yesterday insisted ministers had been "fully respectful" of the independence of the judiciary. "We are committed to this fundamental constitutional principle," she said.