Showing posts with label conflict of interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict of interest. Show all posts

Friday, July 17, 2020

ADVANCE, QC: From Big Invoice to Cash Register – New Dean of Faculty of Advocates stood silent in court while Lord Malcolm concealed his son was on same legal team representing asbestos dumping construction company who lost case - then used law firm linked to top judge to hunt down couple for legal fees

Lord Carloway & Lord Malcolm welcome new Dean R.Dunlop TO WATCH and listen to members of the Faculty of Advocates who strut around Scotland’s courts as if they have a starring role in a grand pantomime or musical overseen by a figure dressed in fiery red and white robes – you may be forgiven for thinking you just entered the world of fantasy and cosplay.

However - what you are actually witnessing is Scotland’s ‘Victorian’ justice system – where lies spoken in court by a figure in a black gown & wig can become an accepted ‘truth’, prosecutors can intimidate defence counsel by adding the dead to witness lists, deals can be done in-chambers to avoid the press & public in open court, and evidence can be lost down the back of a filing cabinet.

And, if you are looking for shameless, outright dishonesty - try the time where Scotland’s top prosecutor James Wolffe QC – himself a former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates -  was being sued in the Rangers admin case of wrongful arrest.

The stakes in that case were so high that Scotland’s ‘world leading’ courts system then neatly engineered a scenario so that Sarah Wolffe QC – the wife of that same top prosecutor James Wolffe QC – could hear and rule on the £9 million claim against her husband and Scotland’s Chief Constable.

You all know the story – A real howler: 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 gets better: ‘World famous’ (really, not) Scots QCs taking millions in publicly funded legal aid - can literally dream up an entirely false line of defence (commonly known as a lie) - for their child murdering clients and get away with trolling it out to a sceptical judge, jury and entire court room - and then bill the Scottish Legal Aid Board (Taxpayer) for their time spent doing so.

Going further up the tree - Scotland’s top prosecutor - the Lord Advocate – on an instruction to cover up for top cops with shady pasts – can ram-raid a Tribunal hearing and intimidate Tribunal judges into blocking claims of corruption and evidence tampering in the most senior ranks of Police Scotland - from becoming public.

Want to see examples of what most in the real world call corruption and money laundering? – try case after case where Advocates and QCs quietly demand with menaces – sums of cash in envelopes from their criminal or civil case clients. The ‘whisper’ goes like this - Pay up – or the desired court outcome will not be achieved.

And, don’t forget the ranks of slick, overcharging QCs who represent newspapers and the media – you know the type – all smooth talking on telly in between demanding appearance fees for doing so, hair gel to deflect from the botox injections, slick suits, a brown envelope on the way to the court, and a seat on a local rugby club along with a property grabbing, grubby, dishonest local high street solicitor who happens to sit on several Tribunals where he and his brethren live out their squalid existence extorting millions more from taxpayers.

Yet, for those in the know - behind the backs of their very own fee paying media clients, the same QCs with media scorecards find a quiet corner in the Court of Session to contact a colleague to get a message to opposing counsel on what and what not to say – to prolong the case for fees, or do the dirty on the case before them, for a favour on another.

You do for us today, we do for you tomorrow. And, tell you what mate – there is an opening in the Faculty for the son of that judge -  even though he only worked as a trainee lawyer for a few weeks.

But of course, these same legal legends in their own minds jealously guard their profession and self-created reputations – even on social media – where a critical article - or realistic tweet on the legal world can draw the ire of a grubby QC who actually lives on defending the worst filth in society and makes the taxpayer pay him staggering amounts of legal aid millions for doing so.

If anyone dares to question these weird legal people with double lives and multiple personas who market themselves as more valuable to society than doctors and nurses – in their legalistic, legal aid funded view of the world - that critic, person, politician or even a journalist - is not fit to live.

It’s all good though – as they say – because when such public exchanges take place – inevitably someone in an office comes forward with a bundle of papers to show the same high and mighty advocate or QC was actually knocked back by the Legal Aid Board for submitting false claims for public cash – so let’s call that attempted fraud, for the purposes of reality.

To complete the picture of what is in actuality - the Faculty of Fantasy – remember those envelopes full of cash - collected in person by a ‘leading light’ or ‘top’ Advocate or QC - of the same Faculty of Advocates whose members are money laundering and tax dodging all the way to the bank.

Take it from people who write of reality in the justice system - when you enter the eerie world of Scotland’s legal mafia and fall prey to that business known as the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service – you are witnessing a cash grabbing, case fiddling, double dealing world of avarice and greed, rather than the work of robbed figures who would have you believe they are the saviours of humanity, or anyone’s Human Rights.

Clients - mean nothing. Cash collecting and Big Invoice are king. Take them to task and they will see you suffer. And, they do exactly that.

The last Dean of the Faculty of Advocates – Gordon Jackson QC – stood down on 30 June after being filmed talking about the Alex Salmond trial in a train.

The video footage published by the Sunday Times revealed remarks Mr Jackson made about his client Alex Salmond - and his accusers.

In a statement published by the Faculty of Advocates on their Twitter feed, Mr Jackson said in April: “I have intimated my decision to resign as dean of the Faculty of Advocates, with effect from 30 June, at the latest.”

“It would not, however, be appropriate for me to remain as Dean at a time when the Faculty was considering disciplinary proceedings regarding my conduct.”

“Accordingly, if, before that date, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission remits the recent complaint for consideration by the Faculty’s Complaints Committee, I will stand down as Dean immediately. I do not intend to make any further comment.”

Since that announcement in April, Gordon Jackson has been less conspicuous on twitter - with much of the Faculty’s usual posturing on all things, law, legal and ‘other’ taken up by Roddy Dunlop QC – who was handed Jackson’s job in a lower than usual fanfare of the Court of waffling Session earlier this week.

Albeit  Dunlop only gained the position by default – he was the only candidate to put forward his name for the role - after Gordon Jackson ended his own run as dean in a blaze of careless comments in a train, filmed for posterity.

Dunlop – who - earlier this year gained the position of Vice Dean after Angela Grahame resigned her role – was welcomed in as Dean of the Faculty by Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland), Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC) and Lord Woolman.

However - the three judges who welcomed Mr Dunlop into the poisoned position of dean – have their own story to tell.

Two of those judges – Carloway & Malcolm - concealed conflicts of interest to a case which Dunlop lost, but was then used to go after the people who won it for the legal fees generated by Dunlop and his colleagues – including Lord Malcolm’s son. This case is currently at the heart of an ongoing media investigation and ticks all the right boxes for dishonesty, greed and conflict of interest.

The probe has so far linked Dunlop’s client (Advance Construction Scotland Ltd) to an ex-sheriff Peter Watson who resigned from the judiciary after he was suspended to protect public confidence in the judiciary

Then, there was the law firm – Levy and MCrae - who escaped a £28m writ over a £400m collapsed hedge fund.

The judge – Lord Malcolm - who concealed the fact his own son was linked to the same case he heard eight times

And, Scotland’s top judge himself – Lord Carloway – who concealed from MSPs that the law firm where his son worked was employed by Dunlop’s client to go after, and seize the properties of the party who actually won the case which Dunlop lost – courtesy of a ruling by the third judge – Lord Woolman.

Only in Scotland’s justice system will you ever find such a gang loaded with conflict of interests who use their seemingly unquestionable status in society to welcome another to their safe-house.

The investigation which reported on Lord Malcolm’s failure to declare serious conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail here: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Papers lodged at Holyrood judicial interests register probe reveal Court of Session judge heard case eight times - where his son acted as solicitor for the defenders.

When Lord Malcolm’s son bailed out of the court case – but only after the secret his own father was hearing the same case in the same court - came to light – Ewen Campbell ended up in the same Advocate stables as the new Dean of Faculty - Roderick William Dunlop QC of Axiom Advocates.

Nicely done - as some may say.

A recent development in the ongoing media probe of this case saw publication of a witness statement from Advocate Ewen Campbell – Lord Malcolm’s son –  which directly contradicts evidence given by  Lord Carloway - to the Public Petitions Committee and MSP Alex Neil in a hearing on 29 June 2017.

A further development saw a court-sourced witness statement of solicitor and ex-Sheriff Peter Black Watson to the Court of Session – which confirmed Watson employed the son of Lord Malcolm in the case to represent the client – Advance Construction Scotland Ltd – which ended up being heard by Lord Malcolm - who concealed his link to his son during multiple court hearings.

Lord Carloway’s son - Alexander Sutherland - then bailed out of a law firm linked to the same case heard by Lord Malcolm – after the Judicial Office were asked for comment on why his father – Scotland’s current top judge concealed this conflict of interest from evidence in the Scottish Parliament.

Carloway’s son – Alexander Sutherland then spectacularly ended up in the Faculty of Advocates - after only a few months working as a trainee solicitor.

Everything happens for a reason, right?

An earlier investigation revealed Lord Carloway failed to declare his son was linked to the same case: JUDGE OF CONFLICT: Top judge who attacked MSPs over judicial interests probe – failed to declare relative’s role at law firm targeting MSP’s constituents’ home & farm in £6M court case linked to Lord Malcolm conflict of interest scandal

A full report on the publication of evidence contradicting Lord Carloway’s testimony at the Scottish Parliament can be found here: DISHONESTY, LORD: Files reveal Lord Carloway misled Holyrood Committee on involvement of judges’ relative in Court of Session claim – witness statement exposes direct role of Ewen Campbell in £6M land case heard by his father - judge & privy councillor Lord Malcolm

Another turn of luck in the ongoing investigation of the Nolan v Advance case – was the discovery of methods employed by QCs and Advocates to get round signed up fee agreements – by demanding substantial sums in cash payments – which the QC or Advocate then insists on collecting in person from their clients.

But – trawling the court files and fee notes took on an even darker tone when evidence emerged that the Faculty of Advocates itself were attempting to issue fee note credits to cover undeclared payments of cash collected by QCs – when the Faculty feared discovery, and the worrying prospect of an investigation by UK tax authorities.

In one such document - a study of a statement from Faculty Services Ltd in the Nolan v Advance  – noted references to ‘undated’ sums, and credit notes for payments which were in fact – never made.

In one credit note from Faculty Services Ltd - the sum of £5000 - without any date reference is stated as paid.

However, a solicitor dealing directly with the case DENIED the undated £5,000 amount had been paid to Faculty Services Ltd - and a review of the accounts confirm NO such payment was ever made.

The undated £5K credit note listed in the documents – and other unexplained entries - appear to have been created by Faculty Services Ltd with a deliberate intention to conceal tens of thousands of pounds in undeclared cash payments Campbell demanded from his clients.

The fee statements & accounts from Faculty Services Ltd now raise serious questions of how far up the involvement of figures in the Faculty of Advocates in this case stretches - after an earlier investigation established Campbell was pocketing large payments he personally insisted on collecting in cash filled envelopes from his clients in £5,000 bundles.

Written evidence recovered from files held by legal regulators revealed Campbell himself sent emails to his clients - demanding large payments in cash to pay himself and junior counsel Craig Murray.

A full report on Craig Murray’s involvement in the case, and his role in writing two versions of evidence to legal regulators can be found here: ADVOCATE PROBE: How legal regulators covered up for top QC - Files show Scots Advocate now working as Barrister in London – authored two versions of SAME letter for Faculty probe of cash scandal QC who failed clients in £6M Court of Session case

An email from John Campbell to his clients revealed Campbell demanded £5,000 in cash - while he was on the way to a meeting at Airdrie Sheriff Court followed by a dinner with the Law Society of Scotland.

The email from Campbell states: “A little better information about timing. I am due in Airdrie at 4.30. The meeting is in the Sheriff Court, which closes at 6.30. The Law Society is taking me and a colleague for dinner, but I have no idea where. There isn't a huge number of restaurants in Airdrie, but we'll find somewhere. This means I won't be at Bonkle Road until about 8. Is that OK?”

“I have asked JC [John Carruthers] for a breakdown of the £5000. I will explain to you how a spec case works. I have checked; both John and I are willing to take on a spec case for Donal, but only if he signs up to it. There will be two conditions; one is that you keep the Edinburgh agent fed and watered, and the second is the size of the uplift at the end of the day, as I explained to you.”

A Sunday Mail investigation into the case established John Campbell sent multiple emails to clients – in some cases, demanding cash “in any form except beads” to pay for legal services.

An additional email from John Campbell QC to his client stated: “I'm writing to confirm that we agreed at our meeting on Friday that we will meet in Dalkeith on TUESDAY morning, when you will give me £5000 towards the fees of your legal team” … “Please let me know if it's OK to meet at the Mulsanne Garage, which is at 137 High Street, and what time would suit you?”

If you were wondering why Mr Dunlop’s name keeps cropping up in Nolan v Advance – well – it was Roddy Dunlop’s legal fees – and others - which prompted Levy and Mcrae & Begbies Traynor to use Lord Carloway’s son’s law firm to evict the pursuer out of his house to pay for it all.

You can read all about what happened next, here: FIRE SALE: AIB face sequestration probe as files reveal Trustee was paid £20K by vulture fund to sell home & firebombed farm five days after targeted attack on couple at centre of land case linked to top Scots judges, an ex-Sheriff, an asbestos dumping building company & law firm Levy and Mcrae

If you want to know why Lord Carloway decided to keep quiet about his own link to this case, read more here: JUDGE OF CONFLICT: Top judge who attacked MSPs over judicial interests probe – failed to declare relative’s role at law firm targeting MSP’s constituents’ home & farm in £6M court case linked to Lord Malcolm conflict of interest scandal

THE GANG’S ALL HERE: New Dean welcomed by judges who concealed conflicts of interest in same case

THE newly-elected Dean of Faculty, Roddy Dunlop, QC, has been introduced formally to the Court of Session in a short ceremony.

Mr Dunlop was presented to the Lord President, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lords Malcolm and Woolman, in the First Division courtroom.

Lord Carloway said it was not only his duty but his particular pleasure to congratulate Mr Dunlop on the high honour conferred on him by the Faculty.

Lord Carloway said: “It is an honour which is amply justified by your professional attainments and your personal character,” added the Lord President.

“It is a mark of my own age that I can not only say ‘kent his faither’ – whom I am pleased to see is present today – but even ‘kent his grandfaither’, whom I remember as an agent practising in Glasgow High Court.

“These are difficult times for the Court, the Bar, the wider profession and the public. We have learned a lot in the past four months, and will learn even more over the next four. There are many issues which need to be resolved if the courts are to continue to deliver justice for the people of Scotland. They will require discussion and careful consideration, but at the end of the day difficult decisions about the future will have to be made.

“The Court is confident that you will maintain the high traditions of the office of Dean. I can assure you that any representations which you make to the Court on behalf of the Faculty will always receive our closest attention.”

Mr Dunlop was the sole nomination to succeed Gordon Jackson, QC, who stepped down after four years in office.

Mr Dunlop said: “It is a huge honour to have been appointed Dean of Faculty. This high office extends back to the very origins of the College of Justice in the 16th Century. It has been held by many of the foremost legal minds in Scottish history, and I am humbled, and a little awed, to find myself in their company.

“I take office at an extremely challenging time for Faculty, and for the legal profession as a whole. I will endeavour to meet these challenges in a way that respects the efforts of those who have gone before me.”

Admitted to Faculty in 1998, Mr Dunlop took Silk in 2010. He has a broad-based, mainly civil practice, but with a keen interest in media law, he has been regularly instructed in the criminal courts in contempt matters.

Mr Dunlop served as Treasurer of Faculty from April 2017 until February this year when he was elected as Vice-Dean of Faculty. An election for a new Vice-Dean will follow.

Further material sourced from the Court of Session, including digital evidence & recordings from Neal transcribing machines in relation to proceedings in court where Dunlop and his opposite number John Campbell QC ‘sparred’ during hearings of Nolan v Advance - will be published in further articles.

Thursday, March 12, 2020

JUDICIAL REGISTER: Holyrood Justice Committee to continue work on register of judges’ interests – MSPs to seek evidence from constitutional experts & report on conflicts of interest of key stakeholders in the justice system

MSPs to continue work on judicial register. THE Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee will continue work on a cross-party backed petition calling for the creation of a register of interests for all Scottish judges: Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

On Tuesday, members of the Justice Committee voiced their support for the plan to create a judges’ register of interests – despite intense opposition from Scotland’s top judge Lord Carloway – who refused to face questions from MSPs on judges’ interests .

Justice Committee members also decided to seek evidence from constitutional and academic witnesses – and briefings on the extent of conflicts of interest relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish justice system.

During the hearing, John Finnie MSP said: “The debate seems to be polarised. The petition has been open for a considerable number of years, and an issue remains. The public would expect some measure of accountability.”

“I note the comments about intrusion into the independence of the judiciary, and I wonder if there is any opportunity to investigate that further as a way forward. I am conscious that the petition has been around for a long time.”

James Kelly MSP said: “Over the period for which the committee has been examining the issue, I have become convinced by the case for a register of interests for the judiciary.”

“I note the responses from the cabinet secretary and Lord Carloway; there is clearly a bit of a stand-off here. Members’ suggestions of taking additional evidence to take the issue forward are sensible. We should not park the issue; it is important and we should continue to press it.”

Rona Mackay MSP said: “It is a very important issue, and it will not just disappear. As a committee, we should investigate it further and take some wider evidence to inform our views. I would be in favour of doing that at this stage. Albeit that we have—as John Finnie says—reached an impasse, it is incumbent on us to take a wider look.”

The move by the Justice Committee comes amid strong and continued opposition to the judicial transparency proposal from Scotland’s top judge – Lord Carloway, and Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf who both oppose any moves to require judges to disclose their interests in the same way others in branches of government, boards and all 129 MSPs disclose and register their interests.

Earlier this week, MSPs were provided with evidence from a senior Justice of the Peace that the official Register of Judicial Recusals – created by former Lord President Lord Brian Gill – was an incomplete record of conflicts of interest in Scotland’s courts.

Writing in a letter to the Justice Committee Convener, Justice of the Peace Dennis Barr said: “We have been advised by Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) staff, that in instances where the JP has initiated the recusal themselves, it is treated as an informal administrative decision not to sit in a particular case, and as such is not recorded.”

The startling admission from Mr Barr - that judges were told by Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) staff - that any cases where Justices of the Peace stood down from a court case due to conflict of interest - would NOT be recorded - completely undermines assurances to MSPs from retired top judge Brian Gill, and current Lord President Lord Carloway – that the recusals register was an accurate register of Scottish judges standing aside from cases due to conflicts of interest.

Mr Barr’s evidence to the Justice Committee was reported in further detail here: INJUSTICE OF THE PEACE: Judge admits Scottish Courts concealed conflict of interest recusals - Justices of the Peace were told by Court staff any cases where JP judges decided to step down from court hearings - would NOT be recorded in official register of judicial recusals

Continued opposition from the Scottish Government to the judicial transparency proposal – in the form of a letter from Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to the Justice Committee, is reported in further detail here: NO, MINISTER: Justice Secretary claims Holyrood transparency legislation for register of judges’ interests - would undermine top judge who refused to meet Justice Committee on EIGHT YEAR judicial register petition

The Justice Secretary claimed that adding the requirement of judges to declare their interests could undermine Scotland’s top judge and intrude on the judiciary’s independence – similar arguments which have been constantly put forward by the Scottish Government & judiciary to the Public Petitions Committee – who investigated the petition for over six years and backed the plan to create the judicial register.

Further reporting on the register of judges’ interests petition and conflicts of interest of Scottish judges can be found on STV News here: Judging for ourselves if conflict of interest in courts and here: Scots judges facing pressure to declare their interests

The cross party backed judicial register petition filed at the Scottish Parliament in 2012 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on all 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.

Minutes of the meeting of Tuesday’s Justice Committee reveal the following decision:

Public petition PE1458: The Committee considered various pieces of correspondence received in relation to its ongoing consideration of the petition. The Committee agreed to keep the petition open and to seek further oral evidence in due course, in round-table formal, from constitutional and academic witnesses.

The Committee also agreed to seek further written briefings from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) in relation to other potential conflicts of interests relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish judicial system. The Committee will consider the scheduling of this work as part of its work programming up to spring 2021.

Video footage of Tuesday’s hearing can be viewed here:

Register of Judges Interests Petition PE1458 Justice Committee 10 March 2020

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Conservative) Convener:  Agenda item 7 is consideration of petition PE1458, which is a proposal to establish a register of judicial interests. I refer members to paper 4, which is a note by the clerk. Do members have any questions or comments?

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green): We have had some very interesting contributions from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and from various representatives of the judiciary, as well as comments on each of those from the petitioner.

The debate seems to be polarised. The petition has been open for a considerable number of years, and an issue remains. The public would expect some measure of accountability. I note the comments about intrusion into the independence of the judiciary, and I wonder if there is any opportunity to investigate that further as a way forward. I am conscious that the petition has been around for a long time.

I am supportive of the principle, and I note everything that has been said. However, we seem to have hit an impasse. I am keen to hear the views of different people—constitutional lawyers, for example.

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD): I agree with John Finnie. Intuitively, I am supportive of the idea of a register. However, I do not underestimate some of the concerns that have been raised by the cabinet secretary and representatives of the judiciary—particularly on the independence of the judiciary.

The debate is rather polarised, and it is difficult to see where compromise might be possible. However, I wonder whether we might proactively elicit views from academics in the area, with a view to testing some of the arguments that they made to us in their helpful evidence.

Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP): It is a very important issue, and it will not just disappear. As a committee, we should investigate it further and take some wider evidence to inform our views. I would be in favour of doing that at this stage. Albeit that we have—as John Finnie says—reached an impasse, it is incumbent on us to take a wider look.

Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): It is clearly an important issue, which merits our having a conversation or a discussion about it in the committee.

On principle, as the petition has been in the system for eight years, we should take evidence with a view to bringing the matter to a conclusion. It is not fair to have petitions in the system for that length of time without bringing them to some kind of conclusion. However, I would be happy to hear evidence on it.

James Kelly (Glasgow) (Lab): Over the period for which the committee has been examining the issue, I have become convinced by the case for a register of interests for the judiciary. I note the responses from the cabinet secretary and Lord Carloway; there is clearly a bit of a stand-off here. Members’ suggestions of taking additional evidence to take the issue forward are sensible. We should not park the issue; it is important and we should continue to press it.

The Convener: I should note that there is a petition that we have been dealing with for in excess of eight years—the Megrahi case petition. However, as members have said, it is not an ideal situation. Given the impasse and the diametrically opposed views, does the committee wish to seek further information on the record in a formal meeting with constitutional lawyers and others, in an effort to move forward and with a view to looking at the pros and cons of the petition? We could then take a formal decision on it. We could also ask the Scottish Parliament information centre and the clerks for a note on the wider issues, perhaps even taking into account any conflict-of-interest issues that might have a bearing on how court decisions are taken.

Liam McArthur: I agree with that. Such an evidence session might be better using a round-table format, rather than having a more traditional evidence session. Due to the fact that the cabinet secretary and, previously, the petitioner referred to the situation in New Zealand, which has now taken a different course, it would certainly be useful in the information that is to be provided by SPICe to have an understanding of the thought process that the New Zealand Parliament went through to arrive at the decision that it reached in relation to the same issue.

The Convener: Are we all agreed that that is the way forward?

Members indicated agreement.

The National reported on developments at the Justice Committee here:

 Scottish judges and government on collision course over interests register

By Martin Hannan The National 11 March 2020

THE Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament is on a collision course with the Scottish Government and leading Scottish judges after the Committee voted to continue its inquiries into the possibility of legislation to set up a register of the financial and other interests of judges.

Lord Carloway, Scotland’s senior judge, and justice secretary Humza Yousaf both told the committee by letter yesterday that they were opposed to such a register, indicating that the petition for such a register raised in 2012 by journalist and law blogger Peter Cherbi should now be dropped.

The Committee decided otherwise, however, and agreed to keep the petition open and to “seek further oral evidence in due course, in round-table formal, from constitutional and academic witnesses”.

The Committee also agreed to seek further written briefings from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Spice) in relation to “other potential conflicts of interests relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish judicial system”.

In a surprise move directly against the wishes of Yousaf and Carloway, the Committee agreed to consider the scheduling of this work as part of its work programming up to spring 2021.

Yousaf had told the Committee: “I would caution however that if such a register were to be established by way of legislation, rather than through the powers of the Lord President, this may be perceived as undermining the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers between the judiciary and other branches of government.”

Yet Carloway, the Lord President and Lord Justice General, has long made known his opposition to such a register, and he told the Committee in his letter that he would not be attending to give his views.

Speaking at yesterday’s meeting, John Finnie MSP said the debate on the issue had become “polarised”.

He said: “There is an issue here that remains to be dealt with and I think the public would anticipate that there is some measure of accountability.”

Peter Cherbi told The National: “Noting the Justice Committee meeting today I am grateful to those MSPs who declared their support for the register of judicial interests – and all the MSPs who have previously worked on this petition to support it and advance the issue of judicial transparency

“Clearly the debate has become very polarised as John Finnie said during the hearing. This polarisation has come about because the judiciary are entrenched in their opposition to the same level of transparency which applies to all other branches of the executive.

“It is no accident this petition has lasted eight long years, where at every turn the judiciary have sought to undermine the petition at every hearing, invoke anyone, from government ministers to vested legal interests in an effort to shut down the petition and any debate on judicial transparency.

Sadly, the effort expended by judges against this petition, is an indication judges have something to hide and fear disclosure.”

UNCONVINCING TOP  SCOTS JUDGES WHO REFUSED TO BE TRANSPARENT:

Scotland’s recent two top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for Scotland’s judiciary

Former Lord President Brian Gill, and current Lord President Lord Carloway consistently argued the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by  judges negate any requirement for further transparency in the judiciary.

However, both the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee – who investigated the judicial interests petition for six years, and the Justice Committee – who have considered the petition since 2018, found the judiciary’s arguments against transparency to be “unconvincing”.

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.

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