Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.
Outgoing Chief Constable Iain Livingstone.FOR FIVE YEARS and despite publicly aired views of former senior Police officers against his appointment - Scotland’s National Police service has been lawyer-led by a Chief Constable - who was once accused, then ‘cleared’ by a Tribunal composed of male Police colleagues - of FIVE allegations of serious sexual assault made against him by a female Police officer.
On 23 February 2023, just days afterNicola Sturgeon announced her resignation as First Minister on 15 February 2023 - Chief Constable Iain Livingstone announced his own resignation and intention to ‘retire’ from leading Police Scotland – with a lengthy departure date of August 2023.
However, in the weeks which followed the Chief Constable’s long goodbye to Scotland’s decimated national Police service - Mr Livingstone took the opportunity to brand Police Scotland as Institutionally discriminatory, institutionally sexist and instructionally racist.
What followed was a very scripted set of headlines involving public inquiries, SNP politicians praising the outgoing Chief Constable, and gangland representing lawyers seeking their own ego boosting headlines in what many came to realise was a carefully orchestrated exercise in press releases and organised spin.
However – Chief Constable Iain Livingstone was certainly not wrong in his accusations against his own Scottish National Police service.
Indeed, across five years of presiding over Police Scotland, the outgoing Chief Constable – who was branded unfit to lead Police Scotland by former Assistant Chief Constable Angela Wilson, and a host of public critics & campaigners – must shoulder some of the blame for a dysfunctional Police Service which – at low points – assisted the Lord Advocate & Crown Office in fitting up prosecutions against persons whose crimes did not exist – most notably the Administrators & Accountants of Rangers Football Club.
However, fitting up prosecutions on a £100 Million scale with the cooperation, orders even – of Scotland’s top law officers, top prosecutors and even with the evidenced involvement of the judiciary itself in the plot to lock up a few accountants for events which were mostly made-up – are but one entry in a long list of greed, avarice & corruption within Scotland’s National Police service and across key stakeholders in Scotland’s justice system – from the Crown Office to the Scottish Government itself.
But lets not kid ourselves everyone. We knew it all along, right?
The Scottish Government and it’s slavishly political, critic & media hostile - intensive Civil Servant-Special Adviser Policing group – were hell bent on control of almost every facet of Policing in Scotland and were grimly determined to ensure Scotland’s National Police Service drifted into the same chasm of control freakery, public relations and spin as the SNP Scottish Government live by each day and eek out their grim control over public life until the next week and the next scandal.
Few surprises there - as control freakery, PR and spin is so typical of the way the Scottish Government and every public organisation and regulator in Scotland operates – when faced with questions and scrutiny of the level of wrongdoing & dishonesty in whichever public authority is under the microscope that particular day.
To back up Iain Livingstone’s scripted admission of institutionally everything-wrong at his own five year grip on power Police Scotland, a series of senior officers were paraded on television to support the Chief Constable’s claims – with absolutely not one sounding believable in any of their responses.
And, to round off the increasingly diversionary campaign of ruining the reputation of Policing in Scotland to take the cameras and attention away from high profile political resignations and investigations into political funding – which appear to be more focussed on what they cannot prove rather than going after actual events and a rather complicated set of – lets call it “Heather Capital” type activities – the Chief Constable’s sexist, discriminatory & institutionally corrupt Police Service scandals were capped off with an arranged slew of new female officer appointments and the appointment of a female Chief Constable to replace Mr Livingstone.
If only it would be advantageous to publish the chat apps content of senior lawyers, civil servants and others on these few weeks of a dodgy Scottish National Police Service, and the dodgiest of dodgy Scottish Governments, ever.
Lets return to some of those issues in the headlines.
Non Disclosure Agreements at Police Scotland under Chief Constable Iain Livingstone – have seen millions of pounds in public cash paid out to victims of wrongdoing, corruption, sexism and misogyny during Livingstone’s five year grip on power at Scotland’s lawyer-led National Police Service – and millions of pounds more of public cash in the five years preceding Livingstone’s appointment as the preferred Scottish Government candidate of Chief Constable in 2018.
For years – cases of wrongdoing in policing – from the time of Scotland’s eight forces to the creation of Police Scotland by the SNP Scottish Government in 2014 – have been looked at by blog journalists.
The numbers are big, the pay-outs to victims even bigger, the wrongdoing, corruption, sexism, misogyny, vendetta witch-hunts of sources to journalists, pursuit of police officers who lodge legitimate grievances on issues relating to their service - and targeting of whistle-blowers has been – and remains to this day – off the scale.
It should not surprise readers that private law firms, solicitors, ‘leading’ members of the Faculty of Advocates & even some members of Scotland’s judiciary – have also collectively gained millions of pounds of public cash over the past decade in burying scandals for Police Scotland and forcing victims to sign Non Disclosure Agreements to prevent anyone talking to the media, public, their families and friends - or even their elected political representatives and the Scottish Parliament.
Readers can view earlier Freedom of Information disclosures obtained by blog journalists here Police Scotland - Non Disclosure Agreements FOI - 2019 which give some idea of the scale of pay-outs and a very limited understanding of the level of institutional wrongdoing at Police Scotland.
More than 20 victims of discrimination and wrongdoing who received financial compensation from Police Scotland were gagged from speaking publicly and the FOI material reveals Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) were used in at least 21 cases in which pay-outs totalling £677,389 were made to police officers, civilian staff and members of the public.
At least ten police constables, an inspector, a sergeant and four civilian workers were found to have signed Non Disclosure Agreements, involving a variety of discrimination disputes on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, disability and age.
Other Non Disclosure Agreements involving Police Scotland related to wrongful arrest, personal injury and unfair dismissal and a whistle-blower was required to sign an NDA.
In the figures which go up to the year 2019 – Scotland’s National Police service paid an additional £203,380 to cover victims’ legal fees – bringing the total cost to taxpayers to £880,769 over six years.
Initially – and as is routine with all Scottish Public Authorities – Police Scotland refused to identify the law firms which received public cash in relation to Non Disclosure Agreements. The data was only obtained after requests for FOI Reviews were lodged – naming the following law firms in figures: Clyde & Co solicitors £50,782.20, Morton Fraser Solicitors £72,162.56, Thorntons Solicitors £4,910.40.
And in an additional refusal by Police Scotland to identify law firms involved in Non Disclosure Agreements – again for figures up to 2019 – the same law firms were again identified in an FOI review disclosure – Morton Fraser Solicitors £22,208.80, Clyde & Co solicitors £41,460.01
Curiously, in the past year – several media publications published articles identifying outgoing Chief Constable Iain Livingstone as a “Frontrunner” for the positions of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service for London , and “Frontrunner” for the post of Director of the UK National Crime Agency.
As readers will be well aware - both positions were filled by other candidates.
Interestingly and perhaps coincidentally - INTERPOL – the International Police Agency recently announced – apparently after much lobbying – the annual Interpol General Assembly is to be held next year in Glasgow, 2024.
The choice, which would be as odd as a group of environmental campaigners choosing to hold their gathering in the middle of an oil refinery – is coincidentally slated for the same year to which candidates for the 2025 Interpol Presidency will begin lobbying for their chance to follow several well known – and even some later jailed figures – to become the new Interpol President in 2025.
A previous example of Interpol Presidency candidates cite the following:
Interpol is currently holding its general assembly in Dubai, and a UK delegation, led by Lynne Owens, the director general of the National Crime Agency, is there at the moment. Interpol is electing a new president at the general assembly after former Interpol president and Chinese Vice-Minister of Public Security, Meng Hongwei, resigned from the position on Sunday 7 October after Chinese authorities confirmed that he had been detained and is being investigated on anti-corruption charges.
Two candidates have formally declared for the post and remain in the running as candidates. They are current acting president South Korean Kim Jong Yang and Russian vice-president—one of four vice-presidents—Alexander Prokopchuk. Members of Interpol at the general assembly will vote on the next president on Wednesday. We do not speculate on the outcome of the election, but the UK supports the candidacy of acting president Kim Jong Yang.
Can the Minister confirm that the British Government are doing all they can to campaign against the candidacy of Mr Prokopchuk? Will she confirm that, until recently, he was head of the central bureau in Russia and was directly responsible for the issuing of red notices, which have been abused and used against opponents of the Putin regime—such as Mr Bill Browder, the proponent of the Magnitsky sanctions? Does she not agree that if this Russian gentleman were to become head of Interpol, it would be an absolute insult to the victims of the Salisbury incident?
Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to pursue their own pursuit of red notices in Russia with that gentleman in this post? Does she not accept that, if this gentleman were to succeed in his election, this would be a massive propaganda victory for the Putin regime, just ahead of a vote in the European Union on fresh sanctions? Would it, in effect, not amount to accepting that Interpol has become a branch of the Russian mafia? I use my words carefully when I say that. Finally, does this not underline the absolute folly of undermining in any way Europol at a time when Interpol is becoming totally dysfunctional and potentially corrupted?
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. The central point is to clarify for the House the role of the secretary general of Interpol, who, of course, is the German Jürgen Stock. He has the executive role of day-to-day responsibility for the conduct of Interpol, and the UK confirms that it has a very good working relationship with him.
The right hon. Gentleman also raises the question about the candidacy of the current vice-president of the organisation. The UK, as I said in my opening remarks, will be supporting the candidacy of the acting vice-president, Kim Yong Yang. We always seek to endorse candidates who have a history of observing standards of international behaviour.
With regard to the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the potential for misuse of Interpol, red notices are a very important point. He will be aware of the systems that are in place to protect individuals’ rights and, indeed, of article 3 of the Interpol constitution, which forbids any organisation to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. Of course, there need to be safeguards, and this Government take any misuse of Interpol notices very, very seriously.
Interestingly, the lobbying – both at National UK level and in Scotland – for a UK/Scotland candidate to ensnare, be ‘elected to’ or assume the Interpol 2025 Presidency - is highly reminiscent of recent attempts to place certain Scots figures in policing positions outside of Scotland – none of which appear to have succeeded given these individuals pasts.
The lobbying between administrations resorted to embittered strings of emails and Chat app platform communications, including claims several detailed reports in newspapers of officers pasts “had been withdrawn and therefore should be discounted in considering applications” and that “a segment in a television interview was misinformed and contained patently false information”.
The exchanges between advisers, media communications officers & administrations on lobbying attempts, currently cannot be published for legal reasons - however the attempts by some within government, at Scotland & UK level to engineer candidates for jobs without serious interviews, and deploy comms officers, even politicians to brief against the media in what became an increasingly bitter recruitment process and ultimately concluded in all parties engaging in infighting – are certainly of public interest in terms of who is appointed to which role in the UK, and why.
And finally – Three sourced tips in relation to stories being looked into.
An audio file submitted to a number of journalists reveals a recently retired policing figure and frequent user of sauna shops - boasted of holding information in relation to politicians and a financial scandal relating to cash and goods - to which the existence of this information was used to gain political lobbying and favours. A crime journalist confirmed the identity of persons in the audio.
An opportunity for that person or others with knowledge of this matter exists to contact journalists and answer questions on why this policing figure’s organisation felt it could play politics and gain favours - in relation to information clearly accumulated as a result of investigations – and why ageing, named former politicians were paid to lobby for, and attack journalists, critics - on behalf of this policing organisation.
Long running enquiries into court cases and complaints investigations revealed the use of Scotland based Private Investigator firms recruiting former Police Officers to utilise in-person surveillance on litigants, solicitors and journalists. Certain of these cases saw persons working for PI firms gaining entry to offices and litigants homes, images of which were recorded on camera equipment. Blog journalists are open to hear explanations from these firms and any employees in relation to their activities.
A long running investigation of digital surveillance employed by organisations in Scotland – which began with the Emma Caldwell case – turned up evidence of a highly organised cyber-hacking ring – which appears to have involvement of former Police Officers from a UK force other than Scotland, England & Wales which continues to snoop on newsrooms and identified journalists, and others including what appear to be opposition politicians.
Emails between lawyers & identified former officers revealed these ex cops regularly offer their services to law firms and any organisation which will hire then. To put it bluntly, these former officers boast of their technical proficiency in defending against cyber-attacks and taking the surveillance and cyber war back to those who whichever entity or organisation perceive as an enemy.
One of the lawyers boasting to clients of how they can deploy ex Police professionals to hack their way through opposing clients and legal representation’s files – sits on committees formed by Scotland’s current top judge – making the link between the judiciary and this surveillance enterprise as clear as was the case in the Emma Caldwell case. If anyone wants to talk, get in touch.
Lastly – Chose your method of giving tips to journalists carefully. Major social media platforms owned by a variety of anti-transparency vested interests - are a no-go area as your Direct Messages and similar are often read before the intended journalists gain sight of it – as a Digital Media employee from a political party recently confirmed in lengthy chats with example communications provided to journos.
Scottish Govt agree to create Judicial Register.A PETITION to create a register of judges’ interests for all members of Scotland’s judiciary - survived a stormy session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – after a failed last-minute Tory led attempt to shut down the TEN YEAR judicial probe.
The attempt to close down Petition PE 1458 was led by the now former MSP Justice Committee Convener – Adam Tomkins of the Scottish Conservatives – who launched blistering criticism on questions around judges’ interests during several hard edged statements to fellow members of the Justice Committee.
However, since these events took place on 2 March at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – the Scottish Government has since indicated they will create the register of judges’ interests as asked for in the petition - Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.
Petition PE1458 was originally lodged at the Scottish Parliament in 2012. The Petition 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.
The Daily Record article reports: Now Keith Brown, who was appointed by Nicola Sturgeon to be the new Justice Secretary, has confirmed the Government is taking it forward.
He said: “It was a manifesto commitment of the SNP to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system. “Now that the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced and take forward the work needed to achieve this manifesto commitment.”
The Record further reports support for the petition from MSPs and the Scottish Government: SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said: “I support the commitment from the Scottish Government to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Members of the judiciary, like any other public servant in receipt of public funds, must disclose interests that could influence their decisions or give the perception of doing so”.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Introducing a register of interests for members of the judiciary will increase transparency and trust in the justice system. The Scottish Government will now begin work to engage with stakeholders to consider how best to bring forward this justice reform.”
An additional blog report will publish more detail around the latest events relating to the petition and the creation of a register of judges’ interests – which the Scottish Government confirmed will occur.
Back to the events of March 2021 – Adam Tomkins – the now former Justice Committee Convener after having retired as an MSP at the 2021 election - was joined in the well organised effort to shut down the judicial register debate by Annabelle Ewing – who is now the current Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, and MSP Rona Mackay – formerly of the Petitions Committee.
However, Justice Committee member John Finnie who has since stood down as an MSP launched a scathing rebuttal of the Tory Convener’s concerted effort to shut down debate on Scottish judges interests and demanded the petition be kept open. Mr Finnie was joined in support by MSPs Rhoda Grant (Scottish Labour), Liam Kerr (Conservative) Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat) & Shona Robinson (SNP).
In response to Tomkins & Ewing’s praise for judges, and their expressed agreement with the Lord President to shut the petition, John Finnie said in response: “I will follow on from the convener’s comments about the separation of powers. Of course, in any liberal democracy, it is absolutely right that we have an independent justiciary. I accept that. However, we are talking about one individual the Lord President.”
“I do not know that individual and I have no axe to grind one way or another, but I will paraphrase the previous exchanges with him. He said, “No, I don’t want it.” The committee decided to write to him again, and he said, “I’ve already told you that I don’t want it, and I’m telling you again that I don’t want it.” There were discussions about his coming to give evidence and even about whether it was appropriate to ask him to come to give evidence. He said, “Well, I could come and give evidence but, as I’ve told you and I’ll tell you for a third time, I don’t want it.” To be perfectly honest, that does not seem to me like a functioning liberal democracy.”
“What is there to fear from disclosing the information that is being asked for? Examples of other jurisdictions have been given where that is done without a problem. Should we be surprised that a Government of whatever persuasion wants to be in accord with the Lord President and does not want to dissent from the Lord President’s position? Perhaps not.”
I am not persuaded by either of those arguments, but there is a more compelling reason why we must keep the petition open. I am supportive of the intention of the petition. As always, the devil will be in the detail, but the detail that has been shared with us is that we are being urged to commission the work that we had already decided on. It is very clearly unfinished work for the committee. We undertook to do things in relation to the petition; we have not done those. For that reason, we must pass it on to our successor committee to pick up on that work, and it will be for it to decide how to proceed thereafter. The petition should be kept open.”
Justice Committee members Shona Robison, Liam McArthur & Rhoda Grant also agreed to keep the petition open.
The Scottish Conservatives Liam Kerr also agreed, to keep the petition open.
A planned motion to close the petition was apparently scrapped at this point and discussions aimed at shutting down the petition - which took place outside the realms of the Justice Committee prior to the hearing - have since been made available to journalists.
Instead – The Tory Justice Committee convener Adam Tomkins managed a final spat at the TEN YEAR probe of judges interests and plans to create a register – displaying visible concern that Justice Committee members had kept the petition open
A very animated Adam Tomkins ended the terse, at times bitter hearing on the petition by stating “I will close by saying that just because it is appropriate for elected members in the legislature to have a register of interests, that does not mean that it is appropriate for members of the judiciary to have a similar register of interests. The function of the separation of powers is to treat different branches of government differently, according to their institutional function.I hope that that is a fair summary albeit with a gloss from me at the end of the committee’s decision.”
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary – originally lodged 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.
Video coverage of the Justice Committee meeting of 2 March 2021 and discussions relating to the register of judicial interests petition can be viewed here:
Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458) Tuesday 2 March 2021
Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow): The second of the petitions before us is PE1458, which concerns a register of judicial interests. The petition, from Peter Cherbi, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a register of pecuniary interests of judges bill or to amend the present legislation to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and information on any hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests. I refer members to the relevant papers, which include submissions from supporters of the petition.
As with the previous petition, the committee has had PE1458 before it for a long time the petition was lodged in December 2012. The last time that the committee considered the petition, it agreed to seek further information on other potential conflicts of interest relating to key stakeholders in the Scottish judicial system and to hold a round-table session on the matter with constitutional and academic witnesses. I am afraid that the pressures of competing work have meant that we have not been able to organise a round-table event on the subject, so that remains undone.
I open the discussion to members. As with the previous petition, we need to decide whether to close the petition or to keep it open for session 6. If we take the latter course, we need to justify our decision.
Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath): I am mindful of the fact that I should probably have waited for my colleagues to indicate that they wished to speak first, because that might have been more appropriate, given that I am a newish member of the committee. In any event, I have read the clerk’s note and have been peripherally aware of the petition over the course of several years.
I cite a few points. First, as far as I can see, the statement of principles of judicial ethics is a comprehensive set of requirements. The idea that there is nothing in place is a fallacy. Secondly, I note that additional safeguards have been put in place during the time that the petition has been open. I cite the register of recusals and the publication of judicial expenses and overseas travel. Thirdly, and most importantly, I was struck by the letter from the Lord President and the key point about the need for the independence of the judiciary, which is not comparable to any other profession. The independence of the judiciary of the country is a fundamental tenet of our laws and our society. I agree with the Lord President on those matters, so I do not support the continuation of the petition.
Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow): Thank you, Annabelle. The Official Report will not show this, but I was nodding vigorously as you commented on the fundamental importance of the independence of the judiciary as a tenet of the separation of powers. That is the principle that should be front and centre when we consider questions such as this one.
For a register of judicial interests to be created, either the Lord President would need to set that up or Parliament would need to legislate to do so. As Annabelle Ewing has just said, the Lord President has said that he does not see the need for such a register. That is also the view of the current Scottish Government, which has said that it does not support a register.
Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Scottish Conservative): For complete transparency, I make the usual declaration that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland.
I listened carefully to Annabelle Ewing and the convener, who spoke very persuasively. It is an interesting debate. I have not, as yet, heard a convincing argument against the proposal. I think that there is something in what Annabelle Ewing and the convener said, but I need to hear more. Some of the recent debates that the convener and I have been involved in give me pause for thought about the petition.
The convener prefaced his comments by saying that the committee was previously interested in obtaining more information on the issue, and that we talked about having a round-table session. I want to hear and learn more about the issue before I decide what I think about a register of interests. For that reason, I am inclined to think that we should keep the petition open with a view to me or whoever has the privilege of coming back and being on the committee looking at the issue again in the cold light of day of the new session of Parliament.
Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative, Glasgow): Annabelle Ewing has asked me to remind members that, like Liam Kerr, she is a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although, again, like Liam Kerr, she has never been not yet, at least on the bench. Thank you, Annabelle.
Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands): I have no such declaration to make. I agree whole-heartedly with what you said, convener, and with what Annabelle Ewing said in opening the debate. It is indisputable that steps have been taken to address at least some of the principles of the concerns that were raised in the petition.
The point where I am slightly anxious here, I refer back to Annabelle Ewing’s comments on the earlier petition about the value and benefits of consistency is that, having sisted the petition previously on the basis that the committee would hold a round-table session to solicit wider views from stakeholders, but then not having done so, it would be difficult to make an argument for closing the petition. Again, that argument seems to be for administrative neatness. We made a commitment as a committee. If, after the election, the incoming committee does not feel that it needs to be beholden to that commitment, that is a decision for it, but it would be passing strange for us to abandon, simply because of the prospect of an election, the conclusion that we reached when we considered the petition previously.
On that basis, as with the earlier petition, I am minded to suggest that we keep this one open until the next session.
Deputy Convener Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden): I was on the Public Petitions Committee when the petition started its journey before it came to the Justice Committee, and I am supportive of it I am on record as saying that. However, given that the Lord President and the cabinet secretary have made their views clear on it several times, at this stage, we should close it, with the knowledge that the petitioner can bring it back in the next session of Parliament if he wants to carry on with it.
I do not think that that would be inconsistent. The petition is different from the previous one, which we decided to keep open, because the circumstances are different. At this stage, my preference is to close the petition, and the petitioner can always bring it back. However, I am sympathetic to the subject.
John Finnie (Scottish Green Party, Highlands & Islands): I will follow on from the convener’s comments about the separation of powers. Of course, in any liberal democracy, it is absolutely right that we have an independent justiciary. I accept that. However, we are talking about one individual the Lord President.
I do not know that individual and I have no axe to grind one way or another, but I will paraphrase the previous exchanges with him. He said, “No, I don’t want it.” The committee decided to write to him again, and he said, “I’ve already told you that I don’t want it, and I’m telling you again that I don’t want it.” There were discussions about his coming to give evidence and even about whether it was appropriate to ask him to come to give evidence. He said, “Well, I could come and give evidence but, as I’ve told you and I’ll tell you for a third time, I don’t want it.” To be perfectly honest, that does not seem to me like a functioning liberal democracy.
What is there to fear from disclosing the information that is being asked for? Examples of other jurisdictions have been given where that is done without a problem. Should we be surprised that a Government of whatever persuasion wants to be in accord with the Lord President and does not want to dissent from the Lord President’s position? Perhaps not.
I am not persuaded by either of those arguments, but there is a more compelling reason why we must keep the petition open. I am supportive of the intention of the petition. As always, the devil will be in the detail, but the detail that has been shared with us is that we are being urged to commission the work that we had already decided on. It is very clearly unfinished work for the committee. We undertook to do things in relation to the petition; we have not done those. For that reason, we must pass it on to our successor committee to pick up on that work, and it will be for it to decide how to proceed thereafter. The petition should be kept open.
Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East): I do not have strong views on the petition. I have some sympathy with Annabelle Ewing’s comments about the additional safeguards, and I think that we all agree on the independence of the judiciary. However, I also have some sympathy with what John Finnie has said, in that we should be consistent if we feel that there is some unfinished business for our successor committee to take forward, even if that is just the holding of a round-table session and the gathering of further evidence, it might be in a better position to make a definitive call on whether there is more that should be done here.
I hope that we can reach a consensus. I would be content for the petition to be included in our legacy report as something for our successor committee to consider further.
Rhoda Grant (Scottish Labour, Highlands & Islands): I agree with what John Finnie said and proposed.
Convener Adam Tomkins) Scottish Conservative, Glasgow: I am grateful to colleagues for what has been a very helpful debate. My sense of the discussion is that members of the committee do not feel as strongly about this petition as they did about the previous one. Some modest and minor disagreement has been expressed about whether to keep the petition open or to close it. However, I think that the balance of opinion is in favour of keeping it open, if only because there is a sense of unfinished business. However unfinished the business is, though, I think that everybody who has expressed a view on the matter is clearly of the view that that business needs to be transacted subject to and in the light of the fundamentally important principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.
I think that the body of opinion is that the petition should not be closed at the moment, but that our successor committee in session 6 should be invited to consider the matter, if only to hear views and perhaps to explore a little why the Lord President is opposed or why the judiciary, who are represented by the Lord President, are opposed to the creation of such a register.
I will close by saying that just because it is appropriate for elected members in the legislature to have a register of interests, that does not mean that it is appropriate for members of the judiciary to have a similar register of interests. The function of the separation of powers is to treat different branches of government differently, according to their institutional function.
I hope that that is a fair summary albeit with a gloss from me at the end of the committee’s decision.
A reference in the Justice Committee’s Annual report for 2020 to 2021 states the following: Petition PE1458 - is a petition by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.
The Report states the Petition, and another will be kept open for the next session of the Scottish Parliament: At its meeting of 2 March 2021, the Committee considered these two petitions for the final time this session and agreed to keep both petitions open for a new committee to consider in session 6.
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT JUDICIAL INTERESTS PROBE:
The judicial register petition - first debated at the Scottish Parliament’sPublic Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests.
A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was heldat the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.
UNCONVINCING TOP SCOTS JUDGES WHO REFUSED TO BE TRANSPARENT:
Scotland’s most 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”.
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
First Minister recommended judge role for lawyer - who found her guilty of misconduct.AN INVESTIGATION has established Scotland’s First Minister – Nicola Sturgeon – was found to have committed THREE counts of professional misconduct by a solicitor she later recommended for the position of a Sheriff within Scotland’s powerful judiciary - currently led by Lord President - Lord Carloway.
The findings of professional misconduct by Sheriff Pasportnikov against the First Minister - were the result of a complaint lodged by a client to the law firm where Nicola Sturgeon worked at the time – Bell & Craig solicitors.
The complaint against Nicola Sturgeon involved the currently serving First Minister’s failure to provide adequate legal services to a victim of domestic violence.
And, the issues in relation to Ms Sturgeon’s failure to provide adequate legal services only came to light after Ms Sturgeon suddenly left the law firm = and the client was forced to go to another solicitor – who it was reported - discovered legal aid forms had not been sent to the Scottish Legal Aid Board – despite assurances the legal aid application had been submitted.
In response to the complaint – the Law Society of Scotland appointed a case manager – a solicitor, and now Sheriff - Olga Pasportnikov - to investigate.
In a five-page report, dated Dec 1998, Olga Pasportnikov said: “The complaint in this case has been identified as professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor.”
Pasportnikov identified three counts ‘of professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor’.
They were: failing to raise interdict, misleading client about legal aid application & failing to properly consider her financial circumstances
Among ‘circumstances which have been ascertained during the course of the enquiry’ were the legal aid form had been completed and signed by the client and the client’s employers but not sent.
Despite the findings of Sheriff Pasportnikov, and her identification of multiple serious issues where she concluded Ms Sturgeon’s failure to provide competent legal services qualified as professional misconduct - the Law Society of Scotland concluded there should be no further action and Nicola Sturgeon left the legal profession.
It is important to note - the Law Society of Scotland cleared Nicola Sturgeon even after their case manager Ms Pasportnikov identified various breaches of professional misconduct by Nicola Sturgeon – and that Ms Sturgeon – who then 'stood down’ from the legal profession – to contest a seat for the Scottish National Party – then entered politics without an on the record finding of professional misconduct by the Law Society of Scotland.
Records show from announcements in the legal profession’s press, and Scottish Government news postings - Announced on 31 July 2015 - Olga Pasportnikov was appointed by the Queen following a report to the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon - by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.
Ms Pasportnikov, a University of Dundee graduate, was admitted as a solicitor in 1991. She worked mainly in private practice before joining the Law Society of Scotland in 1998. She has been with the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service since 2003, and is also current convener of the Fife Young Carers Management Committee.
The First Minister has statutory responsibility for making recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen and is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making her recommendation.
The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland is an ‘independent’ advisory public body with the role of recommending individuals for appointment to judicial offices within the Board’s remit including judge of the Court of Session, chair of the Scottish Land Court, sheriff principal, sheriff, and summary sheriff.
It has since come to light this story was filed with a Scottish newspaper for publication in June 2018 – after several other newspapers refused to publish the story.
According to now deleted tweets from a former journalist which have now been widely published online – a story on the complaint regarding Nicola Sturgeon’s failure to provide adequate legal services to a victim of domestic violence, and the identification of several counts of professional misconduct against Ms Sturgeon by currently serving Sheriff Olga Pasportnikov - had support from one editor to be published – until a ‘Political editor’ at the same newspaper voted the story down.
The deleted tweet goes on to allege that some weeks later, the same newspaper which did not publish the story on Nicola Sturgeon - was leaked details of the harassment complaints against Alex Salmond and the investigation byPolice Scotland - which subsequently led to Mr Salmond being charged with 14 offences, including two counts of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault, and one of breach of the peace.
Mr Salmond appeared in court on 21 November 2019 and entered a plea of "not guilty".
At the subsequent trial, Mr Salmond was cleared by a jury trial - heard by Scotland's Lord Justice Clerk - Lady Dorrian.
The information came to light after Justice Committee Convener Adam Tomkins (Scottish Conservative) & former Scottish Government Legal Affairs Minister Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party) made a motivated and concerted effort to close down the same Judicial Interests Register petition which Nicola Sturgeon has opposed and sought to close - throughout her term as First Minister.
This is the same Judicial Interests Register petition the First Minister has tried to undermine and block since Ms Sturgeon became First Minister.
If a Register of Judges’ Interests did become a requirement – Sheriff Pasportnikov who found Nicola Sturgeon guilty of professional misconduct may be forced to list that fact and other details of her service to the Law Society of Scotland.
On Wednesday 3 March 2021 - the Judicial Office for Scotland were asked the following questions:
A currently serving Sheriff - Olga Pasportnikov - conducted an investigation of complaints lodged about Scotland's current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon while she was a solicitor at a law firm identified as Bell & Craig
Ms Pasportnikov was, as the Judicial Office will be aware - a case manager for the Law Society of Scotland from September 1998 to March 2003
In a five-page report released in December 1998, Olga Pasportnikov said: "The complaint in this case has been identified as professional misconduct by breach of code of conduct and conduct unbecoming a solicitor."
Olga Pasportnikov found Ms Sturgeon guilty of 3 identifyable counts of professional misconduct:
They were:
failing to raise interdict as instructed,
misleading client about legal aid application,
failing to properly consider the client's financial circumstances
Events then saw the Law Society clear Ms Sturgeon, who quickly left the legal profession.
Noting Ms Pasportnikov currently declares her time at the Law Society of Scotland on her Linkedin page as a "case manager" - along with other career attributes including a term at the Crown Office as a Procurator Fiscal Depute, and her current role as a serving Sheriff
- does Sheriff Pasportnikov have any comment onthe following questions:
why she does not list her role of investigating complaints against solicitors?
why she found Ms Sturgeon guilty of 3 identifyable issues of professional misconduct?
why no regulatory punishment took place upon Sheriff Pasportnikov's findings?
Does the Judicial Office have any comment on the above events and any comment on the impact of a currently serving Sheriff with a long history as a solicitor, prosecutor and now a judge - having found Scotland's current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon guilty of three counts of professional misconduct to which no sanction was ever applied by legal regulators and never declared in any register of interests?
On Friday 5 March 2021 - the Judicial Office for Scotland (JOFS) issued a statement to the media.
The Judicial Office claimed Sheriff Pasportnikov had forgotten she had investigated a complaint case involving the current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon,
A spokesperson for the Judicial Office said:
“The Sheriff was one of a number of case managers working on the Law Society for Scotland’s Client Relations Team from 1998 – 2003. Her role was limited to that of gathering and categorising information as a first step in a much longer process. She did not produce any reports or make any findings. Covering a volume of work, she would not remember specific names in routine cases, including where a solicitor was cleared entirely.”
“In Scotland, sheriffs are appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the First Minister, who makes their recommendation on the basis of a report by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland (JABS). The First Minister has statutory responsibility for making recommendations to Her Majesty and is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making their recommendation.”
“JABS is an independent advisory public body with the role of recommending individuals for appointment to judicial offices within the Board’s remit including judge of the Court of Session, chair of the Scottish Land Court, sheriff principal, sheriff, and summary sheriff.”
A response to the Judicial Office statement was submitted - querying the JOFS claim, and confirming - that material now in the public domain - does confirm Sheriff Pasportnikov did in-fact – investigatge a complaint against Nicola Sturgeon and that Sheriff Pasportnikov identified several breaches of professional misconduct by Ms Sturgeon.
No reply to the additional query has been received, nor has the Judicial Office disputed the terms of questions & information supplied to JOFS staff.
It would be difficult to believe a case relevant to the current First Minister was forgotten about by the investigating reporter - Sheriff Pasportnikov - as there is obviously only one Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland - the current First Minister.
Earlier today, a legal expert assessed the material now in the public domain and deleted tweets from a former journalist which names a Scottish newspaper and a ‘spiked’ story on Ms Sturgeon.
He said: “In view of suggestions on social media platforms - a former journalist held this information for a number of years, and approached several newspapers seemingly without success - people may reasonably expect questions to be asked of why this story has not come to light until now and the method of travel to the media.”
He added: “Was there motive in withholding this story involving Scotland’s First Minister, either by a newspaper, a political party or a journalist? I am curious to find out. However, I am also curious as to why no one with the information offered the material in evidence to the long running Scottish Parliament investigation of issues involving Alex Salmond.”
“Given the First Minister responded to questions on what appear to be references to the investigation of Ms Sturgeon and a newspaper deal - MSPs should ask rigorous questions of anyone involved in this matter given the situation we face where information now exists alleging the Sheriff complaint probe of Scotland’s First Minister was allegedly swapped for a story on harassment complaints and a Police investigation of Alex Salmond in the summer of 2018”
In discussions late this afternoon – others have come forward to confirm they were aware of this story for some time, but were unable to obtain any answers from Ms Sturgeon on these events.
JUDICIAL INTERESTS REGISTER - would have required declaration of Sheriff’s role in FM Complaint:
It has been previously reported Nicola Sturgeon personally intervened to block the Judicial Register petition - during a long running investigation by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee
The surprise intervention by the First Minister in the bid to bring transparency to Scotland’s secretive judges came to light after a failed attempt by her then Legal Affairs Minister – Paul Wheelhouse – to overturn the petition with claims that ‘gangsters’ could misuse information in a judges register.
In the letter – dated 30 March 2015 - Nicola Sturgeon also revealed Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse had a secret meeting in February 2015 with Lord Gill to discuss the petition and the Judiciary & Scottish Government’s concerted opposition to creating the Judicial Register.
Writing in the letter to John Pentland MSP, Convener of the Public Petitions Committee, the First Minister said: “This petition calls on the Scottish Government to create a Register of Interests for the Judiciary. The Scottish Government considers that such a register of judicial interests is not necessary and that the existing safeguards - the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the system for complaints against the judiciary - are sufficient. These safeguards, together with the register of judicial recusals, are sufficient to protect individuals from judicial bias.”
Further to the evidence that the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Mr Wheelhouse, gave to the Committee on 9 December 2014, he discussed this petition when he met the Lord President in February. The Minister acknowledged the Lord President's concerns about the introduction of a register of judicial interests. The breadth of such a register would make it virtually unworkable. It would need to cover not only financial interests, but also memberships of groups and associations and familial and social relationships. Even so, such a register might not capture relevant issues that could arise.”
“The position of the judiciary is different from that of MSPs and others who hold public office. The judiciary cannot publicly defend themselves. The Lord President has cautioned that such a register could also have unintended consequences. Consideration requires to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. In addition, there is currently no evidence that judges who should have recused themselves from cases have not done so.”
The Sunday Herald newspaper reported on First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s intervention on behalf of the judiciary and her opposition to the judicial transparency proposal:
Paul Hutcheon Investigations Editor Sunday 10 May 2015
NICOLA Sturgeon has rejected calls for judges to declare details of their finances in a register of interest. The First Minister said the proposal, lodged by justice campaigner Peter Cherbi, was "not necessary" and claimed existing rules were "sufficient".
Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee is in the middle of a long-term probe into whether judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace should be brought into line with other senior public sector figures. MSPs, MPs, councillors and board members of public bodies are all required to register their outside financial interests.
A petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament in 2012 called for members of the judiciary to declare their "pecuniary" interests, which would include shareholdings, directorships and membership of external bodies.
Judicial officer holders can recuse - or remove - themselves if a conflict of interest arises during a case, but nothing more is required.
The plan was met with hostility by the country's top judge, Lord Gill, who repeatedly snubbed calls by the committee to give oral evidence. He relied on written testimony to blast a proposal he said could compromise judges' privacy by encouraging "aggressive media or hostile individuals".
Lord Gill concluded: "The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary."
The issue has now reached the desk of the First Minister, who has backed Lord Gill.
In a letter to John Pentland MSP, the Committee convener, she supported the status quo: "The Scottish Government considers that such a register of judicial interests is not necessary and that the existing safeguards - the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the system for complaints against the judiciary - are sufficient.
"These safeguards, together with the register of judicial recusals, are sufficient to protect individuals from judicial bias."
She also repeated Lord Gill's fear about "aggressive media" and noted: "The position of the judiciary is different from that of MSPs and others who hold public office. The judiciary cannot publicly defend themselves."
The First Minister also revealed that Paul Wheelhouse, her Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, met Lord Gill in December to discuss the petition.
In his evidence to the Committee, Wheelhouse said he feared a register could leave judges open to "threats or intimidation", adding that colleagues at an environment quango had already been threatened by organised criminals. However, emails between the Government and Scottish Environment Protection Agency revealed no link to organised crime.
Cherbi said: "I am surprised Nicola Sturgeon supports a judicial ban on transparency just because judges have been asked to declare their substantial interests. "We are always told if you have got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. What are the judges hiding and what do they fear? "There cannot be one set of rules for judges and another for everyone else. A register of interests will enhance public trust in the justice system, not detract from it."
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The Scottish Government considers that a specific register of interests is not needed. Existing safeguards, including the Judicial Oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Interests and the system of complaints against the judiciary, are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland."
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
The proposal, first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support from a full debate at Holryood in October 2014.
Now, members of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee are set to look at the proposals, already backed by many MSPs and the Public Petitions Committee.
5. Once a petition has been referred to a subject Committee it is for the Committee to decide how, or if, it wishes to take the petition forward. Among options open to the Committee are to: Keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government or other stakeholders seeking their views on what the petition is calling for, or views on further information to have emerged over the course of considering the petition; Keep the petition open and take oral evidence from the petitioner, from relevant stakeholders or from the Scottish Government; Keep the petition open and await the outcome of a specific piece of work, such as a consultation or piece of legislation before deciding what to do next; Close the petition on the grounds that the Scottish Government has made its position clear, or that the Scottish Government has made some or all of the changes requested by the petition, or that the Committee, after due consideration, has decided it does not support the petition;
The Committee may wish to consider what action, if any, it would like to take in relation to the petition. Possible options are set out at paragraph 5 above. If this is an issue that the Committee would like to explore further, it may wish to consider writing to those listed at paragraph 9 to ask whether they had anything to add to their earlier contributions. It could also seek more information on the Norwegian model, and then obtain an updated briefing from SPICe.
Included also in the Committee papers are submissions from the Petitioner, and Moi Ali – Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer – who gave evidence to the Public Petitions Committee in September 2013, supporting the petition’s calls for the creation of a register of judicial interests.
The submission from Moi Ali reads as follows:
This brief submission to the Justice Committee relates to its consideration of a proposal to implement a register of interests for the judiciary. I am writing as an ordinary citizen, but my submission is informed by my experience as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR).
In that previous role I gave evidence to the Petitions Committee in support of a register of interests.
Although now writing in a private capacity, I have served on public boards for nearly two decades and as a Board Member I have (rightly) been required to complete a register of interests for each role, to provide assurance to the public that my dealings are not motivated by money, family connections or friendships.
The Justice Committee members who will take the decision on a register of interests, as MSPs must publish their interests too.
It is time that the judiciary joined the rest of those in public life in taking this small, simple step to improve transparency and accountability, thereby enhancing their own reputation in the process.
I have long campaigned for greater transparency in public life, yet in my role as JCR I occasionally found the judiciary to be needlessly secretive.
I am not suggesting that there was anything to hide, but a failure to be transparent inevitably left the public with whom I dealt feeling suspicious.
I will not rehearse the arguments in favour of a register of interests: they are well known.
However, I would emphasise that although opposed by the judiciary, it is in their own interests as well as the public interest that there be a register of interests.
I would like to conclude by reiterating my respect for the judiciary and the essential work that they undertake. Judicial independence is vital to a democracy, but with independence goes accountability. A register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability. Ms Moi Ali 18 September 2018
In March of this year, after lengthy deliberations & evidence, the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee backed the petition calling for the creation of a register of interests, and concluded the proposal to increase judicial transparency - should become law.
Members of the Committee concluded that such a register should be introduced into law – and cast aside arguments put forward by two top judges that such a register was “unworkable
Petitions Committee Convener Johann Lamont MSP (Scottish Labour) said: “In the course of our consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred—most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide, or be requested, to decline to hear a particular case. “
“The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information that is captured in the register. However, the core action that was requested by the petition was the establishment of a register of financial interests.”
“We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken those arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of this committee that such a register should be introduced.”
Deputy Convener Angus MacDonald MSP (Scottish National Party) added: “This is another long-running petition, having been live since December 2012—for as long as I have been on the committee. It was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn.”
“Along with a wide range of back benchers from across the political spectrum, I spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests during a debate in the chamber in the previous session. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life as well as ensuring that people can have confidence in those holding public office. I believe that a register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that.”
“The petition has already secured a result, which you have referred to, with the introduction of a register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. You also referred to the fact that the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals.”
“I would be keen for the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland to do some further work on the introduction on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested as possibly being the way forward, in the first instance we should refer the petition to the Justice Committee to allow it to move the issue forward.”
The Petitions Committee have since written to the Justice Secretary Michael Matheson, and Lord Carloway.
When responses are received, MSPs will consider further action.
Video footage and a transcript of the Public Petitions Committee hearing follows:
The Convener: The next petition, PE1458, calls for the introduction of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. As members will recall, we have previously agreed to write to the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and have considered a draft letter at previous meetings. The petition has received much consideration since it was lodged in 2012. I express my gratitude to the petitioner for raising the issue and to all those who have engaged in discussions on the issues that are raised in the petition, including the Lord President, Lord Carloway, and his predecessor, Lord Gill.
In the course of our consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred—most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide, or be requested, to decline to hear a particular case. The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information that is captured in the register. However, the core action that was requested by the petition was the establishment of a register of financial interests. We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken those arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of this committee that such a register should be introduced.
In reaching that view, the committee is very clear that it does not consider there to be a basis for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland’s judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making. Rather, it is the view that we have reached, based on the principles of transparency and openness in public life. While that is the view of this committee, we also understand that the Lord President and the Scottish Government have indicated they do not support the introduction of a register.
Would it be appropriate for us to invite the Justice Committee to consider the petition in light of our recommendation? Would members be content to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration? Do members have any comments?
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP): This is another long-running petition, having been live since December 2012—for as long as I have been on the committee. It was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn. Along with a wide range of back benchers from across the political spectrum, I spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests during a debate in the chamber in the previous session. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life as well as ensuring that people can have confidence in those holding public office. I believe that a register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that.
The petition has already secured a result, which you have referred to, with the introduction of a register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. You also referred to the fact that the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals.
I would be keen for the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland to do some further work on the introduction on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested as possibly being the way forward, in the first instance we should refer the petition to the Justice Committee to allow it to move the issue forward.
Rona Mackay: I broadly agree with what my colleague has said. That is a natural way forward for the petition. I do not think that we can take it any further, given the history that we have just heard. I think that it is sensible to send it to the Justice Committee for its consideration.
The Convener: Do we agree to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration?
Members indicated agreement.
Decision:PE1458 by Peter Cherbi on Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out its view that a register of interests should be introduced and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, under Rule 15.6.2 of Standing Orders, for its consideration.
The judicial interests petition – filed at Holyrood in October 2012 and first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support, is widely supported in the media and in public debate as a result of media coverage.
The petition secured early support of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali, and her successor - Gillian Thompson.
Scotland’s second Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson OBE also supported the petition and the creation of a register of judicial interests during an evidence session at Holyrood in June 2015.
A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand’s Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.
As you may be aware, the above petition was lodged in December 2012 and has been considered by the current Public Petitions Committee and its Session 4 predecessor. Over this period MSPs have taken on board the arguments for and against a register of interests and the nature of the interests that might be covered in such a register. This letter sets out the conclusions that the Public Petitions Committee has reached on the petition.
In setting out these conclusions, I would emphasise that the Committee absolutely recognises that an independent and well-functioning judiciary is, and must be, an essential part of our system of government.
I also make clear that the Committee’s consideration of the petition, and the views set out in this letter, reflect our viewpoint that there is no basis for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland’s judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making.
The Committee has reached its views based on the wider contemporary picture of transparency and openness in public life wherein preventing the perception of any undue influence is important in ensuring confidence in those holding public office.
Register of recusals
One of the welcome developments in the course of this petition has been the introduction of a register of recusals. The Committee notes that this register was brought into effect in April 2014 directly as a result of the petition and a meeting between the then Lord President, Lord Gill, and representatives of the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee. In recent discussions with the Committee, and the petitioner, you agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals. As a result, the register will now ensure transparency about recusal across courts and tribunals in Scotland. The Committee very much welcomes these measures.
In doing so, we note that this addresses one of the arguments made against a register of financial interests - that it would not capture those instances where consideration of any potential conflict in a case was based on a social or personal connection that may not be known about prior to a case coming to court.
The Committee agrees that the practicalities are such that it would not be possible or proportionate to require advance registration of personal connection with parties that may at some point be relevant within a particular case. However, we do consider that public transparency of such connections is vital and the register of recusals is the tool that strikes an appropriate balance in this regard.
We would also observe that the value of collating information about recusals is that it enables analysis to be undertaken of the way the recusal systems operates and for this analysis to inform ongoing thinking about the administration of justice through the Scottish courts.
Register of financial interests
Turning now to the core question of a register of interests, the Committee’s most recent consideration of the petition focussed on seeking to understand and explore some of the arguments put forward against the introduction of such a register.
These arguments have included—
• a risk of online fraud due to retribution from dissatisfied litigants (which, it was argued, may have an inhibitory effect on the administration of justice if judges start to decline roles on public bodies such as the board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service) and,
• the possibility of the existence of a register of interests having a damaging effect on recruitment.
Members do, of course, have an understanding of the practical operation of a register of interests given the duties that apply to elected members. However, in considering the arguments put forward, we have not considered the role of judges as analogous to the role of elected members or had in mind any particular model for a register of interests that might be appropriate for judges.
Instead, our consideration has been based on an understanding of the expectations that apply to all holders of public office, whether elected or unelected, in relation to disclosure of financial interests. As we noted above, such disclosures not only allow for demonstration that decision-making is not influenced by personal interests but also prevent the perception of the influence of interests on decision-making.
Having considered these arguments and the thinking behind them, the Committee has not been convinced that a register of interests is an unworkable idea and it is the view of the Committee that such a register should be introduced.
Recognising that the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland have indicated that they do not support the introduction of a register, the Committee today agreed to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, inviting that Committee to consider the petition further, in light of our recommendation.
Yours sincerely: Johann Lamont MSP Convener
The National reported on the success of the six year petition calling for a register of judicial interests, in the following articles:
IT’S taken nearly six years and 25 hearings but as The National predicted yesterday, a register of interests for all Scottish judges is set to become law.
The petition for a register by legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi will now go the Justice Committee at Holyrood with a recommendation that the register becomes law.
The current and previous Lord Presidents, Lord Carloway and Lord Gill respectively, both strongly opposed the register which they feel will make it difficult for judges to be recruited.
Committee chair Johann Lamont said: “The committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable and it is the view of the committee that such a register should be introduced.”
She said the committee’s view had been reached with regard to “the principles of openness and transparency in public life”.
Having achieved his success after years of work, Peter Cherbi told The National: “I am delighted to hear the Public Petitions Committee support the creation of a register of interests for judges, and applaud their work on this petition.
“From filing the petition in 2012, being a part of the process to submit evidence, report on hearings, and observing witness evidence, I am very impressed that Holyrood followed this through from committee, to a full debate in the main chamber in October 2014, where the petition gathered overwhelming cross party support, to now, with the decision to recommend the creation of a register of judicial interests.
“Key evidence from Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali in September 2013 was, I believe, the turning point and a key moment where the proposal for register of judicial interests gathered steam.
“MSPs were able to hear for themselves from someone within the justice framework how a register of interests for judges would not only benefit transparency, but also bring back much needed public trust and respect to the justice system and our courts.
“My sincere thanks to MSPs Angus MacDonald, David Torrance, current Convener Johann Lamont, ex-convener David Stewart, Jackson Carlaw, particularly Alex Neil who asked key questions several times in the process, former MSPs Chic Brodie and John Wilson and all members of the Public Petitions Committee past and present who have given their considerable time, effort and input into this petition, have taken the time to study the evidence, and arrive at the conclusion transparency in the judiciary is a good thing, and not as Lord Carloway and Lord Gill claimed ‘unworkable’.”
This is a good day for the Scottish Parliament and for transparency.
The Sunday Mail print edition reported on the Petitions Committee backing for legislation to require judges to declare their interest, and also featured a report on Alex Neil MSP – who supports the judicial transparency proposals and is prepared to bring in a Members Bill to create a register of judges’ interests:
BATTLE TO BRING IN JUDGES’ REGISTER
Sunday Mail 25 March 2018
Ex-minister Alex Neil will defy Nicola Sturgeon with a bill forcing Scotland's judges to declare their interests.
Holyrood's petitions committee have asked the Government to legislate for a register which may include details of financial, professional and personal connections of judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace.
Sturgeon is expected to reject the committee's recommendation. But Neil believes there is enough cross-party support to raise his own bill, in a rare act of SNP backbench rebellion.
He said: "If no bill is brought forward by the Government, I would intend to do so myself, as there is significant support from other MSPs."
Former health secretary Neil backs the register after representing constituent Donal Nolan, who took Advance Construction to court over a land dispute.
It later emerged that judge Lord Malcolm sat on the case despite his lawyer son Ewen Campell acting for the construction firm.
Neil said: "If the committee decide to recommend a bill, it is absolutely necessary as I have seen from cases such as Nolan v Advance Construction where there were undeclared interests."
The Scottish Sun print edition also reported on the Petition Committee’s backing for a register of judicial interests and Alex Neil MSP’s plan for a Member’s Bill:
JUDGE LIST IS BACKED
Scottish Sun 23 March 2018
MSPs defied Nicola Sturgeon yesterday by calling for judges to list their financial ties.
Holyrood's cross-party Public Petitions Committee backed a register of interests for the judiciary.
Its convener Johann Lamont said the move was based on "principles of transparency and openness in public life".
Top judge Lord Carloway claimed the register would hit recruitment and the Government has said it was "not needed".
Last night Nats MSP Alex Neil warned if plans for the list are not backed he is "prepared to do it as a Member's Bill".
AFTER nearly six years and 25 sittings of evidence and debate on the petition to create a register of judges’ interests, The National has learned that the Holyrood Petitions Committee is set to recommend legislation to the Scottish Government.
The petition lodged by legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi in 2012 called for a Register of Pecuniary Interests Bill and when it meets later today, the Petitions Committee will have a draft letter before it suggesting the Scottish Government brings in such a register.
Cherbi’s petition has been strongly supported by MSPs such as Alex Neil and equally strongly opposed by members of the judiciary led by the current and former Lord Presidents, Lords Carloway and Gill respectively, who said it could be harmful to judges and their recruitment.
Cherbi said last night: “Everyone apart from the judiciary, and apparently those with a desire on becoming a judge, gets the idea that judges should declare their interests in a register, just like everyone else in public positions.
“For the judiciary to have stalled this transparency proposal on their reasoning that judges should be given a pass from transparency just because they are judges does not fit in with modern life or expectations by the public of openness in government and the justice system.
“Two top judges have given evidence. Both adopted overwhelmingly aggressive positions to the idea that the same transparency which exists across public life, and which they are charged with enforcing in our courts, should be applied to them.
“Yet amidst their inferences that justice would shut down, judges could not be hired, and the world would stop turning, neither Lord Carloway nor Lord Gill could make a convincing case against creating a register of judicial interests.
“Prosecutors, police, court staff, even the legal aid board – all key parts of the justice system have registers of interest. Therefore there can be no exclusion from transparency for the most powerful members of the justice system – the judiciary itself.
“Who would have thought judges would have been so fearful of transparency and disclosing their own interests, that it would have taken six years for the Scottish Parliament to reach this stage of recommending legislation? Time now to take openness forward for our judiciary, which will ultimately help regain a measure of public confidence in the courts.
“This is a win win for Scotland. We as a team, petitioners, the media, Judicial Complaints Reviewers, those in our courts and even the legal profession who back this move – changed the judiciary’s expectations of openness and requirements of transparency.”
The video timeline of debate at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee from 2012 to 2018 on Petition PE1458:
The Committee decided to call for submissions on the petition from the Lord President, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and Crown Office.
Petition PE1458 by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to legislate to create a Register of Interests for Scotland's judiciary was heard today 5 March 2013. The Committee decided to call for further evidence and also to invite the Lord President Lord Gill and others along to speak to MSPs and be questioned on the matter.
A petition calling for a register of interests for Scotland's judiciary has again been debated at the Scottish Parliament, where upon the Lord President Lord Gill's refusal to attend the Petitions Committee to give evidence, the Petitions Committee decided to repeat its invitation to Lord Gill to attend, and also agreed to seek the views of the Judicial Appointments Board and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.
Members of the PPC decided to invite Moi Ali, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence and also to contact Dr Kennedy Graham MP of the New Zealand Parliament. Dr Graham currently has a bill before MPs in New Zealand calling for a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges. During the debate it was noted Lord Gill has refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to discuss the petition and judge's interests, but has attended the Justice Committee to discuss court closures in Scotland.
Moi Ali, Scotland's Judicial Complaints Reviewer gives evidence to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament regarding Public Petition PE1458 calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary.
Following a private meeting between Scotland's top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill, and the Convener & Deputy Convener of the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament,the Committee agreed today, 28 January 2014 to defer consideration of Petition PE1458 by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to create a register of judicial interests, pending receipt of a letter from the Lord President.
The Convener, David Stewart MSP and Deputy Convener, Chic Brodie MSP reported back to members on what had been said at the private meeting with Scotland's top judge who refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to be questioned on his deep seated opposition to the proposal to requie Scottish judges to declare all their interests, hidden wealth, family & business links and other matters which may impact on cases being heard before judges in Scottish courts.
Committee Member John Wilson MSP requested details of the private meeting with the judge be put on the official record of the Committee, and Jackson Carlaw MSP drew attention to the fact had it not been for the Petitions Committee asking tough questions there would not even be any letters forthcoming from Lord Gill.
The petition will be heard once a letter has been received from Scotland's top judge, who appears to be set against any attendance to face questions on why judges should not be required to register their interests, unlike all other public officials, politicians, Government Ministers and others.
The Committee agreed to seek time in the chamber for a debate on the petition. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government.
The Committee agreed to continue the petition, and is seeking a debate in the main chamber of the Scottish Parliament. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government for more detailed responses.
David Stewart: The committee’s motivation in giving consideration to the issue and in seeking time in the chamber to debate it is a point of principle and comes from the starting point of there being an assumption of openness and transparency in all areas of public life in order to shine a light, if you like, into every corner of Scottish society.
Roseanna Cunningham: The setting up of a register of judicial interests would be a matter for the Lord President, as head of the judiciary in Scotland. The Lord President takes the view that a register of pecuniary interests for the judiciary is not needed. Furthermore, a judge has a greater duty of disclosure than a register of financial interests could address.
Graeme Pearson: Until the petition was discussed, there was no knowledge of recusals in the public domain. I welcome the fact that, as of April this year, the Lord President has introduced a register of recusals. It is fair to say that without the petition and the work of the Public Petitions Committee, such a register would probably not have been considered.
Jackson Carlaw: It is perhaps difficult to take on the judiciary, because judicial independence is always mentioned. As I said, that is a cornerstone of democracy, but because there has been no separation of accountability and independence, it is easy for the judiciary to say, ‘We are independent, so don’t interfere in that.’ Unless independence and accountability are separated, legislation will continue to include no requirement for more openness and transparency.”
Angus MacDonald: If we as elected members have to register and declare our interests, I see no reason why members of Scotland’s judiciary should not be subject to a full and publicly available register of judicial interests.
Anne McTaggart: In Scotland, claims continue to emerge of trials that have been unfair as a result of religious, ethnic or national bias. As long as those claims continue to exist, it is the Parliament’s job to promote fair government. In conclusion, I declare my support for the petition and encourage support from all the other MSPs.
David Torrance: Although I understand that conflicts of interest are on occasion declared in open court prior to taking on a case, the introduction of a register of interests would provide a more consistent and sound basis on which to move forward.
Neil Findlay: We need to do much more to make our society less secretive and less closed, and I think that the register that we are discussing is just one step towards that end. I, for one, give it my full support and urge other MSPs to do the same.
Joan McAlpine: I gently suggest to the Lord President, in whose gift it is to set up a register, as we cannot legislate for it in the Parliament, that he should be mindful of the need for the judiciary to move with the times, along with every other public institution, in order to retain the confidence of the public.
John Wilson: A register of interests for judges is an area in which we could move forward and build more confidence in the system that we have in place.
Elaine Murray: “Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity–but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity.” Therefore, the issue is not that anyone doubts the judiciary’s integrity, but that the public need to see that integrity.
Roseanna Cunningham: A number of members referred to the register of interests of MSPs. However, the situation is different, because we are directly accountable to the electorate.
Chic Brodie: There is concern that a register would have unintended consequences—a phrase that has been used often in the debate—for the judiciary’s freedom and privacy and its freedom from harassment from the media or dissatisfied litigants. Those are concerns, but they are no less so for others in public life, including MPs and MSPs, who may be attacked publicly for non-declaration of interests. Although it is argued that the establishment of a register may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary, it might equally be argued that its absence might have the same effect.
The debate at the Scottish Parliament now returns to deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee on Petition PE1458 – A Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s Judiciary:
Minister for Community Safety Paul Wheelhouse gives evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on their investigation of proposals to create a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458. Mr Wheelhouse on behalf of the Scottish Government opposes the creation of a register which will inform the public about what judges have, their interests, links to big business, banks, shares in corporations and tax avoidance scams.
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee discussed Petition PE1458 on Tuesday 12 May 2015. The Committee agreed to call Gillian Thompson OBE - Scotland's current Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence on the creation of a register of judicial interests.
The Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee discussed Petition PE1458 on Tuesday 23 June 2015. The Committee took evidence from Gillian Thompson OBE - Scotland's current Judicial Complaints Reviewer who gave evidence in support of the creation of a register of judicial interests.
Lord Brian Gill, former Lord President and Lord Justice General of Scotland gives evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee on Petition PE1458 calling for a register of interests for judges.Gill refused two earlier invitations to appear before the Public Petitions Committee in 2013 and was dubbed "Lord No No.". Several times during the debate the 73 year old 'retired' Lord Gill called on the panel of MSPs to show faith in the UK judiciary and scrap the petition along with calls for greater transparency of judges interests.
Petitions Committee member Kenny MacAskill MSP calls for the committee to invite the new Lord President upon their appointment to appear to give evidence. Convener Michael McMahon MSP agrees to write to the new Lord President.
The Committee decided Lord Carloway is to be called to give evidence, MSPs will also contact Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde for evidence.
The Petitions Committee decided to call Lord President Lord Carloway to give evidence, and also hear from Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde.
MSP Angus MacDonald (SNP) moves to call Professor Alan Paterson to give evidence to the committee and for msps to consider evidence from the Professor then to contact the Lord President, Lord Carloway.
Members of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee decide to invite Lord President Lord Carloway to provide evidence before the Committee at a future date, and to invite Alex Neil MSP to appear before the Committee at the same meeting. The decision was taken after Lord Carloway offered concessions on the recusal register of Scotland's judiciary - created as a result of this petition.
Lord Carloway gives evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on a proposal to create a register of judicial interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The proposal has been investigated by the Scottish Parliament for five years, there is wide support for the register, from cross party msps to the media to both Judicial Complaints Reviewers.
The Petition will next be heard on Thursday 7 December 2017 where the Public Petitions Committee will be asked to consider taking evidence from Baroness Hale, President of the UK Supreme Court, and to seek further evidence on the operation of Norway’s Register of Judicial Interests.
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.
