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.
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
SPA block files release on sex case cop who wants top job.DOCUMENTS detailing new, and serious complaints against a senior cop previously linked to a case involving five allegations of sexual assault, and now, fresh details of an additional ‘interaction with another officer’, are being kept secret by the Scottish Police Authority (SPA).
The secrecy move by the Scottish Police Authority, under their new chair of ex MSP & former Health Minister Susan Deacon – comes as three senior Police officers - including current Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone – submitted their applications to be considered for the £216,549 a year role as Chief Constable of Police Scotland.
Material in relation to new complaints made against DCC Iain Livingstone was sought from the Scottish Police Authority in February of this year, after information was received with regards to further serious complaints made against Police Scotland’s current ‘interim’ Chief Constable.
However, the SPA under Susan Deacon deliberately delayed releasing their response to the Freedom of Information request – by a number of months, as members of the Scottish Police Federation and Scottish Government ministers bolstered DCC Livingstone’s position as front runner for the top job – despite the grim details of a case involving 5 allegations of serious sexual assault which were dismissed by a tribunal composed of Livingstone’s male cop colleagues.
The Scottish Police Authority were asked to provide details of :
The numbers of complaints, subject of complaints, and identities (not name, but by rank, status as Police Officer, civilian employee, member of the public or other)
Who have made complaints (and the numbers of complaints) against current DCC Iain Livingstone from 1 April 2013 to the date of this FOI request
The status, and outcomes of these complaints.
It should be noted Information in relation to a number of these complaints, has recently been shared with MSPs, and the media.
However, and some time after discussions over the Freedom of Information request had taken place, inside & outside the SPA - the Scottish Police Authority responded to the FOI request four months late, in early June - denying access to all of the information sought in relation to DCC Livingstone.
In their response, issued months late and outwith Freedom of Information timescales, the Scottish Police Authority wrongly claimed the material sought was “personal data of a third party” in a concerted attempt to conceal further details of complaints against DCC Livingstone from the public.
The Scottish Police Authority stated in it’s letter of response, dated 8 June 201:
The SPA considers that this request constitutes personal data of a third party and is, therefore, exempt in terms of Section 38 (1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Furthermore this information is exempt under Section 34 (3)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 - Investigations by Scottish public authorities and proceedings arising out of such investigations.
Both are absolute exemptions and as such no public interest test has been applied.
A request for review has been lodged, and material also sent to the Scottish Information Commissioner with regards to the SPA’s refusal to disclose the information.
The Scottish Police Authority’s eagerness to conceal information in relation to a senior Police Officer - who has been previously accused of 5 allegations of serious sexual assault, and has faced further complaints including an ‘interaction’ with another officer - raises questions about the impartiality of the recruitment round to appoint a new Chief Constable to Scotland’s crisis hit single Police service.
With reference to the five allegations of serious sexual assault, Iain Livingstone was cleared of sexual impropriety or intent – by a tribunal headed by a male top cop colleague – Assistant Chief Constable John McLean.
The former lawyer and Raith Rovers footballer had been suspended for 17 months after the WPC claimed she had been sexually assaulted during the party.
A qualified lawyer and member of the Law society of Scotland, Mr Livingstone switched careers in 1992, joining Lothian and Borders Police.
In just 10 years, Livingstone – who had also once played for Raith Rovers - had clearly been fast tracked, reaching the rank of superintendent.
At the time of the allegations and ‘internal’ investigation by his Police colleagues, Livingstone was not prosecuted by the Crown Office over the claims.
Instead, Livingstone admitted a less serious allegation about being in the woman's room overnight and falling asleep.
It should be noted that during the time of the investigation & tribunal, handled by Police, the Lord Advocate was Colin Boyd, Baron Boyd of Duncansby – now a judge in the Court of Session, and the Solicitor General was Elish Angiolini – recently appointed by Nicola Sturgeon a Scottish Minister to investigate how complaints are handled against Police in Scotland.
Asked about the sexual assault allegations during a recent BBC Scotland documentary, DCC Iain Livingstone said he “fell asleep in the wrong place and that was wrong”.
Although he admitted that he 'shouldn't have done that', he insisted that he still has the right attributes for the job.
During the BBC Scotland documentary - PoliceScotland A Force In Crisis, investigative journalist Sam Poling asked Mr Livingstone about the 'allegations of sexual assault' and about him being 'bumped down from superintendent to constable and suspended'.
Quotes from DCC Livingstone’s responses when questioned about the allegations of sexual assault reveal the following remarks by the Police Officer:
Mr Livingstone said: “There was a set of circumstances in 2000 whereby at a social event at Tulliallan, at a training event I had too much to drink.”
“I fell asleep in the wrong place and that was wrong and I shouldn't have done that, and clearly I accept that.”
'I was suspended, I spent time off work. There was a hearing convened where I did accept I fell asleep.I was cleared of any sexual impropriety.”
'I was cleared of any level of sexual intent and at that hearing, initially, I was then demoted from superintendent to constable. I immediately appealed against that and I was reinstated.”
MSPs at the Scottish Parliament also questioned his suitability for the job after his response to the claims in a BBC documentary this week - saying only that he 'fell asleep in the wrong place and that was all'.
However, Livingstone’s application for the top job – which appears to be backed by Scottish Ministers, and the Scottish Police Federation has been called into question after a former Assistant Chief Constable said Livingstone should not get the top job.
COPS TURN ON THEIR OWN: Scottish Police Federation boss launches twitter attack on ex colleague:
Following criticisms by former Assistant Chief Constable Angela Wilson - of Iain Livingstone’s bid to become Chief Constable, Calum Steele – General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) launched a highly personalised attack on his female former colleague - on the twitter social media platform.
TheSunday Mail reported that Calum Steele – a Police Constable with an honorary rank as Chief Inspector due to his Police Federation duties - also branded ex ACC Wilson “useless” and a “buffoon” and wrongly claimed in tweets that a corruption inquiry in her former force Tayside “extended” to her.
Steele is general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) who have 18,500 members and represent 98 per cent of police officers.
Steele posted a string of six tweets last week after Wilson spoke out on the prospect of DCC Iain Livingstone gaining the top job as Chief Constable of Police Scotland.
The first of Calum Steele’s tweets said she was “one of the most incompetent imbeciles ever to have held rank in the police service”.
It claimed she was continuing “a smear on one of the very best”, adding: “You really need to ask – who is driving this?”
He went on to say that Wilson had served in Thames Valley Police as did Claire Gormley, the wife of Phil Gormley who quit as head of Police Scotland in February following bullying allegations against him.
Steele added: “AW [Angela Wilson] and the Gormleys have an axe to grind. It’s frankly pathetic.”
He also described Livingstone as “one of the most talented, able, skilled and resilient police officers”.
Scottish Tories justice spokesman Liam Kerr said: “Mr Steele has a position of responsibility and should probably have thought more carefully before embarking on this chain of tweets.
“The result of this is now a potential legal case which will drag the force and its associated bodies through the mud at a time it never needed it less.”
Angela Wilson subsequently lodged a formal complaint with Police Scotland and the SPF.
It was then reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper that - as a result of the complaint raised by ex ACC Wilson, Constable Calum Steele was found guilty of posting “inappropriate and offensive” online comments about a female ex-police chief.
Upholding the complaint, Chief Inspector Jacqui Campbell, of the Professional Standards Department (PSD), ruled the comments were “inappropriate and offensive” and that Wilson was “never investigated for corruption”.
Steele claimed to be off duty when he launched the Twitter tirade on May 3 but the Professional Standards Department probe discovered that he was working.
Campbell said: “The record revealed Constable Steele’s duty for that date was 0900 to 1700 hours, therefore, at the time the tweets were posted he was on duty.”
Campbell has issued Wilson a “sincere apology for the undoubted upset Constable Steele’s actions have caused”.
But Steele – who heads the federation representing 98 per cent of Police Scotland officers – “makes no apology” and refuses to delete the messages.
Campbell said: “We have asked Constable Steele to remove the relevant tweets from his Twitter account. Unfortunately, it is his own personal Twitter account and, as such, we are unable to order him to remove or delete them.”
Despite Steele’s messages being from a personal account, Campbell found “they are directly related to his role as a police officer and particularly his role as general secretary” of the SPF.
Mr Livingstone has been regarded as the favourite to replace Phil Gormley, who quit in February after being accused of bullying by colleagues.
Following Gormley’s leave of absence last year, a campaign of suspensions, bitter infighting dubbed ‘backstabbing cops’ in the media, and now scrapped criminal investigations into colleagues of the ousted Chief Constable then took place over a number of months – setting the stage for DCC Livingstone to conveniently scrap his retirement plans, and campaign, along with vested interests in the Scottish Police Federation to replace the ousted Chief Constable.
Steele, who spoke to PSD officers through a lawyer, now faces a further hearing which may result in disciplinary action. His lawyer quoted a dictionary definition of “imbeciles” as meaning “a fool” and that it was “a fair and honest comment that represents Constable Steele’s honestly-held belief”.
Scottish Conservative justice spokesman Liam Kerr said: “Calum Steele should really back down, apologise and delete the offending tweets. Otherwise this row will rumble on.”
Chief Superintendent Mark Hargreaves, head of the Professional Standards Department, said: “The investigation into this complaint has concluded and as this is an internal matter it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
THE MSP & SEX CASE TOP COP: Ex cop MSP failed to declare link to sex case cop Livingstone:
In anearlier report in the Sunday Mail newspaper, it was also revealed that while DCC Iain Livingstone was giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee in January, Justice Committee member & former police officer John Finnie had failed to tell fellow MSPs he had represented Iain Livingstone when he was cleared of sexual misconduct.
At Holyrood’s justice committee in January, John Finnie quizzed Livingstone about staffing levels and said losing chief officers was one of the benefits of creating a single police force.
Scottish Labour justice spokesman Daniel Johnson said: “John is a valued colleague on the justice committee but I am alarmed that he did not see fit to declare this link with the acting chief constable.
“Police Scotland are in desperate need of scrutiny – and the public will expect such scrutiny to be conducted professionally.
“I would urge him to correct the record and to ensure he declares interests fully and promptly in future.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives added: “He also owes parliament an explanation as to why he neglected to mention this very important link.”
Finnie spent 14 years as an official for the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) – the organisation who represent police officers up to the rank of chief inspector.
And, it emerged in February of this year that during evidence given by Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee, neither Livingstone or the Justice Sub Committee Convener John Finnie declared any previous links to each other while Livingstone testified before MSPs.
A report in the Sunday Mail newspaper in February revealed Mr Finnie – previously a serving Police Officer and representative for the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) - had represented Mr Livingstone when he was cleared of the sexual misconduct claims in 2003.
The issue was reported by the Sunday Mail newspaper here:
John Finnie failed to tell MSPs he represented the acting chief constable when he was cleared of sexual misconduct.
By Mark Aitken 18 FEB 2018
John Finnie failed to tell MSPs he represented Iain Livingstone
A Green MSP is facing questions over his connection with Scotland’s acting chief constable.
Former police officer John Finnie failed to tell fellow MSPs he had represented Iain Livingstone when he was cleared of sexual misconduct.
He failed to declare the link at a meeting of Holyrood’s justice committee when Livingstone was being questioned.
Finnie spent 14 years as an official for the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) – the organisation who represent police officers up to the rank of chief inspector.
Livingstone, the frontrunner to replace Phil Gormley as Scotland’s chief constable, was acccused in 2004 of sexually assaulting a female police officer.
Livingstone admitted falling asleep in the woman’s room at the Scottish Police College in Tulliallan, Fife, after a drunken party in 2000.
Iain Livingstone was accused of sexually assaulting a female police officer in 2004
At an internal hearing, more serious allegations were dropped.
Livingstone, who was then a superintendent, was demoted to constable but won his job back on appeal. Livingstone’s appeal was backed by the SPF.
Finnie said at the time that the case had highlighted “the ease with which the system can be abused and the punitive consequences which affect not only the officer but their family”.
At Holyrood’s justice committee in January, Finnie quizzed Livingstone about staffing levels and said losing chief officers was one of the benefits of creating a single police force.
Scottish Labour justice spokesman Daniel Johnson said: “John is a valued colleague on the justice committee but I am alarmed that he did not see fit to declare this link with the acting chief constable.
“Police Scotland are in desperate need of scrutiny – and the public will expect such scrutiny to be conducted professionally.
“I would urge him to correct the record and to ensure he declares interests fully and promptly in future.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives added: “He also owes parliament an explanation as to why he neglected to mention this very important link.”
Finnie began his career with Lothian and Borders Police in 1976 and moved to Northern Constabulary three years later.
He served as a full-time officer with the SPF from 1992 to 2006.
Finnie was elected as an SNP MSP in 2011 but quit the party the following year in protest at the decision to end their long-standing opposition to Nato membership.
Finnie and the Greens failed to respond to the Sunday Mail’s calls.
SCOTLAND’S NEXT TOP COP:
There are three shortlisted candidates for the Chief Constable role at Police Scotland.
Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, whose past & current complaints records are being kept secret by the Scottish Police Authority, and Police Scotland.
A second candidate - Police Scotland Deputy Chief Constable Johnny Gwynne - a former head of the National Crime Agency's (NCA) Child Exploitation and Online Protection command - has also applied for the job.
Gwynne, a former Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer also previously held the post of former deputy director-general of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency – which was absorbed into Police Scotland in 2014.
The third candidate is Lincolnshire Police Chief Constable Bill Skelly, who joined Devon and Cornwall Police from Police Scotland as Deputy Chief Constable in 2013 and was appointed as chief Constable of the force last year.
The shortlisted candidates will undergo a selection process including two panel interviews, chaired by the Scottish Police Authority’s own boss Susan Deacon.
And the selection panel will also include SPA board member Mary Pitcaithly, NHS Scotland chief executive Paul Gray, Professor Lorne Crerar, - chairman of legal firm Harper MacLeod; and National Crime Agency Director General Lynne Owens.
Gill Imery – the current Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland will also act as an ‘advisor’ to the team.
According to the job information pack: "Shortlisted candidates will be invited to participate in a psychometric and personality profile exercise, an Assessment Centre, and an interview with the Selection Panel."The assessment centre will include a scenario exercise and a mock media interview.
Final interviews of the three candidates are expected to take place on 13 and 14 August.
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.
After a few days of fretting among the defeated Labour & LibDem Coalition on what to do, Alex Salmond has been voted Scotland's first SNP First Minister, and today we finally have a Ministerial Cabinet to run the Executive - with no help from the opposition parties it seems !
Of course, while Scotland moves forward at last, the occasional hiccup crops up, as it certainly did in the Scottish Borders the other day, where the new coalition of Liberal, Tory & Independent councilors which 'run' Scottish Borders Council had their first fight - only a few hours into the deal, which saw the Tories accused of pushing an Independent Councillor off his chair !
Another fine example of stupidity from Scottish Borders Council, where only it seems the worst calibre of politicians get elected to run what has to be one of Scotland's most corrupt local authorities. Maybe this lot should be deposed and the new Executive could take over the running of the Borders - and bring in some decent people to run the Departments at SBC, rather than some of the spiteful vindictive figures which have graced the halls of SBC's Newtown StBoswells Headquarters for so long.
Anyway back to national issues, and within the Ministerial appointments, we see the excellent John Swinney as Finance & Suststainable Growth Minister - certainly a good appointment there, and from what I see of the rest of the team, no significant surprises or causes for worry.
Kenny MacAskill gets the Justice portfolio, of course, which isn't a surprise, but what now for reform of the judiciary and the remaining reforms to the legal system and the operation of the legal profession ?
Would a minority government be capable of taking on Scotland's Judiciary on the subject of much needed reform, given the ferocity of resistance we have seen in the past from the Judiciary when even mere talk of reforms came to the fore ?. There may be little chance if previous experience has anything to go by .. not forgetting the SNP chaired Justice 1 Committee inquiry "Regulation of the legal profession" in 2001, where the Sheriff's Association threatened the then J1 Committee with court action if they investigated the role of Sheriffs ... J1 of course, backing down immediately.
Personally, I don't think we will see much in the way of Judicial reform in this Executive ... not at least unless the other parties cooperate in any plans, and on such a strong issue as this, which at least, only the Labour party showed any willingness to pursue in the past .. I can't see that cooperation materialising.
Of course, that's not to say we should'nt be lobbying for reforms to the Judiciary even though the numbers at Holyrood may not add up because it has been quite obvious for many years the Judiciary in Scotland needs a few changes to it's hundreds of years old operation and accountability only to itself ... something which doesn't really fit in with transparency & modern day human rights when people seek to question or take issue with failings from the Judiciary itself.
As far as reforming Justice and ending Injustice go, we must now expect the SNP to deliver on this, after eight long years of inactivity on the issue from the Scottish Parliament where victims of injustice have been left largely unaided by their msps, unless it suited party political means to do something about it.
There is now no excuse for sitting on the fence - no more excuses for just complaining about it now, the SNP are in Government so that's it - let's deliver and give Scotland a respectable justice system and an honest accountable legal profession - which we all need, use, and deserve, and lets not forget the victims of injustice of the past which require also to be put right without delay.
Following article from the Scotsman reporting on the new Ministerial team and Mr Salmond's speech as First Minister :
United we stand, Salmond tells his new parliament HAMISH MACDONELL
ALEX Salmond invited his political opponents to forge a new consensual era of Scottish politics yesterday, using his maiden speech as First Minister to call for an end to the dogmatic party divisions which have characterised parliamentary business since devolution.
Aware that he will have to run Scotland with little more than a third of its MSPs, Mr Salmond appealed to all the MSPs in the chamber to work together in the country's best interests.
And, in a move that will infuriate Gordon Brown, the likely next Prime Minister, the SNP leader said he felt significant progress could be made if the parties united to call for more powers for the parliament.
Mr Salmond was elected as First Minister at precisely 11:11am yesterday morning. The outcome, although expected, was greeted with jubilation on the SNP benches and in the public gallery, from where his wife Moira, father Robert and sister Gail were all watching.
His victory, which came with the aid of votes from Scotland's two Green MSPs, will enable him to form a minority SNP administration.
The Nationalists are 18 seats short of a majority in the 129-member parliament.
In his speech, Mr Salmond stressed the ties and causes which united MSPs of many parties, not the divisions between them.
"We are not divided. We have a sense of ourselves. A sense of community. And above all, a sense of the 'common weal' of Scotland," Mr Salmond declared. "We are diverse, not divided," he said.
And he added: "There is a broad consensus on the need for this parliament to assume greater responsibility for the governance of Scotland, and there is an understanding that we are engaged in a process of self-government - and an awareness of the distance already travelled."
Jack McConnell picked up on Mr Salmond's theme, saying: "Voltaire once said that governments need both shepherds and butchers and I think Alex may need to be more of a shepherd than a butcher in his new role, looking around this flock here and trying to secure majorities for his policies."
He also gave a clear hint in his speech that he intended to stay on as Labour leader in Scotland, at least for the near future.
"I am very proud to lead the largest and most experienced opposition that this parliament has ever had and I look forward to that job," he said.
But the former First Minister also took the opportunity to warn Mr Salmond that he did not have an "unconditional" right to govern.
After leaving the chamber, Mr Salmond told his supporters:
"You think you can imagine what it's going to be like but, when you imagine, it's never quite the reality. It's a wonderful day."
Mr Salmond went on from the parliament, where his party were still celebrating his election as First Minister, to St Andrew's House, the home of the civil service in Scotland.
He met Sir John Elvidge, the Permanent Secretary, and then unveiled his slimmed-down ministerial team.
However, the new sense of consensual politics appeared to dissolve as soon as Mr Salmond announced that he was trimming the previous nine departments to just six.
Mr McConnell immediately criticised the plans as a "badly prepared rearrangement".
"This is change for change's sake, but the impact could be very damaging."
The new First Minister took a congratulatory telephone call from Douglas Alexander, the Scottish Secretary, but by last night he had still not heard from either the Prime Minister Tony Blair or Mr Brown.
Soon after Mr Salmond's election in the parliamentary chamber, the Queen signed the warrant appointing him as Scotland's First Minister.
The Queen will see Mr Salmond in person in Scotland next week.
Today, Mr Salmond will perform a ceremony in the Court of Session before the Great Seal of Scotland which will give him the legal power to run the Scottish Executive.
He will later undertake his first official engagement, an environmental announcement at Longannet Power Station.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, welcomed the SNP leader's appointment.
"I am sure that he will work for the good of all the people of this country," he said.
Matt Smith, the Scottish secretary of Unison, congratulated Mr Salmond and asked for an early meeting with representatives of the new administration.
Friends of the Earth Scotland welcomed the appointment of what they described as a "tough on climate change, anti-nuclear" First Minister and they urged all MSPs to support the new Executive's environmental plans.
Surprises spice up the expected rewards for loyalty in top team
THE new slimmed-down Cabinet for Scotland saw Alex Salmond award trusted lieutenants with senior posts but also a few surprise faces.
The new First Minister has reduced the number of departments from nine to six by merging certain portfolios.
But the breakdown of departments was already causing concern yesterday. Opposition politicians said twinning transport with climate change could cause a conflict of interest and de-coupling enterprise from higher education was a mistake.
However, Mr Salmond insisted the new government would be more focused.
"It sends a signal for the rest of the public administration in Scotland," he added.
OFFICE OF THE FIRST MINISTER
Mr Salmond has two deputies. BRUCE CRAWFORD will need all his diplomatic skills as minister for parliamentary business. As minister for Europe, external affairs and culture, LINDA FABIANI has a huge portfolio with responsibility for Gaelic, architecture and the arts.
HEALTH AND WELLBEING NICOLA STURGEON will be deputy first minister as well as cabinet secretary. This means leaving Shona Robison, who was expected to get the role, out of the cabinet. Instead she will take on a junior post as public health minister. Stewart Maxwell,who first proposed the public smoking ban, is minister for communities and sport.
FINANCE AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
As expected, the most important role goes to former leader JOHN SWINNEY. His deputies are the SNP's economic brains: Jim Mather as minister for enterprise, energy and tourism, and Stewart Stevenson as minister for transport, infrastructure and climate change.
EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING
As the former spokeswoman on education, FIONA HYSLOP was an obvious choice as cabinet secretary. Her deputies are more unexpected. Maureen Watt, the minister for schools and skills, has been in Holyrood for just over a year and Adam Ingram, minister for children and early years, is an unshowy character.
JUSTICE
After serving as justice spokesman, KENNY MACASKILL was rewarded with the job, fresh from winning the SNP's first seat in Edinburgh. His deputy, Fergus Ewing, was expected to get a senior role, although minister for community safety was an unusual move.
RURAL AFFAIRS
RICHARD LOCHHEAD, the Nationalists' former fisheries spokesman, has landed a senior role as cabinet secretary but his inexperience may tempt some opposition politicians to try to target him for attacks. Michael Russell, the author, commentator and former television producer, makes a comeback as minister for the environment.
ALEX SALMOND'S SPEECH IN FULL
THANK you, Presiding Officer, for your congratulations; and can I now turn to the party leaders to thank them. Firstly, Annabel Goldie. I toasted Annabel Goldie recently at the Scouts and Guides Burns Supper and such was the excellence of her replying to the toast to the lassies that I was sorely tempted to vote for her today.
Tempted Annabel, but not seduced.
My wife Moira and wee sister Gail are here today - it's a good job my big sister is not here, Annabel. But my dad is here today as well.
My father has never seen me in the chamber because he always refused to set foot in the Palace of Westminster; some people say I should have heeded his advice. But I thank my family for their support today.
I thank Nicol Stephen for his typically gracious speech. I listened carefully when you listed all your manifesto commitments. I am not sure the government can afford all of them but we will certainly try our best. Lastly, can I turn to Jack McConnell to thank him for his good wishes. Mr McConnell once said the job of First Minister was to leave Scotland better than how you found it, and I think in terms in particular of the ban on smoking and campaign to tackle sectarianism, Jack McConnell has certainly done that.
I applaud your continued efforts in that direction and wish you and Bridget all the best for the future. Thank you very much.
This parliament, as we should remember, is created by the people of Scotland in a referendum. It is bigger than any of its members or any one party.
I believe that Scotland is ready for change and for reform. This is a small nation with a big future. But it is also a small nation with big challenges.
It was said earlier on that Scotland is a divided nation. Given the closeness of the election result, I can understand that in some ways. However, it is not the case.
Certainly, the gap between rich and poor is far too great. We need to grow faster. We need to heal the scars of the past. We need to be greener. We need to be still smarter.
But we are not divided. We have a sense of ourselves. A sense of community. And above all, a sense of the "common weal" of Scotland.
In some ways we're not even a divided parliament. Of course, in this part of the chamber, we seek independence and equality for Scotland. I'm told not everyone agrees. But there is a broad consensus on the need for this parliament to assume greater responsibility for the governance of Scotland. And there is an understanding that we are engaged in a process of self-government - and an awareness of the distance already travelled.
In 1961, Bashir Ahmad came to Glasgow to drive buses. In 1961, the very idea of a Scottish Parliament was unimaginable. In 1961, the very idea of a Scots Asian sitting in a Scots parliament was doubly unimaginable.
But Bashir is here and we are here, and that part of the community of Scotland is now woven into the very tartan of our parliament. And we are stronger - so much stronger - as a result. We are diverse, not divided.
The nature and composition of this third Scottish Parliament makes it imperative that this government will rely on the strength of argument in parliament and not the argument of parliamentary strength.
Despite all the challenges we will face together, I welcome that as a chance to develop a new and fundamentally more reflective model of democracy.
The days since the election have been understandably dominated by questions over the structure of government - will there be a coalition or will there be a minority government?
Let me say to parliament that what matters more to the people we all represent is less the structure of government and more what we, all of us, achieve on the people's behalf.
Presiding Officer, all of us in this parliament have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in a way which respects the parliament the people have chosen to elect. That will take patience, maturity and leadership. My pledge today is that any Scottish government led by me will respect and include this parliament in the governance of Scotland over the next four years.
In this century, there are limits to what governments can achieve. But one thing any government I lead will never lack is ambition for Scotland. Today, I commit myself to leadership wholly and exclusively in the Scottish national interest. We will appeal for support policy by policy across this chamber.
That is the parliament the people of Scotland have elected, and that is the government that I will be proud to lead.
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.
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.”
First Minister rejects call for register of judges' interests
