RSS

Category Archives: Judiciary

SHERIFF WALKS: Scottish Courts confirm lawyer & part-time Sheriff Peter Watson – who was named in £28M Heather Capital writ linked to collapsed £400M hedge fund – resigned from the judiciary in 2018

Carloway lifted suspension, Sheriff resigned.. THE Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) have confirmed a lawyer linked to a collapsed hedge fund – who also served as a judge – and was suspended for over three years “in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary” – resigned his judicial post in 2018.

Peter Black Watson a former partner in Glasgow based law firm Levy and Mcrae – who was named in a £28million writ linked to the collapse of bust hedge fund Heather Capital – resigned his commission as a part time Sheriff on 10 October 2018.

The information was released by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in response to a Freedom of Information request –  SCTS – Sheriff Watson resignation

The SCTS stated: “I can advise that Mr Peter Watson resigned his commission as a part-time sheriff on 10 October 2018. Mr Watson did not hear any cases between the lifting of the suspension on 12 July 2018 and his resignation. Mr Watson has not submitted any claims for expenses, nor attended any events, nor carried out any judicial functions, since the suspension was lifted.”

Watson’s resignation came less than three months after Lord Carloway had lifted Mr Watson’s record suspension from judicial office of over three years – imposted by Lord Brian Gill in February 2015

Mr Watson was suspended from the Judiciary of Scotland on February 16, 2015 – after the then Lord President, Lord Brian Gill, was informed by a journalist of the claims in the case against Levy and McRae, and specifically against Watson, over Heather Capital’s collapse in 2010.

The move came after allegations surfaced in a £28million writ naming part time Sheriff Peter Black Watson – and his former law firm Levy and Mcrae, and a number of individuals under investigation in connection with the collapsed Heather Capital hedge fund.

In response to queries from the media in February 2015 on the contents of the writ – the Judicial Office subsequently issued a statement confirming Lord Brian Gill  had suspended Sheriff Peter Black Watson (61) on 16 February 2015.

The suspension came after Gill demanded sight of the writ.

Responding to the Lord President’s request, Watson then offered to step aside temporarily – while the litigation concluded – however a Judicial Office spokesperson said “The Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.”

A statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland read as follows: Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

“On Friday 13 February the Judicial Office was made aware of the existence of a summons containing certain allegations against a number of individuals including part-time sheriff Peter Watson.

The Lord President’s Private Office immediately contacted Mr Watson and he offered not to sit as a part-time sheriff on a voluntary basis, pending the outcome of those proceedings.

Mr Watson e-mailed a copy of the summons to the Lord President’s Private Office on Saturday 14 February.

On Monday 16 February the Lord President considered the matter.

Having been shown the summons, the Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Mr Watson was therefore duly suspended from office on Monday 16 February 2015.”

A fulll report on Mr Watson’s suspension from the judiciary in 2015 can be found here: CAPITAL JUDGE: As top judge suspends sheriff over £28m law firm writ alleging links to £400m Heather Capital collapse, what now for Lord Gill’s battle against a register of interests & transparency for Scotland’s judiciary

In 2018, after matters relating to the Heather Capital writ came to a conclusion, it fell to cScotland’s current top judge – Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) to consider the ongoing suspension of Watson – reported in further detail here: CAPITAL NUDGE: Scotland’s top judge Lord Carloway to consider status of de-benched Sheriff Peter Watson – suspended for a record THREE YEARS over £28million writ linked to collapsed £400m hedge fund Heather Capital

Later in July 2018. a statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland on the continuing suspension of part-time sheriff Peter Watson stated:

Following the extra judicial settlement of the Heather Capital action in which part-time sheriff Peter Watson was named as one of the defenders, the Lord President has lifted the suspension imposed upon him in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. Sheriff Watson will resume part-time judicial duties with effect from 12 July 2018.

Sheriff Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

Watson’s former law firm –  Levy & McRae, was one of several companies being sued by Heather’s liquidator, Ernst & Young, after the fund’s collapse in 2010.

Watson was also a director of a company called Mathon Ltd – a key part of the Heather empire.

The collapsed hedge fund Heather Capital – run by lawyer Gregory King was the subject of a Police Scotland investigation and a FIVE YEAR probe by the Crown Office.

However, in early February, the Crown Office coincidently confirmed there would be no prosecutions in the cases of the four individuals  – lawyers Gregory King & Andrew Sobolewski, accountant Andrew Millar and property expert Scott Carmichael – who were charged by Police Scotland in connection with a Police investigation of events relating to the collapse of Heather Capital.

Peter Watson now has his own law business, PBW Law.

Watson, and his former law firm named in the Heather Capital writ – Levy and Mcrae –  also represent the Scottish Police Federation.

Responding to queries from reporters, a  spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: “The action, in which suspended part time Sheriff Peter Watson was among the defenders, has settled.  An interlocutor to that effect has been issued.  The Lord President will consider what, if any, steps now require to be taken‎.”

Despite EY’s withdrawal of the £28million claim against Levy and Mcrae & Peter Watson, detailed claims in the Court of Session revealed the following:

[21]      In the Levy Mcrae case:

  • On 4 January 2007, HC transferred £19 million to its client account with LM (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).

  • On 24 January 2007, HC transferred £9.412 million to its client account with LM (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).

  • The money was intended to be loaned to a first level SPV Westernbrook Properties Ltd (WBP) for onward lending to second level SPVs (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).

  • On 9 January 2007, LM transferred £19 million to a Panamanian company (Niblick) owned and controlled by Mr Levene:the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print).

  • By a memorandum dated 17 March 2007, HC’s auditors KPMG “identified a number of concerns relating to the documentation provided in respect of these loans”.Further work and information was required (Condescendence 5, page 13 of LM reclaiming print).

  • On 29 March 2007, LM transferred £9.142 million to Hassans, solicitors, Gibraltar, under the reference “Rosecliff Limited” (a company controlled by Mr King):the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print).

  • In April to June 2007, amounts equivalent to the loans thought to have been made to WBP (including accrued interest) were “repaid” to HC via Cannons, solicitors, Glasgow.The directors were unable to ascertain the source of these repayments (Lord Doherty paragraph [7]).

  • Approaches made by HC to Mr Volpe and Triay & Triay, a firm of solicitors in Gibraltar, were met with a total lack of co-operation (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]).

  • At a board meeting on 6 September 2007, “KPMG could not approve HC’s accounts … Santo Volpe had executed certain loans to SPV companies where non‑standard procedures had been followed which meant that inadequate security had been given for some loans … Gregory King stated that the loans to the SPVs had been repaid in full in May 2007” (Condescendence 5, page 13 of LM reclaiming print).

  • By email to a non‑executive director of HC (Mr Bourbon) dated 7 September 2007, Mr McGarry of KPMG referred to the previous day’s board meeting, and expressed concerns about the situation.He asked for further information, namely “all possible evidence regarding the movement of monies out of Heather Capital into these SPVs and onwards to whatever purpose the funds were applied – ie, sight of bank statements, payment/remittance instructions, certified extracts from solicitors clients’ money accounts etc”.(It should be noted that, contrary to HC’s averment in Condescendence 5 at page 13C‑D of LM reclaiming print, the email did not restrict the inquiries requested to “explaining what information was required from Santo Volpe”:the request was much broader.)

  • In October 2007 the non‑executive directors of HC met with the Isle of Man Financial Services Commission (FSC) to discuss “the issues” (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]).A director also disclosed the suspicious activity and Mr Volpe’s obstruction to the Isle of Man Financial Crime Unit (FCU), who said they would investigate (Condescendence 5 page 14 of LM reclaiming print).The auditors KPMG carried out an additional full scope audit.

  • By letter dated 18 October 2007, FSC wrote to the directors of HC setting out further information which they required.

  • By letter dated 26 November 2007 Mr King advised the HC board that “some sort of fraud had been deliberately introduced with invalid land registry details on a number of the loans”.He stated that he had applied pressure to Mr Volpe and Mr Cannon, whereupon there had been “full repayment of the loans with relevant interest” which meant that “investors were secure”.

  • On 17 December 2007, KPMG signed the accounts and added a completion note using language such as “The risk of fraud increased to high as a result of the documentation issues surrounding the SPVs, where some form of fraud appeared to have been attempted”.In their audit report opinion, they stated “We have been unable to verify where funds advanced to the SPVs were invested.In addition, we were supplied with false documentation in relation to the SPVs which appears to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead us.Given these loans were repaid in the period, we consider that the effect of this is not so material and pervasive that we are unable to form an opinion on the financial statements [opting instead for express qualifications that loan and security documentation could not be validated] … There is uncertainty as to where the monies lent to the [SPVs] were then subsequently invested … Investigations continue to determine what party (or parties) were involved in and were accountable for these events, and whether any action should be taken against them …” (Lord Doherty paragraph [9]).

  • By letter to HC dated 4 January 2008, KPMG gave serious warnings about their inability to validate loan and security documentation, and lack of evidence as to the purpose for which the money advanced to SPVs was applied.In their words:

“ … Our report is designed to … avoid weaknesses that could lead to material loss or misstatement.  However, it is your obligation to take the actions needed to remedy those weaknesses and should you fail to do so we shall not be held responsible if loss or misstatement occurs as a result … [Having explained the disappearance of the funds and the apparent repayments, on which legal advice had been received, KPMG warned] … these matters are extremely serious … an attempted fraud appears to have been perpetrated … We would recommend that the Board continue their investigation into this matter and formally document their decision as to whether or not to inform the criminal justice authorities …”

A full copy of a court opinion detailing these and other claims with regards to a further case against Burness Paull LLB  – which coincidently also collapsed earlier last year – can be viewed here: Court of Session allows proof against Levy & Mcrae and Burness Paull LLP in Heather Capital case as liquidators attempt to recover cash from collapsed £280m hedge fund.

In the motion of abandonment filed by EY & Heather Capital, heard in the Court of Session on 28 February before Lord Glennie, Lady Paton & Lady Clark of Calton, Lord Glennie’s opinion sums up matters in relation to issues in the Heather Capital case, which linked claims of financial wrongdoing directly to Scotland’s judiciary – who, ultimately heard and ruled on the case.

Lord Glennie stated in his opinion:

[97]      I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions to be given by Lady Paton and Lady Clark of Calton.  I agree with them and, for the reasons they give, I too would allow parties a Proof Before Answer of all their averments on record preserving all pleas. 

[98]      I would wish to add two comments of my own. 

[99]      The main focus of the debate in each case was whether the pursuer, HC, had made sufficient and relevant averments of “reasonable diligence” for the purposes of section 11(3) and the proviso to section 6(4) of the 1973 Act.  In both cases the Lord Ordinary held that HC had not said enough and in sufficient detail to justify sending the matter to a Proof Before Answer.  The matter could be determined on the pleadings.  Lady Paton has explained why we take a different view.  But I have a more general concern about this approach. 

[100]    In his note of argument in the LM case, under reference to cases such as John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management (Scotland) Ltd 2004 SC 713 at pages 722 – 723 and Watson v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2016] CSOH 93 at paragraphs 22-23, Lord Davidson QC was at pains to remind us that the purpose of pleading is to give fair notice of the assertions of fact sought to be established in the evidence as well as to identify the essential propositions of law on which a party founds.  Elaborate pleading is unnecessary in any action, not just in a commercial action.  The purpose of the pleadings is to give notice of the essential elements of the case.  The pleadings should set out the bare bones of the case.  They are not the place to set out in full the evidence intended to be adduced.  In the present cases that appears to have been overlooked.  To that extent I have some sympathy with Lord Davidson’s submission.  The Closed Record in the BP action, as it appears in the Reclaiming Print, runs to some 59 pages, while that in the LM action extends to 93 pages.  This has happened, so it seems to me, because in their pleadings parties have indulged in a process akin to trial by pleading.  The defenders have made averments of fact intended to undermine the pursuer’s case on reasonable diligence; the pursuer has responded by making further averments addressed to those points;  this in turn has caused the defenders to make further averments or raise further questions;  the pursuer has tried to answer by making yet further averments;  and this is constantly repeated until parties are finally exhausted.  The process resembles one of cross examination and response, a process for which pleadings are quite unfitted.  I do not seek to apportion blame.  In a case such as this, the temptation to pile pressure on to the pursuer by pleading a wealth of detail is difficult to resist;  and a pursuer who does not respond in kind runs the risk of being thought to have no answer to the points which have been raised.  Difficulty arises when the matter comes to debate on the question of whether, for example, the pursuer has made sufficiently relevant and specific averments that it “could not with reasonable diligence have been aware” that loss had occurred (section 11(3)) and that it could not “with reasonable diligence have discovered” the fraud or error induced by the debtor which induced it to refrain from making a relevant claim at an earlier stage (section 6(4), proviso).  Points are made in argument about the failure to take certain steps or to follow up on the particular line of enquiry;  and the Lord Ordinary is invited to form a view that what was done was insufficient or that the reasons given for not doing it are inadequate.  Such an invitation should, in my view, be resisted save in the most obvious case.  The judgments which the court is being asked to make are essentially value judgments, assessments of the reasonableness or otherwise of a party’s conduct.  Such judgments should seldom if ever be made on the basis of the pleadings without hearing evidence.  It may seem obvious, on paper, that something ought to have been done or that a line of enquiry ought to have been pursued; but when evidence is led it might seem less obvious, or there might be good reasons for not taking that course.  It is not the function of pleadings to set out every reason why each relevant individual took or did not take any particular step.  In many cases issues of credibility and reliability might arise, the evidence may be far more nuanced than it is possible to convey on paper, explanations may be given more fully and persuasively than can come over in the pleadings, and some of the criticisms may, in light of all the evidence, be seen to be informed by hindsight.  I should emphasise that I make these observations without reference to any of the particular points decided in the particular cases with which we are here concerned.  But it does seem to me that the cases with which we are concerned illustrate the danger of the court being drawn into deciding cases on detailed averments of fact when it would be more appropriate that all the evidence be heard before any decision is made. 

[101]    The other comment I would wish to make concerns the question of whether the claims advanced in both actions on the basis of the existence of a trust are subject to the 5‑year prescriptive period in section 6 of the 1973 Act or are subject to the 20-year long negative prescription in section 7.  This matter was discussed by Lord Doherty in the LM action at paragraphs [25]-[31].  He concluded that the obligation of a trustee to produce trust accounts is an imprescriptible obligation;  that the liability to make payment of the sum found due in an accounting for trust funds is subject only to the long negative prescription;  and that the obligation of a trustee to restore the value of trust property paid away in breach of trust is also subject only to the long negative prescription.  The matter was not discussed by Lord Tyre in the BP case for reasons which are slightly unclear – matters appear to have proceeded in that debate on the basis that all obligations were subject to the 5-year prescriptive period and that the only issues in that respect concerned the pursuer’s case on sections 6(4) and 11(3) – but it was not suggested before us that the point is not live in that action too.  Detailed submissions on the point were made by Mr Duncan QC on behalf of LM and adopted by Mr Dunlop QC on behalf of BP.  Lord Davidson QC responded on behalf of HC.  I, for one, was grateful for their submissions.  It emerged in the course of those submissions, as it had to some extent at the debate in the LM case, that not only was there a dispute as to the law to be applied in a case of accounting and/or breach of trust but there was also a dispute as to whether the circumstances of the present cases gave rise to a relationship of trust at all or, alternatively, a trust of a kind intended to be excluded from the 5-year short negative prescription.  In light of this, it seems to me that it would be desirable that all of the relevant facts be determined before the issues are decided.  For that reason, and for the reasons given by Lady Paton in paragraph [80] of her opinion, I am persuaded that it would be premature to attempt to decide these points at this stage.

COLLAPSE OF FIVE YEAR CROWN OFFICE PROBE:

In a further twist to the Heather Capital saga, a FIVE YEAR probe by the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) collapsed just a few days before the collapse of the £28million writ against Levy and Mcrae, & Peter Watson.

A report by journalist Russell Findlay revealed: CROWN prosecutors will take no action against four men following a fraud probe into a collapsed £400 million finance firm.

Lawyer Gregory King, 49, and three others were reported to the Crown by detectives who investigated his hedge fund Heather Capital which was based in the Isle of Man.

Heather, launched by King in 2005, attracted investors from around the world and loaned money to fund property deals.

Following its 2010 collapse, Heather’s liquidator Paul Duffy claimed that around £90million was unaccounted for and a police fraud probe resulted in the four men being reported to the Crown Office in April 2013.

An Isle of Man court judgement likened Heather to a ‘Ponzi’ scheme, made famous by US financier Bernie Madoff who was jailed for 150 years in 2009.

The other three reported by police were lawyer Andrew Sobolewski, of Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire, Andrew Millar, of ­Cambuslang, near Glasgow, and Scott ­Carmichael, of Thorntonhall, near Glasgow.

Last year there was criticism of the Crown for taking so long to consider the case but after almost five years it has now dropped the case.

A Crown Office spokesman said: “Following full and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the currently available admissible evidence, Crown Counsel instructed  that there should be no proceedings at this time.

“The Crown reserves the right to raise proceedings should further evidence become available.”

The Scottish Sun reported on the serving of the £28million civil writ which named lawyer Peter Black Watson – back in February 2015, here:

The Scottish Sun reports:

WRIT HITS THE FAN

FIRM FIRM SLAPPED WITH COURT SUMMONS – Top legal outfit in megabucks lawsuit

Practice is linked to bust hedge fund – Briefs with ties to big business and high-profile clients

By RUSSELL FINDLAY Scottish Sun 15 February 2015

A TOP law firm has been hit with a multi-million pound writ linked to a finance company at the centre of a fraud investigation.

Legal practice Levy & McRae — which acts for footballers, politicians, cops and newspapers — faces the claim over its role in connection with £400million investment scheme Heather Capital.

It’s claimed millions of pounds went missing following the collapse of the hedge fund. And The Scottish Sun told last week how four men — including tycoon Gregory King — have been reported to prosecutors probing the allegations.

King, 46, ran Heather subsidiary Mathon, where Sheriff Peter Watson — a former senior partner at Levy & McRae — was also briefly a director.

The Court of Session summons was served on the firm six months after he left the legal firm.

Watson is one of the country’s most high-profile lawyers and spent 33 years with Levy & McRae before quitting to set up his own business.

The visiting Strathclyde University professor sat on an expert panel created by former First Minister Alex Salmond to look into media regulation in Scotland.

Watson also acted for former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini after she was harassed by a campaigner who was later jailed.

‘Their clients are a who’s who of Scotland’ And he includes ex-Glasgow City Council chief Steven Purcell among his list of clients, as well as senior police and prison officers.

The legal expert, 61 — chairman of Yorkhill Sick Kids’ Hospital charity — has also acted for former Rangers owner Sir David Murray.

And a Gers supporters’ group closed down its website following legal threats from Watson, who was working for under-fire directors Sandy and James Easdale.

A source said: “Watson and Levy & McRae are very well known and their clients are a who’s who of Scotland.”

Investors from around the world sunk their cash into Gibraltar-based fund Heather Capital, which launched in 2004.

Some of the cash was loaned to Mathon to bankroll developments across Scotland. But many of the Mathon-funded plans did not happen — and some of the cash was not repaid.

Liquidator Paul Duffy of Ernst & Young has been battling to recover investors’ cash since 2010 and is suing Heather’s auditors KPMG for negligence over their role. Isle of Man court documents — acquired by The Scottish Sun — claim Heather was operating a “Ponzi” scheme to dupe investors.

They alleged that as early as December 2006, senior KPMG staff feared that Heather Capital “may have been perpetrating a fraud”.

And in August 2007, KPMG employee Raymond Gawne told a colleague that he was “very uncomfortable” acting for the fund which “may have acted in a criminal manner”.

The claim also alleges that millions of pounds of loans passed through the client account of Glasgow lawyer Frank Cannon who acted for Heather. KPMG senior executive David McGarry sent an email to Gregory King stating: “Frank Cannon has been uncooperative, either in providing some form of explanation for all of the security documentation prepared by his firm, or in agreeing to facilitate access to Cannon’s clients’ money account”. McGarry added he did not accept “that this is due” to Cannon.

Watson declined to comment on the writ and Levy & McRae and Cannon did not respond to our requests for comment.

The Police Scotland report naming Mr King and his associates Andrew Sobolewski, Andrew Millar and Scott Carmichael is now being considered by the Crown Office.

A spokesman for Ernst & Young confirmed: “Heather Capital, via Ernst & Young, has made a claim against Levy & McRae.” And a KPMG spokesman said: “The passages in the plaintiff’s summons provide a selective and misleading picture and are drawn out simply to seek to make what is a wholly unsubstantiated case.

“The allegations are completely unfounded and are being fully contested by KPMG.”

GREGORY KING MARBELLA-based former Glasgow Academy pupil, 46, was a lawyer and taxi firm boss before launching Heather Capital in 2004. Family business dynasty includes nightclub boss cousin Stefan King.

PETER WATSON GREENOCK-born solicitor advocate, 61, carved out a fearsome reputation as a media lawyer during 33 years at Levy & McRae. He also dishes out justice as a part-time sheriff across Scotland.

KING’S £400million hedge fund Heather Capital loaned millions of pounds to Glasgow-based Mathon, of which Watson was briefly a director.

TOP lawyer and part-time sheriff Watson has acted for a string of high profile celebrity, political, sport and media clients in a glittering legal career:

Watson’s clients included Alex Salmond, Stephen Purcell, Elish Angiolini, Yorkhill Hospital Board, Rangers Chiefs.

and a further development reported by the Scottish Sun on the suspension of Sheriff Peter Watson:

Bench ban for sheriff linked to fraud probe

Lawman, 61, suspended

By RUSSELL FINDLAY 25th February 2015, Scottish Sun

A SHERIFF was suspended after he was linked to a collapsed finance firm at the centre of a massive fraud probe.

Peter Watson, 61, was barred from the bench by judges’ boss Lord President Lord Gill following an inquiry by The Scottish Sun.

Watson, whose past clients include ex-First Minister Alex Salmond, was briefly a director of Mathon, a company run by Glasgow bookie’s son Gregory King, 46.

It received millions in loans from King’s hedge fund Heather Capital which crashed owing a seven-figure sum.

Watson’s suspension came 24 hours after we revealed Heather liquidators Ernst & Young filed a multi-million court demand against his former law firm Levy & McRae.

Lord Gill, 73, can suspend sheriffs and judges if it’s “necessary for the purpose of maintaining public confidence”.

Watson forged a fearsome reputation as a media lawyer over 33 years with Levy & McRae before he left the firm six months ago.

King is one of four men named in a police report which is being considered by the Crown Office.

The Judicial Office for Scotland said last night: “Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on February 16.”

The National also recently reported on the continuing suspension of Peter Watson from the judicial bench, here:

Lawyer Peter Watson still suspended despite case ending

Martin Hannan Journalist

Peter Watson was suspended from the bench more than three years ago

LAWYER Peter Watson remains suspended from his position as a part-time sheriff despite a £28 million court action in which he was being sued having been brought to an end.

Lord Carloway, the Lord President and Scotland’s senior judge, is said by legal sources to be considering the position of Watson after Paul Duffy, the liquidator of Heather Capital, abandoned the £28m action against Levy and McRae solicitors in which Watson was a former partner.

Watson was suspended from the bench more than three years ago on February 16, 2015, after the then Lord President, Lord Gill, was informed of the claims in the case against Levy and McRae, and specifically against Watson, over Heather Capital’s collapse in 2010.

It was Watson himself who e-mailed the summons material to the Lord President’s office himself and volunteered “not to sit as a part-time sheriff on a voluntary basis, pending the outcome of those proceedings,” as the Judicial Office stated at the time.

The statement added that Lord Gill had “concluded that … suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.”

Watson now has his own law business, PBW Law.

He told reporters: “I am very pleased that this action has been abandoned and I am looking forward to serving my clients now it is clear that there was no valid basis for this claim.”

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: “The action, in which suspended part time Sheriff Peter Watson was among the defenders, has settled.

“The Lord President will consider what, if any, steps now require to be taken?,” the spokesperson added.

Of note – there is no statement on the Judcial Office website in relation to the resignation of Peter Watson from the judicial bench, as of this article’s date of publication on 3 July 2018.

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

POLICE STORY: Ex-Lord Advocate linked to Police union complaints lawyers – says Police should continue to investigate themselves, complaints against top cops should be heard by ‘quango style’ panel – headed & appointed by Scotland’s top judge

Police should investigate Police – report. A FORMER Lord Advocate once accused of undermining the judiciary by Scotland’s top judge – has delivered a preliminary report as part of a review on handling of complaints and investigations against officers of Police Scotland.

However, the report from Dame Elish Angiolini on “Independent review of complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing” – continues to advocate Police should continue to investigate themselves – on the vast majority of complaints.

Angiolini also goes on to outline an eerily familiar procedure where – in the case of complaints against the most senior cops –  a ‘quango’ style panel will be convened and headed by Scotland’s top judge – along with selected ‘independent’ persons from other quangos or organisations – appointed to the panel by – Scotland’s top judge.

The report from Elish Anglioni – who herself is linked to lawyers & law firms which represent Police Officers against complaints – states “The vast bulk of complaints should properly be investigated by the police service itself” and “it is critical that those processes are clear, transparent and trusted”.

As far as the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner is concerned, Angiolini states that “Independent supervision and audit is also critical. In those cases rightly requiring independent investigation the police must also provide the fullest co-operation and assistance to allow timely and effective action.”

In a recommendation linked to deaths in custody, and with relevance to the death of Sheku Bayoh who died in 2015 after being restrained by police in Kirkcaldy.

Angiolini’s report states that Police officers involved in a death in custody should be separated to prevent them conferring and contaminating evidence.

This recommendation comes after what happened following the death of Mr Bayoh, where up to nine officers involved were together in the same room for more than eight hours – which led to allegations the cops conferred with each other in compiling their reports of what happened during their involvement in the incident which ultimately lead to Mr Bayoh’s death.

Angiolini’s report states “Police officers involved in a death in custody or serious incident, whether as principal officers or witnesses to the incident should not confer or speak to each other following that incident.

“Early separation of officers, other than in pressing operational circumstances, is the best way to ensure non-conferral in practice, give transparency to the process and preserve the integrity of each individual’s evidence.

“This is in the interests of both the individual police officers themselves and the public interest in order to safeguard public confidence in the integrity of their evidence.”

“In any group of people there is a danger of group-think that could contaminate or colour evidence inadvertently or otherwise.”

However, what is not revealed anywher in the report is that Elish Angiolini – has frequently used the legal services of the same lawyer – Peter Black Watson – who also represented Police Officers involved in the same incident which led to the death of Mr Bayoh.

In a BBC Disclosure investigation, it was reported : Days after his death, the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) lawyer Peter Watson told the media that “a petite female police officer was subjected to a violent and unprovoked attack by a very large man who punched, kicked and stamped on her.”

The new evidence obtained by BBC Disclosure casts doubt on this account.

More on the BBC investigation can be read here: Sheku Bayoh: Fresh questions over death in police custody

It was also reported Peter Watson – who represented Angiolini in some high profile cases – had hit out against the family of Mr Bayoh over criticisms relating to the death in custody.

BBC News reported: Peter Watson of PBW Law said: “Comments made by those representing the family of the deceased promote a completely inaccurate and misleading account.”

He added: “The officer injured remains off work, has had several hospital visits and is now in rehabilitation.

“An examination by a leading consultant confirms her injuries were significant. The injuries have been documented and photographed.

“The officers involved have never refused to provide statements. It was agreed at the outset with the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) that they would revert to us when they wanted statements and when they were clear on the basis that statements were to be given.

“PIRC emailed me this morning at 10:46 asking for our assistance to organise interviews and we answered at 11:29 confirming we would be pleased to assist. Those are the facts.”

Peter Watson, and also his former law firm of Levy & Mcrae, both remain as legal service providers to the Scottish Police Federation – and have represented Police Officers facing complaints, and criminal charges – yet neither are identified in Angiolini’s report nor is her use of both Watson and Levy & Mcrae flagged up as a conflict of interest issue.

The report on scrutiny of complaints against the Police comes in a tough year for Police Scotland – after the appointment of Iain Livingstone to the top post of Chief Constable even after questions surfaced over Livingstone’s suitability for the role after he once faced five allegations of serious sexual assault against a female officer.

The allegations against Livingstone – who was demoted over the sexual assault allegations and then reinstated upon appeal after the case was heard by a male-led Police tribunal – resurfaced in the print media earlier in 2019 – and in a BBC Scotland investigation into cover ups and scandals at Police Scotland.

Previous articles reporting the sexual assault allegations against Iain Livingstone are available here: Scotland’s Chief Constable & what happened to five allegations of serious sexual assault against a female officer

Full report available here: Independent review of complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing

On complaints against top cops – Angiolini’s report on misconduct investigations against senior officers is critical of current procedures, and recommends responsibilities be transferred away from the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) – due to fears of familiarity between top cops and SPA figures, and a perceived lack of impartiality.

The report states: Police Scotland’s senior officers form a small group of 12 officers above the rank of Chief Superintendent. The members of this group are in regular contact with members and officials of the SPA at meetings of the Board of the Authority and its committees. The SPA, by its nature, also consists of a small group of members and executives. Regular engagement is right and proper and an essential part of the current accountability arrangements whereby it is the statutory function of SPA to hold the Chief Constable to account for the policing of Scotland. However, the regularity of that contact and the familiarity of senior police officers with board members and senior officials could lead to actual or perceived partiality, or antipathy, when it comes to disciplinary matters in which any of those same officers might be involved as the officer under complaint, a supporter to a subject, or a witness.

However, Angiolini’s solution to probes involving top cops – is to create a quango style panel of selected individuals – chaired by a very senior member of the judiciary or Scotland’s top judge – the Lord President – who will also appoint every one of the ‘independent’ persons to the quango style panel hearing complaints against senior cops.

From the report: The key stages of the senior officer misconduct proceedings (both misconduct and gross misconduct) should in future be removed from the responsibility of the SPA and made subject to consideration by an independent legally chaired panel appointed by a very senior member of the judiciary such as the Lord President. The Lord President should be consulted on this matter. The other members of the Panel should consist of an expert in senior policing and a lay person.

The process should follow the steps specified: 1) receipt of the complaint/allegations by SPA; 2) meaningful preliminary assessment and scrutiny of the complaint (within a strict deadline) by a senior Director; 3) prompt referral to the PIRC, or in the case of a criminal allegation to COPFS; 4) an independent investigation by the PIRC of the allegations which should remain confidential unless or until a prima facie case is established; 5) referral by the PIRC to an independent legally chaired panel and determination by the panel as to whether, in the light of the PIRC’s report, there is a case to answer of misconduct or gross misconduct; 6) a preliminary independent hearing by an independent, legally chaired panel to identify any evidence that is not in dispute and can be agreed, and any other matter which can be resolved prior to the formal hearing of the misconduct; 7) a hearing by the panel to consider the evidence, to determine the matter and if proven to decide the appropriate disciplinary action; 8) a right of appeal to a further and different legally chaired independent panel; and finally; 9) the implementation of the disciplinary action by the SPA as the “employer” of the senior officer. (Any constable may further appeal to a Police Appeals Tribunal against any decision to dismiss or demote him or her, and that should remain the case.)

The Panel should consist of independent people from other organisations or jurisdictions, and the Lord President should be consulted by the Scottish Government about the proposal that he should appoint suitable individuals. It is suggested that stages 5, 6 and 7 described in the preceding paragraph could be carried out by an independent 3-person panel comprising a legally qualified chair, one member with a senior UK policing background and one lay member; while the role of the SPA would be limited to stages 1, 2, 3 and 9. The appeal stage could also be conducted by a different independent panel appointed by the Lord President. 184. I believe that the principle of having an independent legally qualified chair for a misconduct hearing should also be extended to gross misconduct hearings for non-senior officers, that is, the rank of Chief Superintendents and below.

The Scottish Governemnt’s announcement of Elish Angiolini’s initial report mentions main points, does not allude to any relationships between the report’s author and law firms who have made millions of pounds from defending Police Officers from complaints and associated issues.

Independent review of complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing: preliminary report Published: 21 Jun 2019

Dame Elish Angiolini’s independent review addresses complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing in Scotland, in the wake of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.

Foreword

In June 2018 Michael Matheson MSP, the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and the Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC, invited me to conduct an independent review on complaints against the police in Scotland. The Review commenced in September 2018. Six years have passed since the creation of radical, new policing structures for Scotland. This is an appropriate juncture to review the effectiveness of the new systems for dealing with complaints against the police in Scotland, how well such complaints are investigated and the processes reviewed. This review also provides a significant opportunity to contribute to work on matters of profound public interest in a key area of human rights.

My mandate from the Ministers is to make recommendations that will help to strengthen public confidence in policing in Scotland. This first report makes recommendations that are preliminary. It will be followed next year by a wide‑ranging report seeking to ensure that the future legislation, regulations, guidance and practice are fit for purpose. It will also examine in detail the structures of the individual organisations charged with dealing with complaints against the police. Despite the very different responsibilities and natural tensions between the four separate organisations involved in the process, it is crucial that relationships are professional, respectful, and focused on continuous improvement of policing in Scotland and securing the rights of those they serve.

In 2017 I was asked by the then Home Secretary to carry out a review of deaths in police custody in England and Wales. In my report of that Review[1] I observed that we ask a lot of those who police us in the 21st century. The need to interact and sometimes intervene in the lives and freedom of members of the public is a daily occurrence for the police. Such duties involve the power to arrest or intervene where criminal conduct is suspected or where the welfare or life of that individual or others is at serious risk, as well as in many other emergency settings. The powers that flow from those duties are immense in their potential impact on citizens and are regulated by a complex framework of laws and regulations to prevent abuse or negligence in the exercise of those powers.

How those powers are exercised is also governed by the competence and integrity of the individual police officer as well as the wider police force within which he or she serves. In addition to law, training and guidance on how officers should approach encounters that may lead to detention, the community relies on the professionalism, wisdom, ethics and courage of police officers to approach incidents which may result in harm to the officers or others. These are often situations from which most in the community would wish to remove themselves immediately for their own personal safety. Where death or serious injury occurs for those detained by the police and, in other cases, where it is alleged the detention is unlawful, human rights considerations come into play and the state is obliged to carry out effective, timeous and independent investigations into those allegations. In those that result in death, the investigation must also be held in public and allow effective participation in the process by the next of kin of the deceased.

There is however a much wider set of complaints against the police which may involve other types of allegations of criminality. Serious complaints should also be the subject of independent investigation and consideration by a prosecution service independent of the police, others should be drawn to the attention of the prosecutor as soon as possible to allow the prosecutor to determine who should carry out the investigation. Further, members of the public who interact with the police may have complaints about the conduct or efficiency of officers or the quality of service they have received from the police service as an organisation. These matters represent the vast bulk of complaints and are principally directed at the quality of the service provided including rudeness, delay or ineffectiveness. These complaints are identified for a process which aims to be user friendly and capable of as swift and proportionate a response as possible by the police organisation itself, subject to independent supervision, audit and checks.

It can be seen therefore that the notion of a complaint against the police covers a very wide range of events, behaviours and conduct that can be very distinct from each other in character. There may also be occasions however where a combination of different categories of complaint can arise from any given situation. Similarly, the character of the complaint is not always apparent to those first to receive the intimation and further information needs to be sought or investigation undertaken before decisions are made about the route the complaint should take.

This variation in the nature of, and appropriate response to complaints, presents significant challenges for the police and appropriate agencies charged with supervising or investigating such matters; more so for any member of the public wishing to make a complaint. Any understanding of the operation of the different types of complaint and the complex routes for response flowing from the complaint has been described in another, similar context as displaying “the complexity of a wiring system from the star ship Enterprise”[2] This is certainly also the case in Scotland and it was put to this Review in evidence that “the current arrangements for handling complaints about the police are overly complex, lack clarity and can be open to a range of different interpretations”.

The vast bulk of complaints should properly be investigated by the police service itself but it is critical that those processes are clear, transparent and trusted. Independent supervision and audit is also critical. In those cases rightly requiring independent investigation the police must also provide the fullest co‑operation and assistance to allow timely and effective action. The effectiveness of the relations among and between each of the four organisations charged with these responsibilities in Scotland is also critical to success of the process. While the interaction of these organisations requires a degree of autonomy, and in respect of the COPFS and PIRC, independence from the police, independence does not equate to isolation, which undermines the independence of an organisation. In order for the independence of organisations to be maintained and enhanced, and for checks and balances to be effective, there must be regular and meaningful interaction at all levels of these agencies. There must also be mutual respect and an atmosphere of genuine co‑operation.

This preliminary report identifies and discusses a number of issues about these central matters for immediate consideration and others about which further comment is invited before the full report next year. Elish Angiolini 21 June 2019

Independent Report or Political Interference by Scottish Ministers

After an earlier attempt by Scottish Ministers to interfere in complaints reports from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, some see the Angiolini report as a new attempt by Scottish Ministers to control how investigations are handled against Police officers and particularly officers who have shown political support for Scottish Government policies.

The review of Policing complaints handling came after the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner Kate Frame spoke out on the subject of who should investigate the Police in a Sunday Post article, here: So who should police the police? In her first interview in four years, Police Scotland watchdog breaks her silence

In the interview, Kate Frame called on MSPs to review who probes misconduct claims against officers and said whistleblowers should be able to turn to investigators outside the force.

Ms Frame said: “There is a discussion to be had about whether the police should investigate themselves.

“I think that from the public’s position, they would feel an independent investigation which has not been undertaken by the police would be preferable.”

In an earlier article it was revealed Police Complaints watchdog Kate Frame had accused Scottish Ministers of interfering in her functions as Scotland’s independent Police watchdog, reported by the Sunday Post here: Emails reveal police commissioner accused Scottish government of interfering after Justice Secretary’s aide asks her to delay scathing report

In an article featuring Scottish Government interference with PIRC, the Sunday post reported “the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner had to warn one of Justice Secretary Michael Matheson’s senior civil servants to back off after he attempted to persuade her to delay the publication of a damning report.”

”Ms Frame responded to the civil servant’s suggestion that her report might be delayed by writing: “My perception of your remarks is governmental interference with my independence.”


PROBE CONFLICT: Ex Lord Advocate used same lawyers who are paid to defeat complaints by Police Union

A FORMER Lord Advocate who has links to lawyers and a suspended judge who represent the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) and cops facing complaints – has been appointed to review how complaints are handled against cops.

However, details released of the review fail to mention that Dame Elish Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) – hired Levy and Mcrae – who have been paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by Police Scotland & the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) – to get cops off the hook from complaints – including probes into deaths.

One of the lawyers linked to ex Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini – is Sheriff Peter Watson –  who was suspended from the judicial bench by  Lord Brian Gill in 2015, after being named in a £28m writ linked to bust hedge fund Heather Capital.

Watson represents Police officers facing complaints and investigations by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.

More on Elish Angiolini’s connections to law firms representing Police Officers facing complaints, and an investigation revealing she earned over £600K on inquiry appointments can be found here: PROBE CONFLICT: £604K public cash inquiry magnate Ex Lord Advocate appointed to investigate Police complaints – linked to lawyers representing cops facing complaints

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee is due to hear evidence on Monday 24 June 2019 from Elish Angiolini on the Independent review of complaints handling, investigations and misconduct issues in relation to policing.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JUDICIAL REGISTER: Justice Committee to hear evidence from ex-Judicial Investigator, top judge on judicial interests register, MSP says Scottish judges should not be involved with Gulf States implicated in unlawful wars, mistreatment of women’s rights

Need for Judges’ Register. MEMBERS of the Scottish Parliament’s powerful Justice Committee have committed to further work and action on a cross-party backed petition calling for the creation of a register of judges’ interests – Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary

The petition calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

Amid strong comments during last Tuesday’s Justice Committee meeting from MSPs supporting the need for action on judicial transparency from the seven year Scottish Parliament investigation – the Committee also decided to call for further evidence from Moi Ali – Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer, and Scotland’s top judge – Lord President Lord Carloway.

Commenting on the petition – John Finnie MSP made extensive observations on evidence presented to Justice Committee exposing involvement of senior Scottish judges in the Gulf States, and submissions from Moi Ali, and Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf.

John Finnie said: “It is very helpful to have all this information here. “There are a number of suggestions. I, for one, cannot understand what the problem with having a register would be.”

“The more people tell me that there is no issue, the more I am convinced that there is a need for a register. The submission from Moi Ali is very helpful. She refers to a letter of 23 April 2014, which is now a bit old.”

“We have also been provided with extracts from news coverage.”

“I do not agree with the idea that anyone connected with the Scottish judiciary could have any role whatsoever in the United Arab Emirates.”

“I looked yesterday at the Human Rights Watch world report, which does a country by country breakdown. The United Arab Emirates is a country that is intolerant of criticism, which has played a leading role in unlawful acts in Yemen, and whose treatment of migrant workers’ rights and women’s rights is shocking. It is a country that permits domestic violence.”

I do not think that any reasonable examination of the role of a public official—and I get the point about the separation of the judiciary—would say that involvement in such a country is acceptable.”

“I believe that we need to do something and I am not content with the cabinet secretary’s response, which is just playing out the same line as before—that there is nothing to see here and we should move on.”

“I do not think that this issue will move on until we have the openness and transparency that people rightly expect of public office.”

Adding to the debate, Daniel Johnson MSP referred to the Nolan principles, from the Committee on Standards in Public Life

Daniel Johnson said: I would like to speak in support of what my colleague John Finnie has just said.

“The Nolan principles are 25 years old this year. They are principles that have guided public life very well, in particular integrity, whereby holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties”;

“openness, which I think is self-explanatory; and honesty, whereby”

“holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest”.

“That is pretty clear. Although the cabinet secretary may well not view that there is a problem, that is not to say that this is not a positive step towards ensuring that we have a judiciary that is open and transparent and whose integrity is beyond question.”

“I absolutely believe in the independence of the judiciary, but I think that in order to maintain that integrity and independence, this step has merit in terms of transparency.

“The committee should think about taking some further evidence, certainly from Moi Ali, which is the suggestion from the petitioner. This is something that we should progress and seek to move forward.”

Liam Kerr added: “I am pretty much in the same place on this. I can see the argument for why we would take this further and hear more.”

“I have looked at the response from the cabinet secretary and the reference to the previous cabinet secretary, whose view has been that there is nothing particularly to examine here.”

“Having considered the force of the argument in favour of exploring it further, I am not convinced that it is good enough to say, “There is nothing here. Don’t worry about it.”

For that reason, I think that we should look at this in more detail.

Liam McArthur said: “I echo what Daniel Johnson has said and much of what John Finnie has said.”

“In reference to the United Arab Emirates, although I might share many of his concerns, I think that the point is that a register would be illuminating”

Minutes from the meeting reveal the Justice Committee agreed to take evidence at a future meeting on issues raised by the petition – which will occur later this year in September.

Video from the Justice Committee meeting, the full official transcript and further reporting follows:

Register of Judicial Interests Petition PE1458 Justice Committee 28 May 2019

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

The Convener (Margaret Mitchell MSP): Our final item is consideration of petition PE1458. The petition is from Mr Peter Cherbi and asks the committee to consider the merits of establishing a register of interests for members of the judiciary. I refer members to paper 4. Since we considered the petition last time, we have received additional information from Mr Cherbi and also from Moi Ali. We have also received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I invite members to comment on the correspondence and say whether they wish to make any recommendations or suggest further action.

John Finnie MSP: It is very helpful to have all this information here. There are a number of suggestions. I, for one, cannot understand what the problem with having a register would be. The more people tell me that there is no issue, the more I am convinced that there is a need for a register. The submission from Moi Ali is very helpful. She refers to a letter of 23 April 2014, which is now a bit old.

We have also been provided with extracts from news coverage. I do not agree with the idea that anyone connected with the Scottish judiciary could have any role whatsoever in the United Arab Emirates.

I looked yesterday at the Human Rights Watch world report, which does a country by country breakdown. The United Arab Emirates is a country that is intolerant of criticism, which has played a leading role in unlawful acts in Yemen, and whose treatment of migrant workers’ rights and women’s rights is shocking. It is a country that permits domestic violence.

I do not think that any reasonable examination of the role of a public official—and I get the point about the separation of the judiciary—would say that involvement in such a country is acceptable.

I believe that we need to do something and I am not content with the cabinet secretary’s response, which is just playing out the same line as before—that there is nothing to see here and we should move on. I do not think that this issue will move on until we have the openness and transparency that people rightly expect of public office.

Daniel Johnson MSP: I would like to speak in support of what my colleague John Finnie has just said.

The Nolan principles are 25 years old this year. They are principles that have guided public life very well, in particular integrity, whereby

“holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties”;

openness, which I think is self-explanatory; and honesty, whereby

“holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest”.

That is pretty clear. Although the cabinet secretary may well not view that there is a problem, that is not to say that this is not a positive step towards ensuring that we have a judiciary that is open and transparent and whose integrity is beyond question.

I absolutely believe in the independence of the judiciary, but I think that in order to maintain that integrity and independence, this step has merit in terms of transparency. The committee should think about taking some further evidence, certainly from Moi Ali, which is the suggestion from the petitioner. This is something that we should progress and seek to move forward.

Liam McArthur MSP: I echo what Daniel Johnson has said and much of what John Finnie has said. In reference to the United Arab Emirates, although I might share many of his concerns, I think that the point is that a register would be illuminating and, if there is a justification in engaging in order to improve the way in which judicial procedures operate in a third country, at least we would all know what the purpose of that engagement is.

I very much concur with what has been said about the need for transparency and the underpinnings of the Nolan principles.

I see from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service the details of the accountability report. I am not sure that that is a massive leap away from what the petition is seeking, and therefore this may be a bit of a journey that it is on, but I certainly agree that it would be worth the committee continuing to pursue this, and to take further evidence from Moi Ali.

That would seem to be a logical next step, as John Finnie suggested. The earlier evidence was in written form. It was a number of weeks ago. I believe that it would probably benefit us all to hear what she has to say and cross-examine that a little further. I would be very keen to keep the petition open.

Liam Kerr MSP: I am pretty much in the same place on this. I can see the argument for why we would take this further and hear more. I have looked at the response from the cabinet secretary and the reference to the previous cabinet secretary, whose view has been that there is nothing particularly to examine here. Having considered the force of the argument in favour of exploring it further, I am not convinced that it is good enough to say, “There is nothing here. Don’t worry about it.” For that reason, I think that we should look at this in more detail.

Fulton MacGregor MSP: I echo what others have said. John Finnie in particular made a very compelling argument for doing something further on this. Some people have commented on the cabinet secretary’s response. It is not my take on it that he is saying that there is nothing to see here, but I think that we should take more evidence and information in order to work out where to go from here. I agree with what has been said.

The Convener (Margaret Mitchell MSP): If there are no other views, I will summarise. The committee is keen to hear from Moi Ali. Her letter was dated in 2014, but she has said that it is still relevant. It would be good to get an update. The Nolan principles are 25 years old, so perhaps it is time to take some evidence from Lord Carloway, if he is prepared to give a view, and certainly from the petitioner, and to give the cabinet secretary an opportunity to respond more fully than he did in his letter. If there are any other witnesses, we will be looking to do this in September. Are we agreed that that is how we will move forward?

Members indicated agreement.

CROSS-PARTY calls are being made for all of Scotland’s judges to declare their interests:

The issue of judicial transaprency and calls for judges to declare their interests was reported in more detail on Scottish Television (STV) – full article by visiting the link here: Scots judges facing pressure to declare their interests

The STV report states: Cross-party politicians on Holyrood’s justice committee believe that increased transparency is vital to maintain public trust in the judiciary.

The committee will call Moi Ali, the former Judicial Complaints Reviewer and current Independent Assessor of Complaints at the Crown Prosecution Service, to give evidence.

She told STV News: “This is the 21st century and people have quite high expectations of openness and transparency.

“I don’t really understand why one small but very powerful section of society should be allowed not to have to do that. It really doesn’t make sense.”

SNP MSP Alex Neil plans to introduce legislation if a register is not introduced.

An in-depth investigation on judicial conflicts of interest and the need for a register of judicial interests to increase public trust in the courts, is featured on STV (full article by visiting the link below)

 Judging for ourselves if conflict of interest in courtsBy Russell Findlay

“Most people would struggle to name Scotland’s top judge or many of the other 700-plus judicial office holders who preside in our civil and criminal courts.”

“His grand title is Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General (previously Colin Sutherland, lawyer) and one of his jobs is to take the swearing-in oath of First Ministers.”

“Yet he and these other largely unknown judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace hold great power – including being able to send people to prison – and their decisions directly or indirectly impact on all our lives.”

“However, there are growing concerns about how little we know about their outside interests and concerns that these could potentially influence decisions on the bench.”

SCOTTISH JUDGES SERVING IN THE GULF STATES:

An exclusive investigation by Investigative Journalist Russell Findlay revealed Scottish judges were serving in Abu Dhabi & UAE courts while serious Human Rights abuses were taking place against British citizens in the same countries.

The investigation also reveals how Scottish and UK judges are lured to the UAE, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar with big money salaries are available here: JUDGES FOR SALE: Special investigation into top lawmen being lured with big money jobs in Qatar and the UAE and here: Scottish judges slammed for being on payroll of oppressive regimes abroad

The report reveals TOP judges are accused of selling the reputation of Scottish justice by working for Middle East countries with toxic human rights records.

Two judges are on the payroll of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where domestic violence against women is legal and where regime critics are tortured and jailed without trial.

The most senior is Lord Hope of Craighead — Scotland’s former top judge, a member of the House of Lords and ex-deputy president of the UK Supreme Court.

Our investigation found that Lord McGhie has been registered to sit in the UAE for the past two years while he was also dispensing justice at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

In recent years, retired UK judges have been increasingly lured with big paycheques to new civil courts in Qatar and the UAE states of Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

Lord Hope is chief justice of Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts which also employs Lord McGhie and six other male judges from the UK and Commonwealth.

Another former Lord President, Lord Hamilton, sits in a court in Qatar which is accused of backing international terrorism and using migrant slave labour.

The Justice Committee’s meeting of Tuesday 28 May 2019, was also reported in The National newspaper, here:

Holyrood committee advance plans for register of judges’ interests

By Martin Hannan Journalist 29 May 2019

SCOTLAND’S judges may soon have to register their interests after the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee yesterday defied Justice Minister Humza Yousaf and Scotland’s most senior judges on the issue of transparency.

Seven years after he raised a petition on the issue, journalist and legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi admitted last night he was surprised that Holyrood’s Justice Committee were going to keep his petition “live” and take the matter up with Scotland’s most senior judge, the Lord President, Lord Carloway.

Justice Minister Yousaf had told MSPs a register of interests was not necessary. Lord Carloway and his predecessors have also opposed it.

Cherbi told The National: “I am happy to hear that the Justice Committee are taking this petition forward and the supporting comments from MSPs today who clearly understand the value of bringing a register of interests to Scotland’s courts.

“Thanks to media coverage, including in the National, the issue has remained in the public eye and interest for seven years, and public debate has led to people asking why judges should exempt themselves from transparency and accountability – which are the core principles of any justice system.

“The benchmark evidence from Scotland’s first judicial complaints reviewer, Moi Ali, contributed in great measure to how the Public Petitions Committee took the work forward, with MSPs backing the petition in a major debate at Parliament, and through the seven years of work by the Public Petitions Committee.

“Perhaps it is now time for our judiciary to reflect on why they have resisted calls for transparency for seven long years.

“Where the Lord President and Scottish Government have failed to act, I look forward to the Justice Committee moving forward on this issue, and creating legislation for a publicly available register of judges’ interests, with proper rules and full, independent scrutiny in a manner which is equivalent to the register of interests which many other public servants, including our elected representatives and Scottish ministers, must sign up to.”

NOLAN PRINCIPLES

The 7 principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in:

  • the civil service
  • local government
  • the police
  • the courts and probation services
  • non-departmental public bodies
  • health, education, social and care services

The principles also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.

1. Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

2. Integrity: Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

3. Objectivity: Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

4. Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

5. Openness: Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

6. Honesty: Holders of public office should be truthful.

7. Leadership: Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

They were first set out by Lord Nolan in 1995 and they are included in the Ministerial code.

For further information on the 7 principles and the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, visit the Committee’s website and blogsite.

SEVEN YEARS JUDICIAL INTERESTS PROBE:

The judicial register petition – first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests.

A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.

The lengthy Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests has generated over sixty two submissions of evidence, at least twenty one Committee hearings, a private meeting and fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate and has since been taken over by Holyrood’s Justice Committee after a recommendation to take the issue forward from the Public Petitions Committee in March 2018.

A full report containing video footage of every hearing, speech, and evidence sessions at the Scottish Parliament on Petition PE1458 can be found here: Scottish Parliament debates, speeches & evidence sessions on widely supported judicial transparency petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland’s judiciary.

TWO TOP SCOTS JUDGES FAIL IN HOLYROOD JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY PROBE:

Both of Scotland’s recent top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for judges – even after both Lord Presidents attempted to press home the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by – judges.

Video footage and a full report on Lord Brian Gill giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament in November 2015 can be found here: JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth & interests – Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill’s evidence as “passive aggression”

Video footage and a full report on Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) giving widely criticised evidence to the Scottish Parliament in July 2017 can be found here: REGISTER TO JUDGE: Lord Carloway criticised after he blasts Parliament probe on judicial transparency – Top judge says register of judges’ interests should only be created if judiciary discover scandal or corruption within their own ranks

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JUDGE THE JUDGES: Seven years, and one year on from petition passed to Justice Committee, questions on judicial conflicts of interest & Scots judges swearing dual judicial oaths in Gulf States – time to move forward on legislation for register of judges’ interests

Seven years on – Judicial probe. OVER ONE year ago, and amid much positivity – a cross party backed public petition calling for the creation of a register of judges’ interests was passed to the Scottish Parliament’s powerful Justice Committee.

The transfer of the petition came after six years of a Scottish Parliament investigation on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary – including work and evidence heard by Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee.

The Public Petitions Committee’s support for creating a register of judicial interests and transfer of work to the Justice Committee – was reported in detail here: JUDICIAL REGISTER: Holyrood Petitions Committee calls for legislation to require Scotland’s judges to declare their interests in a register of judicial Interests

Now, SEVEN YEARS on from when the petition was first filed at Holyrood, in October 2012 – further evidence from the petitioner, and supporters of judicial transparency – urge MSPs on the Justice Committee to press ahead with work on legislation to create a publicly available register of judges’ interests.

Petition 1458 is to be considered again by members of the Justice Committee on Tuesday 28 May 2019, fourteen months after the Public Petitions Committee agreed to back the petition, and pass it to the Justice Committee for further work.

However, it was revealed last week by Justice Committee clerks – that only one of the branches of the justice system requested to give evidence by the Justice Committee had replied to MSPs request for cooperation.

From the Crown Office, to the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and even the Lord President himself – Lord Carloway –  all refused or ignored requests for evidence from the Justice Committee.

Quizzed on the work done by the Justice Committee in the last year, a Committee clerk informed the petitioner: “Before the Committee last considered your petition on 5 February, clerks approached those who have previously given evidence to the Public Petitions Committee to ask if they had anything to add to their previous submissions.”

“We approached the Lord President, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. Only the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service responded, stating that they had nothing to add”

From contact with the Justice Committee, it also emerged the Justice Secretary –  Humza Yousaf had written to MSPs, claiming judges should be allowed to judge themselves, and that the public must rely on judicial oaths & ethics – written and approved by the judiciary – instead of transparency in courts.

The Justice Secretary also, and erronesouly, claimed existing complaints rules negated the creation of a register of judges’ interests – a claim which prompted former Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali – to write to the Justice Committee in support of the petition, and to give her views on the effectiveness of judicial complaints rules.

Moi Ali’s letter was reported in further detail here: SCRUTINY FOR JUDGES: Former Judicial Complaints Reviewer to MSPs – Judicial complaints rules are no substitute for protection generated by a full register of judicial interests

Mr Yousaf also claimed in his letter that “no further evidence has been provided to the Justice Committee that strengthens the arguments already put forward in favour of the introduction of the register.”

Mr Yousaf’s letter was reported in further detail here: COPY MINISTER: ‘Copied’ content from ex Minister sent by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to Holyrood MSPs – Public must rely on judges judging judges for transparency, Scottish Government will not create register of judges’ interests

However, recent submissions to the Justice Committee including accounts of serving Scottish judges swearing dual oaths for high earning judicial posts in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and other Gulf States point to substantial new evidence submitted to MSPs, backing up the need for a full register of judicial interests.

Evidence and media reports in relation to the Gulf States service of Scottish judges was reported in more detail here: MSPs urged to take forward SEVEN year petition to create a Register of Judges’ Interests as Holyrood Justice Committee handed evidence of Scottish Judges serving in Gulf states regimes known to abuse Human Rights

Now, the petitioner has made a submission to the Justice Committee, calling on MSPs to hear further evidence if required, and take the petition forward to create legislation for a judicial interests regiser.

The full submission to the Justice Committee from the petitioner is reprinted here:

Submission re Petition PE1458 – A Register of Interests for Members of Scotland’s Judiciary

Noting the previous hearing of the petition, I am grateful to members comments in relation to openness and transparency not being a contradiction to the independence of the judiciary, and proposals by members to investigate the way other jurisdictions handle recusals and judicial declarations.

I would refer members to such jurisdictions as Norway and the USA – which both operate registers of judicial interests, and judicial recusals. I believe both could serve as a model to assist in the creation of a publicly available register of interests for Scotland’s judiciary.

Given members comments in relation to evidence collected by the Public Petitions Committee, I do feel it would be productive for the Justice Committee to hear further evidence from Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer – Moi Ali.

I believe such an evidence session would refresh members views, and support the confidence exhibited in previous expressions of cross party support during the main chamber debate on this petition in October 2014, and enhance the backing of the Public Petitions Committee in requesting the Justice Committee consider this matter.

As I have previously indicated, I believe members would also benefit by hearing in an evidence session – from Petitions Committee members whose work brought this petition forward, and hearing from MSPs such as Alex Neil – who have looked closely at how the judiciary have handled questions of transparency and conflicts of interest.

Noting the Justice Secretary’s response to the Committee, it appears unfortunate the Minister was not informed of new and widely reported evidence submitted to members in relation to senior Scottish judges holding dual judicial posts, both in Scotland and in the Gulf states – and notably with no reference to such by the Judiciary of Scotland.

It is worth noting, that due to the passage of time of this petition – considerable, and regular presentations of new evidence to the Public Petitions Committee – in relation to issues such as a lack of judicial transparency, failure of judges to interact or cooperate with parts of the Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 – particularly interaction with the Judicial Complaints Reviewer – and widely reported developments in court proceedings from conflicts of interest to failures to recuse – depict a markedly different view of the current state of judicial transparency, and how a Register of Interests would benefit both judges, and increase public confidence in the justice system.

None of these matters are in doubt. The Public Petitions Committee evidence – both in written form and live evidence sessions with witnesses – including two of Scotland’s top judges, both previous Judicial Complaints Reviewers, academics and Ministers, gave the Public Petitions Committee the confidence to support this petition and refer it to the Justice Committee for further action.

This is indeed contrary to the Scottish Government’s position that the judicial oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics and the various rules made under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 operate as a ‘safeguard’ when the overwhelming evidence is – they do not work in terms of increasing transparency, accountability or public confidence in the judiciary.

Indeed, the statistics in the Register of Recusals – created as a result of this petition – now total well over 100 instances of judicial conflicts of interest – and it is important to note we would not have known about previous to this petition and the investigative work of MSPs and the media who followed these events.

It is also worth noting the Recusals Register started out in April 2014 as a very bare reference log, without much detail – notably excluded tribunal members and still does not appear to include over 400 Justices of the Peace.

The Register of Recusals has only been reformed into the slightly more detailed state in which it currently exists, due to requests from the Public Petitions Committee, MSPs and direct discussions between myself and the Judicial Office – which I have previously provided to the Petitions Committee during their work.

Clearly, there is still much work to do on the Register of Recusals – and this may be an issue which the Justice Committee could investigate further.

Given the work by MSPs on this petition to-date, and the cumulative evidence collected by the Public Petitions Committee from witnesses and written submissions – from both sides of the debate, it is clear there is a considerable benefit to both the justice system and public expectation of transparency – to creating a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary, in a form at least as already exists for all other branches of public life, including members of the Scottish Parliament.

SCOTTISH JUDGES SERVING IN THE GULF STATES:

An exclusive investigation by Investigative Journalist Russell Findlay revealed Scottish judges were serving in Abu Dhabi & UAE courts while serious Human Rights abuses were taking place against British citizens in the same countries.

The investigation also reveals how Scottish and UK judges are lured to the UAE, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar with big money salaries are available here: JUDGES FOR SALE: Special investigation into top lawmen being lured with big money jobs in Qatar and the UAE and here: Scottish judges slammed for being on payroll of oppressive regimes abroad

The report reveals TOP judges are accused of selling the reputation of Scottish justice by working for Middle East countries with toxic human rights records.

Two judges are on the payroll of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where domestic violence against women is legal and where regime critics are tortured and jailed without trial.

The most senior is Lord Hope of Craighead — Scotland’s former top judge, a member of the House of Lords and ex-deputy president of the UK Supreme Court.

Our investigation found that Lord McGhie has been registered to sit in the UAE for the past two years while he was also dispensing justice at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

In recent years, retired UK judges have been increasingly lured with big paycheques to new civil courts in Qatar and the UAE states of Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

Lord Hope is chief justice of Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts which also employs Lord McGhie and six other male judges from the UK and Commonwealth.

Another former Lord President, Lord Hamilton, sits in a court in Qatar which is accused of backing international terrorism and using migrant slave labour.

SEVEN YEAR TRANSPARENCY PETITION:

The judicial register petition – first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests.

A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.

The lengthy Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests has generated over sixty two submissions of evidence, at least twenty one Committee hearings, a private meeting and fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate and has since been taken over by Holyrood’s Justice Committee after a recommendation to take the issue forward from the Public Petitions Committee in March 2018.

A full report containing video footage of every hearing, speech, and evidence sessions at the Scottish Parliament on Petition PE1458 can be found here: Scottish Parliament debates, speeches & evidence sessions on widely supported judicial transparency petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland’s judiciary.

The judicial register of interests would contain 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.

TOP SCOTS JUDGES FAIL IN HOLYROOD TRANSPARENCY PROBE:

Both of Scotland’s recent top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for judges – even after both Lord Presidents attempted to press home the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by – judges.

Video footage and a full report on Lord Brian Gill giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament in November 2015 can be found here: JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth & interests – Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill’s evidence as “passive aggression”

Video footage and a full report on Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) giving widely criticised evidence to the Scottish Parliament in July 2017 can be found here: REGISTER TO JUDGE: Lord Carloway criticised after he blasts Parliament probe on judicial transparency – Top judge says register of judges’ interests should only be created if judiciary discover scandal or corruption within their own ranks

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

SCRUTINY FOR JUDGES: Former Judicial Complaints Reviewer to MSPs – Judicial complaints rules are no substitute for protection generated by a full register of judicial interests

Ex-Judicial Reviewer – register judges. SCOTLAND’S first Judicial Complaints Reviewer – Moi Ali – has hit out at suggestions complaints rules for judges act as a safeguard against judicial impropriety in place of a register of judges’ interests.

Writing in a letter to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – Ms Ali said she was moved to contact MSPs after reading a letter from Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to MSPs, claiming complaints rules for judges make a register of judicial interests unnecessary.

Moi Ali wrote: “In 2014 when I was Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I wrote to the Public Petitions Committee in support of the Register.”

“I was moved at that time to write in response to the then Justice Secretary’s submission to the Committee that such a register was unnecessary.”

“He cited the complaints rules as being one of the three safeguards that made a register unnecessary.”

“Today I have been prompted to write this letter having seen the current Justice Secretary’s almost identically-worded submission to this committee.”

“It is simply not the case that the complaints rules offer protections such that a register of interest is not required.”

Ms Ali ends her letter by telling MSPs: “I hope that the committee will see that requiring the judiciary to meet the same standards of transparency as others in public life will in no way compromise their independence.”

Moi Ali also submitted a letter she wrote during her term as Justice Secretary, in response to previous end erroneous claims by Kenny MacAskill to MSPs which have since been repeated by Humza Yousaf.

In her letter to the Public Petitions Committee, Ms Ali states: “I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.”

“The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people’s assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.”

“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. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case – financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”

Humza Yousaf’s letter to Margaret Mitchell MSP, Convener of the Justice Committee – repeated the claims by former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill that complaints rules for the judiciary meant there was no requirement to create a register of interests for judges.

The letter from the Justice Secretary to Holyrood’s Justice Committee was reported in depth here: COPY MINISTER: ‘Copied’ content from ex Minister sent by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to Holyrood MSPs – Public must rely on judges judging judges for transparency, Scottish Government will not create register of judges’ interests

In the letter, Justice Secretary – Humza Yousaf – told Holyrood’s Justice Committee that judges should be allowed to judge themselves, and the public must rely on judicial oaths & ethics – written and approved by the judiciary – instead of transparency in the courts.

The judicial register petition – first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests.

The judicial register of interests would contain 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, backing in the media, and crucial support from two of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewers – including Moi Ali

Moi Ali – who served as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) – appeared before the Public Petitions Committee in a hard hitting evidence session during September 2013,and gave her backing to the proposals calling for the creation of a register of judicial interests.– reported here: Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life.

The lengthy Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests has generated over sixty two submissions of evidence, at least twenty one Committee hearings, a private meeting and fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate and has since been taken over by Holyrood’s Justice Committee after a recommendation to take the issue forward from the Public Petitions Committee in March 2018.

A full report containing video footage of every hearing, speech, and evidence sessions at the Scottish Parliament on Petition PE1458 can be found here: Scottish Parliament debates, speeches & evidence sessions on widely supported judicial transparency petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland’s judiciary.

MSP at Holyrood have previously heard over sixty two submissions of evidence, during twenty one Committee hearings, and a private meeting between two MSPs and a top judge, and two private meetings since early December 2017 to decide a way forward on their six year investigation.

Cross party support for the Petition at the Scottish Parliament saw fifteen speeches by MSPs during a full Holyrood debate spanning from 2012 to 2018.

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.

Holyrood’s Justice Committee are due to consider Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary on Tuesday 28 May next week.

Moi Ali’s full letter to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee reads as follows:

The following submission is for the consideration of the Justice Committee when it meets on 28 May 2019 to discuss a register of interests for the judiciary.

In 2014 when I was Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I wrote to the Public Petitions Committee in support of the Register.

I was moved at that time to write in response to the then Justice Secretary’s submission to the Committee that such a register was unnecessary.

He cited the complaints rules as being one of the three safeguards that made a register unnecessary.

Today I have been prompted to write this letter having seen the current Justice Secretary’s almost identically-worded submission to this committee.

It is simply not the case that the complaints rules offer protections such that a register of interest is not required.

Rather than repeat the arguments again, I have attached the letter I wrote in 2014. It remains as relevant today as it did at back then.

I hope that the committee will see that requiring the judiciary to meet the same standards of transparency as others in public life will in no way compromise their independence.

Yours, Moi Ali

The following is the letter sent by Moi Ali in her capacity as Judicial Complaints Reviewer, to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament, who were considering the petition to create a register of judicial interests:

Assistant Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, Scottish Parliament

Consideration of Petition PE1458

I understand that the Committee is due to consider this petition again shortly. In view of this, and in response to the Cabinet Secretary’s letter of 22nd April 2014, this is an opportune time to pull together the reasons why the Judicial Complaints Reviewer believes that a register of interests for the judiciary is essential.

I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.

I think it likely that the number of complaints against the judiciary would fall were there to be a published register of interest for judicial office holders. I have received complaints about perceived conflicts of interest that have come to light after court proceedings. A register of interests would allow issues to be dealt with at the time, thus averting the need for a complaint. That would be good for the judiciary and for the public.

The position of the judiciary is incredibly powerful. They have the power to take away people’s assets, to separate families, to lock people away for years. Some of these people will not have committed a crime. They may be women who want protection from abusing partners, fathers who want access to their children, or people whose home is at stake due to various legal or family wrangles. People going through the court system face stress and anxiety, perhaps financial pressures, and fear about the future. Their perspective is important and must be a consideration in this matter.

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. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case – financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice states that there are sufficient safeguards already in place, citing the complaints rules as one of these safeguards. As the person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary to review complaints handled under these rules, I can say from experience over nearly three years that the rules are not fit for purpose. I have attached a document I prepared in December 2013, following consultation with members of the public who had made complaints under these rules, to support this assertion.

The Judicial Office’s published statistics demonstrate either that judicial conduct is exemplary, and the public vexatious or unable to understand the rules; or they show that the rules are not fit for purpose. I suggest that it is the latter. For the first year in which the Rules were operational (a 13-month period to 31st March 2012), 107 conduct complaints were made to the Judicial Office and 98 were completed during that year. With one exception, all of them were dismissed without investigation. Only one investigation was carried out, following which the complaint was dismissed as “unsubstantiated”.

The latest statistics have yet to be published, but year two figures (to March 31st 2013) show that 114 complaints were made (plus the 9 carried over from year 1). Of 116 concluded during the year, only 11 were investigated. Four of the 11 were still underway at year-end, meaning that 7 investigations were completed in Year 2. Of the 7, one was withdrawn; 2 resolved informally; and 4 were reported to the Lord President. Of the 4 reported to the Lord President, 3 were deemed to be without substance, unsubstantiated or vexatious. For the one remaining complaint, an apology was offered by the judicial office holder and the Lord President deemed that no further action was required.

In summary, in the first 25 months of the new complaints regime, the Judicial Office’s published statistics show that of 221 complaints there were 12 investigations, one judicial office holder apologised for his or her conduct and no judicial office holders were disciplined.

My experience in this office leads me to the conclusion that the rules are not a sufficient safeguard. But even if they were, particularly when combined with the judicial oath and the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics, why not go further in enhancing transparency and accountability?

There are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent members of public boards from acting inappropriately – such as robust audit committees, external scrutiny and regulation, board meetings held in public and a rigorous appointments process. Nevertheless, such members are still required – and rightly so – to complete a publicly accessible register of interests in order to demonstrate transparency and accountability. It is right that public appointees and elected politicians are required to do this, and it is also right that the judiciary should too. Registers of interest are the norm now and the judiciary is out of step with standard practice. This undermines their standing with the public.

For all of the above reasons, it is in the interests both of the judiciary and of the public for there to be a register of interests.

I have been frank about my views in this letter, and I hope that I have not given the impression that I do not have a great deal of respect for the judiciary and the difficult work that they undertake for the greater good of society. Their work is essential, their independence vital. An independent judiciary underpins a civilised society. But with independence goes accountability, and a register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability.

I will be standing down from my role as JCR in the summer, but until that time I am happy to provide further information to the committee if that would be helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Moi Ali, Judicial Complaints Reviewer

TOP SCOTS JUDGES FAIL IN HOLYROOD TRANSPARENCY PROBE:

Both of Scotland’s recent top judges failed to convince MSPs that a register of interests is not required for judges – even after both Lord Presidents attempted to press home the existence of judicial oaths and ethics – which are both written, and approved by – judges.

Video footage and a full report on Lord Brian Gill giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament in November 2015 can be found here: JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth & interests – Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill’s evidence as “passive aggression”

Video footage and a full report on Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) giving widely criticised evidence to the Scottish Parliament in July 2017 can be found here: REGISTER TO JUDGE: Lord Carloway criticised after he blasts Parliament probe on judicial transparency – Top judge says register of judges’ interests should only be created if judiciary discover scandal or corruption within their own ranks

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

COPY MINISTER: ‘Copied’ content from ex Minister sent by Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf to Holyrood MSPs – Public must rely on judges judging judges for transparency, Scottish Government will not create register of judges’ interests

Judges should judge judges – Minister. SCOTLAND’S Justice Secretary – Humza Yousaf – has told Holyrood’s Justice Committee that judges should be allowed to judge themselves, and the public must rely on judicial oaths & ethics – written and approved by the judiciary – instead of transparency in courts.

The Justice Secretary’s letter of 3 April to Holyrood MSPs, which was released only late last week – also states the Scottish Government willnot create a register of judicial interests in response to the widely supported Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

However, it has emerged Humza Yousaf’s letter of April 2019 – is almost a duplicate of a letter sent in April 2014 by Kenny MacAskill during his time as Justice Secretary.

The recent letter from Mr Yousaf to Margaret Mitchel MSP – Convener of the Justice Committee, effectively re-states the Scottish Government’s refusal to create a register of judges’ interests.

Mr Yousaf also claims in his letter that “no further evidence has been provided to the Justice Committee that strengthens the arguments already put forward in favour of the introduction of the register.”

However, recent submissions to the Justice Committee including accounts of serving Scottish judges swearing dual oaths for high earning judicial posts in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and other Gulf States point to substantial new evidence submitted to MSPs, backing up the need for a full register of judicial interests.

Clerks to the Justice Committee were quizzed on the content of Mr Yousaf’s claims in relation to no new evidence.

In response, a Justice Committee clerk told the petitioner: “Your submission was publicly available to the Scottish Government to refer to, before the Cabinet Secretary provided the letter dated 3 April”

It has also emerged the Lord President – Lord Carloway, and others including the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Crown Office and others have refused to engage with the Justice Committee’s call for views on creating a register of judges’ interests.

A clerk for the Justice Committee informed the petitioner: “Before the Committee last considered your petition on 5 February, clerks approached those who have previously given evidence to the Public Petitions Committee to ask if they had anything to add to their previous submissions.”

“We approached the Lord President, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. Only the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service responded, stating that they had nothing to add”

Mr Yousaf’s letter of 3 April 2019 to the Justice Committee reads as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 20 February seeking my views on the above petition and whether it remains the Scottish Government’s position that a register should not be introduced.

I have given consideration to the matter and I don’t think it is necessary to establish a register of interests. I share the views of both of my predecessors that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary.

These safeguards are the judicial oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics and the various rules made under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 which concern complaints about the judiciary and judicial conduct.

I note that no further evidence has been provided to the Justice Committee that strengthens the arguments already put forward in favour of the introduction of the register.

However, the “the various rules made under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 which concern complaints about the judiciary and judicial conduct” – which include the post of Judicial Complaints Reviewer – remain unchanged since Scotland’s first JCR – Moi Ali gave evidence to the Public Petitions  Committee during 2013.

And, during her time as Judicial Complaints Reviewer – Moi Ali requested increated powers from the Scottish Government – to give the office of JCR a more formidable and independent oversight role on complaints against judges – only to be turned down by the then Justice Secretary – Kenny MacAskill.

The request by Moi Ali to increase powers of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer ws reported here: Scottish Government urged to give more powers to Judicial Complaints Reviewer as MSPs hear lack of judicial scrutiny undermines public confidence in justice system

An earlier letter of 22 April 2014 from Kenny MacAskill – who was Justice Secretary from 17 May 2007 until ‘stepping down’ sacked from the post on 21 November 2014 – to David Stewart MSP – then Convener of the Public Petitions Committee reads as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 6 March 2014 regarding the above Public Petition. I apologise for the delay in responding.

You ask whether the Scottish Government will review its position on whether members of the judiciary ought to register their interests. I note the evidence the Committee has gathered on this issue and, in particular, the arguments presented by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) that a register of interests would increase transparency and public trust in the judiciary.

The JCR considers that there is merit in a register of interests for members of the judiciary. I do not think it necessary to establish such a register. I continue to be of the view that there are already sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary.

These have been set out in previous correspondence and comprise the judicial oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics and the rules made under the 2008 Act. I do not consider that the case has been made that these existing safeguards are not effective.

It is of note, that after being kicked from the post of Justice Secretary – Kenny MacAskill ended up on the same Public Petitions Committee which was considering the petition calling for a register of judicial interests.

And, during a hearing of the Petitions Committee on 1 December 2015 – MacAskill – by now devoid of Ministerial rank – suggested calling the new Lord President – who was yet to be publicly identified at the time due to the appointments process – but was known to be Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland)

The post of Lord President – with a salary of £220K per year – became vacant after Lord Brian Gill unexpectedly walked out of the top judicial post in May 2015 – giving only 30 days notice he intended to quit.

The 1 December 2015 hearing was reported in more detail here : EVIDENCE, M’LORD: Scotland’s next top judge to be asked to give evidence in Scottish Parliament’s probe on secretive world of undeclared judicial wealth, interests & judges’ links to big business

Video footage of Mr MacAskill at the Public Petitions Committee in that meeting can be found here:

Petition PE1458 Register of Interests for Judges Public Petitions Committee Holyrood 1 Dec 2015

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458) 1 December 2015

The Convener: Our next petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on the creation of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note on the committee’s previous consideration of the petition and the submissions from the petitioner.

Do members have any comments?

Kenny MacAskill: We have heard from the previous Lord President and I think that we should hear from the new Lord President, whoever he is likely to be—I do not think that there is a “she” on the shortlist. That appointment is likely to be made in the next week or so, so there is still time for him to appear before us.

The Convener: In that case, we will write to the new Lord President, as we said that we would.

Decision: The Committee agreed to write to the new Lord President once appointed.

PETITION – A REGISTER OF JUDGES’ INTERESTS

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee are currently investigating calls for a probe of Judicial Recusals, as part of their work on considering Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

The proposal, first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee and Justice Committee work in  relation to creating a Register of Judges’ Interests – can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RECUSAL REGISTER: Senators, Judges, Sheriffs & Tribunal members now declare more recusal detail in Conflict of Interest Register – as Holyrood Justice Committee probe petition to create a Register of Judges’ Interests

Judges’ conflicts of interest declared. SCOTLAND’S judiciary leads the rest of the United Kingdom in one area of transparency – the publication of Judicial ‘Recusals’ – the term used to describe when a judge or tribunal member has a conflict of interest and must stand aside from hearing a case.

Currently, around one hundred and seventy five recusals of judges and tribunal members have been recorded in the Register of Recusals – which is kept up to date by the Judiciary of Scotland here: Judicial Recusals – Judiciary of Scotland

The Register of Recusals came into being – albeit grudgingly – after Scotland’s now former top judge Lord Brian Gill – held an unprecedented private meeting with Committee Conveners during early 2014.

Gill created the Register of Recusals – as a response to growing calls for MSPs to press ahead with a petition calling for all judges to declare their interests in a publicly available register – Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

However, later in the same year, top judge Lord Brian Gill was forced to recuse himself from a case in which his own son – Advocate Brian Gill – represented one of the parties involved in an action – the details of which, and identities of the parties involved, were kept secret from media enquiries at the time in 2014.

Only recently, with again – grudging reforms to the Recusals Register, enacted only after requests from MSPs and direct discussions between the Judicial Interests petitioner and the Judicial Office itself, do we now know the identities of litigants, case references and extra details now published in the Recusals Register.

Whatever was so secret about publishing the fact the Lord President’s son represented a party in Belhaven Brewery v Assessor for Ayrshire XA 72/14 – causing the recusal of his father Lord Brian Gill from the bench, is still to be adequately explained – but we now know who were involved, just – not the ‘why’.

However, despite recent promises from the Judicial Office that Justices of the Peace – numbering well over 400 – were to be included in the Regster of Recisals – there are, strangely and without explanation, no references whatsoever to one single Justice of the Peace being the subject of a recusal.

Furthermore when enquiries were made of the Judicial Office to reveal more detailsof the JPs, all communications from the Head of Governance stopped after it was queried why no JPs had recused – sparking another mystery to be solved.

The lack of recusals in relation to Justices of the Peace was reported in more detail here : THE UNRECUSED: Mystery as 450 Justices of the Peace fail to register one single recusal in a full year after conflict of interest rules change for Scotland’s secretive army of lay magistrates

Additionally – and worryingly for those who prefer honesty with their judiciary – there is not a single mention of any of the judges who were forced to stand aside in the hearings relating to a multi million pound damages claim against the Lord Advocate and Scotland’s Chief ConstableA295/16 David Whitehouse (represented by Urquharts) v Liam Murphy &c (represented by Ledingham Chambers for SGLD – Scottish Government Legal Directorate)

The case related to legal action taken by former Rangers Administrator David Whitehouse – for wrongful arrest and financial damages against Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC and the Chief Constable of Police Scotland.

A media investigation revelaed the case was incredibly scheduled to be heard by the Lord Advocate’s wife – Lady Sarah Wolffe – who is a judge in the Court of Session.

The case was reported in more detail here: WOLFFE COURT: Lord Advocate James Wolffe and his judge wife at centre of £9million damages claim – Questions remain why Lady Wolffe avoided recusal during emergency judge swap on court case against her own husband

It then emerged a series of judge swapping on the case, saw hearings passed from Lady Sarah Wolffe, to Lady Morag Wise, then Lord Paul Arthurson – and then to a FOURTH judge – Lord Sidney Neil Brailsford.

Yet, despite the blatant conflicts of interest in relation to the Lord Advocate’s own wife who was set to hear the case – there is – importantly – not one mention or reference, even a backdated note, within the Register of Recusals – to explain why, eventually – Lady Wolffe had to step aside from the case yet failed to issue a proper recusal for doing so.

Bizarrely, the case ultimately fell to be heard by Lord Malcolm – made famous after the judge – who’s real name is Colin Campbell QC – heard a case up to eight times where his son represented the defenders – yet saying nothing in court.

Another case which revealed significant problems with how the Judicial Office kept records of judicial recusals was that of an instance involving Lord Bracadale – where, only after media enquiries to the Judicial Office Press Chief, was it admitted a case in which Lord Bracadale had stepped aside from hearing, was not recorded in the Register of  Recusals.

After admitting the ‘mistake’ of failing to record the recusal by Lord Bracadale, clerks for the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service then silently updated the Recusals Register, a year later, and without any note that the recusal had been amended after the ‘mistake’ had been investigated by the media.

The Bracadale recusal issue was reported in greater detail here: RECUSALS UNLIMITED: Doubts over credibility of register of judges’ recusals – as Judicial Office admit court clerks failed to add details of senior judges recusals – then silently altered records a year later.

It is worth noting, Lord Carloway was asked questions about the failure to record Lord Bracadale’s recusal, during the Lord President’s evidence hearing with the Public Petitions Committee in July 2017.

Lord Carloway’s could not offer a satisfactory response, and it is worth noting the Head of Judicial Communications resigned her post during queries into why the Bracadale recusal had been concealed from the publicly available Register of Recusals.

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee are currently investigating calls for a probe of Judicial Recusals, as part of their work on considering Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

The proposal, first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee and Justice Committee work in  relation to creating a Register of Judges’ Interests – can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.

The current list of Judicial Recusals as of the date of publication of this article lists the following members of thejudiciary, court locations, case references, and reaons for their recusal due to a conflict of interest:

Judicial Recusals 2014

DATE COURT & TYPE OF ACTION JUDGE CASE NAME & REF MOTION BY & REASON
24/03/2014 Livingston Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Edington A v B* Defender; Sheriff drew to the parties’ attention a possible difficulty, namely the wife of one of the other resident Sheriffs was the author of a report contained with the proces s . T h e Sheriff asked parties if they wished him to recuse himself. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse himself, which he then did.
08/04/2014 Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Veal PF v Richard Hughes SCS/2013/148273 Ex proprio motu**; Sheriff personally known to a witness
10/04/2014 Selkirk Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Paterson MacDonald v Dickson PBL A11/13 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had acted for a client in a previous dispute against the Pursuer
23/04/2014 High Court of Justiciary (Appeal) Lady Wise Barry Hughes v Her Majesty’s Advocate H CA/2014-001480- XC Ex proprio motu; Senator had previously acted for a relative of accused
16/04/2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cathcart HMA v Michael J J Houston GLW 2013/013251; GLW2013/015913; GLW 2014/003566 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to the a witness
13/04/2014 Haddington Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Braid C v D* Ex p rop rio motu; Sheriff known to pursuer’s family
14/05/2014 High Court of Justiciary (Criminal) Temporary Judge MacIver Mateusz Zborowski v Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh HCA/2014­002089/XT Ex proprio motu; Conflict of interest
20/05/2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Matthews E v F* Ex p ro p ri o motu; Senator personally known to a witness
19/06/2014 Dingwall Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff N McPartlin PF v Carl J Wheatley SCS/2013-110134 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff presided over a trial involving the accused, where the issue to which the instant case relates was spoken to by a witness
20/06/2014 Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Raeburn QC PF Elgin v Alistair Simpson

SCS/2014-011055

Ex proprio motu; Accused appeared before the Sheriff as a wi tn e ss in a recent trial relating to the same incident.
24/06/2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff P V Crozier HMA v Paul Daniels GLW 2014 – 007144 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to proprietor of premises libelled in the charge.
26/06/2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Gill Belhaven Brewery v Assessor for Ayrshire XA 72/14 Ex proprio motu; Relative of Senator acts for the respondent
27/08/2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Brailsford G v H* Ex proprio motu; Senator personally known to husband of th e p u rs u e r
28/08/2014 Oban Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff W D Small Etonella Christlieb A22/14 & A23/14 Ex p ro p ri o m otu ; S heriff personally known to a party.
28/08/2014 Oban Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff W D Small PF v Etonella Christlieb OBN2014-000138 Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party of the action
22/10/2014 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cowan PF v George Mutch SCS/2013/-110352 Defender; Sheriff drew to parties’ attention that she was a member of the RSPB before commencement of a trial as the case involved an investigation carried out by the RSPB and many witnesses were RSPB officers. She invited parties to consider whether she should take the trial. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse herself, which she then did.
08/12/2014 Alloa Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff D Mackie I v J* Ex proprio motu; Contemporaneous and overlapping proceedings comprising an appeal and a referral from the children’s hearing relating to children from the same family.
16/12/2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lady Clark of Calton Petition: Thomas Orr & another for Order Under Companies Act

P1769/08

Ex proprio motu; Senator personally known to parties of the action.
 

Judicial Recusals 2014

DATE COURT & TYPE OF ACTION JUDGE CASE NAME & REF MOTION BY & REASON
24/03/2014 Livingston Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Edington A v B* Defender; Sheriff drew to the parties’ attention a possible difficulty, namely the wife of one of the other resident Sheriffs was the author of a report contained with the proces s . T h e Sheriff asked parties if they wished him to recuse himself. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse himself, which he then did.
08/04/2014 Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Veal PF v Richard Hughes SCS/2013/148273 Ex proprio motu**; Sheriff personally known to a witness
10/04/2014 Selkirk Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Paterson MacDonald v Dickson PBL A11/13 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had acted for a client in a previous dispute against the Pursuer
23/04/2014 High Court of Justiciary (Appeal) Lady Wise Barry Hughes v Her Majesty’s Advocate H CA/2014-001480- XC Ex proprio motu; Senator had previously acted for a relative of accused
16/04/2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cathcart HMA v Michael J J Houston GLW 2013/013251; GLW2013/015913; GLW 2014/003566 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to the a witness
13/04/2014 Haddington Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Braid C v D* Ex p rop rio motu; Sheriff known to pursuer’s family
14/05/2014 High Court of Justiciary (Criminal) Temporary Judge MacIver Mateusz Zborowski v Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh HCA/2014­002089/XT Ex proprio motu; Conflict of interest
20/05/2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Matthews E v F* Ex p ro p ri o motu; Senator personally known to a witness
19/06/2014 Dingwall Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff N McPartlin PF v Carl J Wheatley SCS/2013-110134 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff presided over a trial involving the accused, where the issue to which the instant case relates was spoken to by a witness
20/06/2014 Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Raeburn QC PF Elgin v Alistair Simpson

SCS/2014-011055

Ex proprio motu; Accused appeared before the Sheriff as a wi tn e ss in a recent trial relating to the same incident.
24/06/2014 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff P V Crozier HMA v Paul Daniels GLW 2014 – 007144 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to proprietor of premises libelled in the charge.
26/06/2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Gill Belhaven Brewery v Assessor for Ayrshire XA 72/14 Ex proprio motu; Relative of Senator acts for the respondent
27/08/2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lo rd Brailsford G v H* Ex proprio motu; Senator personally known to husband of th e p u rs u e r
28/08/2014 Oban Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff W D Small Etonella Christlieb A22/14 & A23/14 Ex p ro p ri o m otu ; S heriff personally known to a party.
28/08/2014 Oban Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff W D Small PF v Etonella Christlieb OBN2014-000138 Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party of the action
22/10/2014 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Cowan PF v George Mutch SCS/2013/-110352 Defender; Sheriff drew to parties’ attention that she was a member of the RSPB before commencement of a trial as the case involved an investigation carried out by the RSPB and many witnesses were RSPB officers. She invited parties to consider whether she should take the trial. The defenders, having considered the issue, made a motion for the Sheriff to recuse herself, which she then did.
08/12/2014 Alloa Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff D Mackie I v J* Ex proprio motu; Contemporaneous and overlapping proceedings comprising an appeal and a referral from the children’s hearing relating to children from the same family.
16/12/2014 Court of Session (Civil) Lad y Clark of Calton Petition: Thomas Orr & another for Order Under Companies Act

P1769/08

Ex proprio motu; Senator personally known to parties of the action.
 

Judicial Recusals 2015

DATE COURT & TYPE OF ACTION JUDGE CASE NAME & REF MOTION BY & REASON
22/01/2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Extradition) Sheriff Maciver Poland v Lukasz Kosowski **Ex proprio motu; Sheriff involved in case at earlier stage of proceedings
30/01/2015 Dumfries Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff G Jamieson Browns Hairdressers v Lauren Brown A82/13 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had previously dealt with the issue under dispute
06/02/2015 Greenock Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff I M Fleming Helen Humphreys v Norna Crabba B593/14 Ex proprio motu; Previous professional relationship between Sheriff’s former firm of solicitors and the defender
10/02/2015 High Court of Justiciary (Criminal) Lady Scott HMA v John McGregor IND2014-3553 Ex proprio motu; Due to a previous ruling made by the Senator in relation to a separate indictment against the accused
10/02/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Jones Steven Paterson v David MacLeod & ors PD812/13 Pursuer; Due to a previous finding by the Senator in relation an expert witness whose evidence is crucial to the pursuer’s case
13/03/2015 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff A Cowan HMA v John Paris Lyon SCS-2015/012519 Ex proprio motu; Accused known by the Sheriff as a reg u l a r observer of court proceedings from the public gallery
17/03/2015 Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Di Emidio PF v Kevin R Hutcheon SCS 2014-110800 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness
18/03/2015 Lerwick Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Mann PF v William McCover Ler-2015/000142 Ex proprio motu; Circumstance may give rise to a suggestion of bias.
16/04/2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Arthurson QC David H Kidd v Ronald G Clancy QC SC74/15 Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party of the a ct i on
12/05/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Boyd of Duncansby K v L* Defender; Senator was Lord Advocate when a successful prosecution was brought against one of the respondents.
14/05/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Brailsford M v N* Defender; Senator previously involved in this case.
14/05/2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff McColl David H Kidd v Ronald G Clancy QC SC74/15 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a party of the action
27/05/2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff F Crowe CEC v James McMillan SD738/14 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had previously deal with a case in which the defender was a witness
29/05/2015 Glasgow Sheriff Court (FAI) Sheriff Principal Scott QC FAI – Glasgow Bin Lorry Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to one of the deceased
04/06/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Glennie Marshall Ronald v Duke of Buccleugh Ex proprio motu; Senator is an acquaintance of a party to the action
04/06/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Burns Marshall Ronald v Duke of Buccleugh Ex proprio motu; Senator previously acted as defence counsel in a criminal trial involving the pursuer
24/07/2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff K M Maciver PF v James McKinstry Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a party in the case
11/08/2015 Banff Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Mann PF v James J Duguid SCS/2015-086256 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a party of the action, having previously acted on behalf of the family while in private practice
21/08/2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Mackie GE Money Secured Loans Limited v Kenneth More & Shirely More B64/15 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff in dispute with pursuer
28/08/2015 Dundee Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Murray PF v Peter Whyte and Helen Williams SCS-2015/088655 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness
03/09/2015 Dumbarton Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Turnbull O v P* Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had previously acted for client in a dispute against the pursuer
04/09/2015 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Mackie GE Money Home Lending Ltd v Susan Glancy B1078/15 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff involved in a dispute against a party to the action
15/09/2015 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Stirling PF v Graham Gordon SCS/2015008686 D efender; Sheriff previously considered and refused i s s u e s wh i ch the accused wished to revisit
01/10/2015 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff W. J. Taylor PF v Stanley Lawrence SCS/2014098082 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff was privy to certain i nfo rmati o n a b o ut the accused’s credibility
08/10/2015 Lanark Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Stewart PF v Laura Harrower LAN2015-000186 Ex proprio motu; Accused made complaints against the Sheriff and staff
12/10/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lady Clark of Calton Rehab Abdel-Rahman for Judicial Review P833/11 Ex proprio motu; Senator an acquaintance of a party to the action
20/10/2015 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Crozier HMA v Gilmour and Dean SCS-2015/103172 Ex p ropri o motu; S h eriff personally known to a director of the accused’s company
20/10/2015 Inverness Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Sutherland Church street investments v Julie Doughty SA296-15 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a party of the action
12/11/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Malcolm MacRoberts LLP v McCrindle Group Ltd CA133/12 Ex proprio motu; Senator acted as Senior Counsel for the defenders in a related action
18/11/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Boyd of Duncansby Petition: Hunt for Judicial Review Ex proprio motu; Relative of Senator involved in the action
26/11/2015 Inverness Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff G Fleetwood The MacKenzie Law Practice v John Holden SA163/15 Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party of the action
27/11/2015 Court of Session (Civil) Lady Paton William Beggs v Scottish Information Commissioner XA105/14 Ex proprio motu after intimation to parties and a negative response from the Pursuer; Senator was on the bench for an appeal against conviction by the Pursuer
09/12/2015 Wick Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Berry PF v Martin McGowan 2015/00289 Ex proprio motu; Complainer personally known to the Sheriff
22/12/2015 Lanark Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Stewart Q v R[1] [2] Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to both parties of the action
 

Judicial Recusals 2016

DATE COURT & TYPE OF ACTION JUDGE CASE NAME & REF MOTION BY & REASON
26/01/2016 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Uist Andrew MacLeod v Graham Douglas & another A356/14 Pursuer; Senator dealt with same issue and same witnesses in a case being appealed
27/01/2016 Dumbarton Sheriff Court Sheriff Gallacher Daniel Macaulay v Robert Whitton & Margaret Whitton SA653/15 **Ex proprio motu; Sheriff involved in previous proceedings
09/02/2016 Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Pasportnikov PF v Katie & Andrew O’Hare

SCS/2015-137949

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over related case
10/02/2016 Elgin Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Pasportnikov PF v Scott Bate SCS2015- 137058 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over a recent criminal and civil case.
18/03/2016 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Ross S v T* Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over criminal matter involving appellant
18/03/2016 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff A Stirling Dandara Ltd

AB15009178/SCS – 2015 – 1552552

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over civil matter involving accused
14/04/2016 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Braid PF v John Wyse SCS/2016-041402 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously dealt with the accused in a previous case.
25/04/2016 Ayr Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Montgomery Thomas Port and Catherine Port v Steven Easton and Easton Kitchens and Bathrooms A147/15 Joint motion; Sheriff previously acted for the defender as a solicitor
03/05/2016 Lanark Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff N C Stewart PF v Alexander Law Law/2015-000463 Ex proprio motu; Complainer previously represented by Sheriff’s husband
20/05/2016 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Bracadale Donal Nolan v Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd CA132/11 On the pursuer’s motion in relation to the judge’s previous decision to refuse the pursuer’s appeal at a procedural hearing
23/05/2016 Forfar Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff P Di Emidio HMA v Alexander Sturrock SCS 2016-044654 Ex p ro p rio motu; Sheriff previously granted a search warra n t a n d i s be i n g ch a l l e n ged by the accused
13/06/2016 Glasgow Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff S Reid Norna Crabbe v Alexander Reid & Others A8111/07 P ursuer; Personally known to a witness
22/06/2016 Perth Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff David Clapham Commercial Legal Centre LLP v Cargo Bar Ltd SA5616 Ex proprio motu; Pursuer known to Sheriff
09/08/2016 Dunoon Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Thomas Ward Derke Rodger v Capercaille Books Limited A14/15 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness
19/08/2016 Greenock Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Thomas Ward PF Greenock v Henry Kerr and Angela Deeney GRE-2016

000548/GR16001177

Ex proprio motu; Accused known to Sheriff from Sheriff’s time in private practice
23/08/2016 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Alison Stirling PF v Dandara LTD SCS2015155252- SCS2015101495 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff Stirling found the accused’s company liable in a civil matter
13/09/2016 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Pentland William Russell & others v John Morre and others A77/16 Joint motion; Senator previously acted for the first named defender
25/10/2016 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Brailsford HMA to appt admin re Mohammond Younas P1442/15 Appellant; A close relative is employed by one of the parties involved in the case
10/11/2016 Kilmarnock Sheriff Court (Criminal) Sheriff Foran PF v Stewart Daly KIL-2016-000635 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness
17/11/2016 Dumfries Sheriff Court Sheriff G Jamieson Ronald Adams v Ronald Bell Dum-A62/16 Defender; Sheriff presided over a related civil proof in another case in which parties were witnesses.
18/11/2016 Court of Session (Civil) Lord Glennie Adebayo Aina for Leave to appeal a Decision of the Upper Tribunal XA99/16 Ex proprio motu; Earlier decision on a related issue might reasonable be though to influence any decision in the present case
30/11/2016 Perth Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff R McFarlane S Koronka

(Manufacturing) Ltd v Musgrave Generators Ltd A103/16

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff acted for the pursuers when p ractising as a solicitor
 

Judicial Recusals 2017

DATE COURT & TYPE OF ACTION JUDGE CASE NAME & REF MOTION BY & REASON
30/01/17 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Crowe Robert Wylie (EDI 2016 012008) **Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over criminal matter involving accused, which might reasonably be thought to influence any decision in the present case
13/02/17 Portree Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Taylor QC T v U[3] Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously dealt with a criminal case involving parties
23/02/17 Inverness Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Fleetwood Ashwin Bantwal v Vrishali Shenoy Ex proprio motu; Sheriff presided over a jury trial involving parties
29/03/17 Perth Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Wade QC Drysdale Motorcycles v Derek Annand & Edwin McLaren (SE9/15) Ex proprio motu; Sheriff, in her previous role as advocate depute, was heavily involved in preparing the prosecution of one of the parties in the action
06/04/17 Kilmarnock Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Foran Lynsey Henderson v NHS Ayrshire & Arran Health Board

(KIL-PD55-14)

Pursuer’s motion granted; A witness was a former client of the Sheriff in previous role in private practice
04/05/17 Elgin Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff

Pasportnikov

PF Elgin v Douglas Welsh (ELG2017-000441) Ex proprio motu; Sheriff had previous knowledge of the parties through a Children’s Hearing matter
16/05/17 Banff Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Mann PF Banff v Kate Law (x2) (BAN-2016-172) (BA16000365) Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to relatives of the accused
12/06/17 Glasgow Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Platt Lucy Bruce v Andrew Bruce (GLW-F619-14) Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness
04/08/17 Forfar Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Murray Dundee Joinery Limited v Mike Hall (FFR-SG157-17) Defender’s motion granted; Sheriff had acted on behalf of the Pursuer in a civil action against the prospective Lay Representative as a Defender prior to him being appointed as a Sheriff
14/08/17 Elgin Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Pasportnikov Ann Hawksley v Gordonstoun Schools Limited (ELG-A80-16) Ex proprio motu; Sheriff has previous knowledge of the parties
23/08/17 Kilmarnock Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff McFarlane V v W* Ex proprio motu; Sheriff has previous involvement with the parties
05/09/17 Edinburgh Sheriff Court (Civil) Sheriff Tait W v X* Ex proprio motu; The outcome of previous proceedings involving one of the parties might reasonably be thought to influence any decision in the present case
10/10/17 Alloa Sheriff Court (Children’s Hearing) Sheriff Mackie Y v Z* Ex proprio motu; Appeal arises as a direct consequence of a decision of the same Sheriff
18/10/17 Aberdeen Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff McLaughlin Bosede Obe Oghughu (SCS/21017-080483) Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously presided over a trial involving the same accused and same witnesses.
23/10/17 Dumbarton Sheriff Court (civil) Sheriff Pender Promontoria v Colin & David Wilson Ex proprio motu; Personally known to a party in the action
30/10/17 Wick Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Berry Robert John Sutherland Ex proprio motu; Family personally known to Sheriff
14/12/17 Dundee Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Way HMA v Megan Sandeman (DUN2017-002839) Defence motion granted; Written material sent to the court for the Sheriff’s attention, also enclosed in a victim impact statement provided by the Crown, may reasonably have impugned the Sheriff’s impartiality
19/12/17 Wick Sheriff Court (criminal) Sheriff Berry PF Wick v Ian Stuart Sinclair Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness
*Parties anonymised due to sensitive nature of case **Of the judge’s own accord
DATE NAME OF JUDGE (AND COURT/TRIBUNAL) CASE NAME (AND/OR REF) MOTION BY & REASON
8/1/18 Sheriff Montgomery

(Ayr Sheriff Court)

James McColm v Meiqin McColm (F138/16) **Ex proprio motu; Knowledge of pursuer’s family background
19/1/18 Sheriff Fleetwood

(Inverness Sheriff Court)

Ashwin Bantwal v Vrishali Shenoy (INV-SM18-17) Ex proprio motu; Sheriff previously recused himself in another case involving the parties, having earlier presided over a jury trial involving parties
1/2/18 Lord Justice Clerk

(Court of Session)

Petition to the Nobile Officium by Derek Cooney (P115/17) Petitioner’s motion refused; no valid objection stated
6/2/18 Moira Clark

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

8212/SO63* Ex proprio motu;Personal conflict of interest
12/2/18 Sheriff A Brown

(Dundee Sheriff Court)

HMA v M Islam and S Smekramuddin (DUN2017-4074) Ex proprio motu;Witness known to Sheriff
23/2/18 Dr Ross Hamilton

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

8709/S063* Ex proprio motu; Patient known to the Medical Member, having treated a relative
27/2/18 Graham Harding

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/18/0148 Ex proprio motu; Party is a client of the tribunal member’s firm
6/3/18 Dr Ross Hamilton

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

7987/S1012b* Ex proprio motu; Previously provided second opinion on same patient
15/2/18 Linda Reid

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/17/0480 Ex proprio motu; Potential conflict of interest as the tribunal member has a professional relationship with certain partners and associates of the agents for one of the parties
20/2/18 Nicola Weir

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/18/0150 Ex proprio motu; One of the parties is the tribunal member’s family solicitor
28/2/18 Ian Campbell Matson

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

N/A Ex proprio motu; Work as locum at same hospital
7/3/18 Andrew Upton

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/0250* and CV/18/0251* Ex proprio motu; The tribunal member’s firm acts for the parent company of one of the parties
13/3/18 Dr James Deans

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

9142/S095* Ex proprio motu; Previously treated patient on compulsory basis
21/3/18 Sheriff Principal Lewis

(Sheriff Appeal Court)

Gabriel Politakis v RBS & Others Ex proprio motu; Previously presided in appeal involving appellant
23/3/18 Sheriff A Anwar

(Glasgow Sheriff Court)

GLW-F417-13 Ex proprio motu; Sheriff personally known to a witness
3/4/18 Graham Harding

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/18/0233 Ex proprio motu; conflict of interest
9/4/18 Mark Andrew

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/18/0162 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member known to tenants involved in the case
9/4/18 Sheriff Fleetwood

(Inverness Sheriff Court)

PF v Jade Brown (INV 2017-1048) Joint motion granted; Sheriff was a longstanding agent of a key witness
17/4/18 Gillian Buchanan (Housing and Property Chamber) RP/16/0210 Ex proprio motu; Respondent has conmnection to member’s firm
2/4/18 Lady Paton

(Court of Session)

XA88/16 Motion by party litigant refused; no good reason for recusal
TBC Patricia Ann Pryce

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/16/0210 Ex proprio motu; Conflict
25/4/18 Gillian Buchanan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/18/0602 Ex proprio motu; Previously acted for landlord
27/4/18 Graham Harding

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RT/18/0586 Ex proprio motu; One of the parties a client of the firm the applicant works for
27/4/18 Gillian Buchanan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RT/18/0586 Ex proprio motu; Respondent known to applicant as client of Member’s firm
3/4/18 Sheriff Caldwell

(Falkirk Sheriff Court)

SCS/2018-035424 Sheriff heard evidence in a trial with same accused and witnesses
11/5/18 David Preston

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/17/0315 Ex proprio motu; factor known to applicant
11/5/18 Sheriff Fleetwood

(Inverness Sheriff Court)

A v B* Respondent’s motion granted; The sheriff, having previously made a Permancence Order in respect of the child, declined jurisdiction to hear the adoption proof
14/5/18 Ewan Miller

(Housing and Property) Chamber

CV/18/0981 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member’s firm acts for on eof the parties
14/5/18 Susan Napier

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/18/0240 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member’s worked for the housing association party when the development concerned was built
23/5/18 Elizabeth Currie

(Housing and Property Chamber)

CV/18/0599 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member works for the local authority and is responsible for landlord registration
23/5/18 Jacqui Taylor

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/1075 and  CV/18/1077 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member’s firm has acted for one of the parties
24/5/18 Jim Bauld

(Housing and Property Chember)

RP/18/0961 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member’s firm instructed by one the parties
29/5/18 Andrew Cowan

(Housing and Property Chember)

CV/18/1130 and EV/18/1127 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member’s firm acts for the applicant
29/5/18 Jim Bauld

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/18/0571 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member’s firm acts for the landlord
4/6/18 Jim Bauld

(Housing and Property Chamber)

LM/18/1073 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member’s firm acts for factor
5/6/18 Rory Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/1078 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member previously dealt with one of the parties
12/6/18 Sheriff Cook

(Edinburgh Sheriff Court)

PF v Josh Harkness Defence motion granted; Sheriff had presided over a trial involving same accused and complainer
11/7/18 Lord Brailsford

(Court of Session)

Margaret Paterson v SCCR  (P376/17) Ex proprio motu; Lord Brailsford was one of a three-judge panel who had refused the petitioner leave to appeal the criminal conviction at second sift. The reason for refusing leave was germaine to the challenge raised in the judicial review.
31/7/18 Helen Miller

(Additional Support Needs Tribunal)

AR/18/0006 Case indirectly involves the school attended by tribunal member’s son
27/7/18 Sheriff Ward

(Dunoon Sheriff Court)

PF v Gavin Murphy Defence motion refused; Sheriff previously dealt with a children’s social work referral in relation to the accused where the complainers were witnesses
2/8/18 Andrew Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PR/18/1159 Tribunal member’s firm acted for the landlord’s agents in separate matters
14/8/18 Andrew Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RA/18/1621 Potential conflic of interest
19/9/18 Sheriff Fleming

(Glasgow Sheriff Court)

National Westminster Bank Plc v Morag Horsey (GLW-B885-18) Ex proprio motu; prior professional conflict
19/9/18 Sheriff Hamilton QC

(Dumbarton Sheriff Court)

DBN-SG155-18 Amir Smoli v John Currie Ex proprio motu; Sheriff knows the pursuer
21/9/18 Carolyn Hirst

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/1740 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member has a conflict of interest, having worked as an independent consultant for one of the parties
28/9/18 Sheriff Dickson

(Tain Sheriff Court)

TAI-F43-13 Ex proprio motu; The Sheriff has knowledge of one of the parties in the conext of criminal proceedings
12/10/18 Alison Kelly

(Housing and Property Chamber)

CV/18/1659 and PR/18/1408 Ex proprio motu; Tribnual member knows the letting agent who is acting for the applicant
13/12/18 Temporary Judge Norman Ritchie QC

(Glasgow High Court)

HMA v Craig Tonnar (IND 2018/1312 Ex proprio motu; Material placed before the court may reasonably have impugned the judge’s decision on sentence.
13/12/18 Sheriff Berry

(Wick Sheriff Court)

PF v William Fernie Ex proprio motu; Accused is well known to the Sheriff
30/1/19 Suzanne Sinclair

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

08500/S063 Ex proprio motu; Psychiatrist who completed a medical report for a CTO application is the Tribunal member’s Doctor.
4/2/19 Suzanne Sinclair

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

08622/S050 Ex proprio motu; Appeal against a Short Term Detention Order made by a Doctor who was formerly the Tribunal member’s Doctor
6/2/19 Lady Wise

(Court of Session)

AD10/18 Ex proprio motu; The Lord Ordinary having heard Counsel at diet of proof that there was no opposition to the granting of the Petition and the natural parents were consenting, indicated that she was satisfied on the merits of the Petition. Subsequently however, the natural parents withdrew said consent and the matter required to proceed to proof. The Lord Ordinary indicated that as she had stated her view on the merits of the case she was not now in a position to hear the case.
8/2/19 Lord Bannatyne

(Court of Session)

Agilisys Ltd

v

CGI IT UK Ltd

(CA 55/17)

Defender’s motion granted; The Lord Ordinary, having made findings in respect of the credibility and reliability of some of the defender’s witnesses in the first proof, and being mindful of a real possibility of the perception of bias arising therefrom, recused himself from hearing the second proof, at which some of the same witnesses would again give evidence.
18/2/19 Sheriff Summers

(Aberdeen Sheriff

Court)

Blair Nimmo

v

Richard Dennis

(SQ60-18)

Ex proprio motu; Sheriff knows parties involved in the case
27/2/19 Sheriff Anwar

(Glasgow Sheriff

Court)

David Grier

v

Chief Constable,

Police Scotland

Pursuer’s motion granted; The sheriff, having previously intimated to parties that recusal may be necessary, declined jurisdiction, given that another sheriff at Glasgow was listed among the potential witnesses.
5/3/19 Rory Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

EV/18/3486

and

CV/18/3487

Ex proprio motu; case involves a former client of the Tribunal member.
7/3/19 Suzanne Sinclair

(Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland)

09471/S063 Ex proprio motu; Doctor who completed a medical report for a CTO application is the Tribunal member’s Doctor.
12/3/19 Simone Sweeney

(Housing and Property Chamber)

PF/18/2240 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member is an employee of one of the parties
19/3/19 Jim Bauld

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/19/0110 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member is an employee of the fim which acts for the letting agent party
20/3/19 Helen Forbes

(Housing and Property Chamber)

CV/19/0143 Ex proprio motu; Legal Member acts for the appplicant’s representative
27/3/19 Patricia Anne Pryce

(Housing and Property Chamber)

FTS/HPC/CV/19/0249 Member has conflict with party
2/4/19 Sheriff Thomas Ward

Dunoon Sheriff Court

John & Joanne Ingham v Damien & Sheila Brolly Sheriff Ward has heard evidence in a previous case in relation to the same parties, involving the same or similar issues.
4/4/19 Rory Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

RP/19/0381 Ex proprio motu; Tribunal member is employed by the Respondent representative
25/4/19 Andrew Cowan

(Housing and Property Chamber)

CV/19/0602 Ex proprio motu; Legal member has previously acted for the applicant
29/4/19 Sheriff Fleetwood

Inverness Sheriff Court

Caroline Brown

v Strathearn Stabling

SG2/19

Ex proprio motu; A person known to the sheriff has a financial interest in the outcome of the case

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,