Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.
MSPs to consider judicial interests call.A PETITION calling for the creation of a Register of Judges’ Interests in Scotland – which is now in it’s SEVENTH year is to be considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee on Tuesday 5 February 2019.
During the Committee’s meeting, John Finnie MSP of the Scottish Greens said: “Future generations will be surprised that we do not have such a register already.”
Daniel Johnson MSP (Scottish Labour) said: “We all need to be mindful that we have a legal duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary, but transparency enhances independence. I very much support the comments that colleagues have made. We should take the petition forward.”
The proposal, first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support, backing in the media, and crucial support from two of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewers – including Moi Ali
Video footage of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee’s first consideration of the judciial register petition in September 2018 can be viewed here:
Official Report: Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)
Margaret Mitchell MSP (Scottish Conservatives) (Convener) : Under item 4, the committee will consider two petitions. I refer members to paper 4, which is a note by the clerk, and paper 5, which is a private paper. The committee is asked to consider and agree what action, if any, it wishes to take in relation to each petition. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 4. I remind members that if they wish to keep a petition open, they should indicate how they would like the committee to take it forward. If they wish to close a petition, they should give reasons. We will consider each petition in the order in which they appear on the agenda.
This is the first time that the committee has considered PE1458. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a register of pecuniary interests of judges bill, or amend existing legislation, to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests. Do members have any comments or questions?
John Finnie (Scottish Green Party): I seem to have mislaid the paper, but from memory there were a number of recommendations around requiring further information. I would support that approach. Future generations will be surprised that we do not have such a register already. We need to be best informed, so I suggest that we get that additional information and consider the petition again.
Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party) : I agree with my colleague, John Finnie. The Public Petitions Committee believes that a register is not unworkable and recommended it. As John Finnie said, we need to explore the petition further and get as much information as we can so that we can take it forward.
Daniel Johnson (Scottish Labour) : We all need to be mindful that we have a legal duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary, but transparency enhances independence. I very much support the comments that colleagues have made. We should take the petition forward. It makes an awful lot of sense to do exploratory work.
The Convener: Is it the committee’s wish, therefore, that we keep the petition open and seek further information?
Members indicated agreement.
Since the Justice Committee considered the petition last September, there have been explosive revelations in the media in relation to Scottish and UK judges serving in Gulf States regimes and dictatorships, where the same judges are required to swear additional judicial oaths on top of the judicial oaths already sworn in Scotland and the UK.
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 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.
Two weeks ago, the petitioner was contacted and requested to provide a submission for the Justice Committee’s consideration of the petition.
The submission to the Justice Committee took the following form:
Submission re Petition PE1458 – A Register of Interests for Members of Scotland’s Judiciary
In response to the Justice Committee’s initial consideration of this petition, I agree with the decision by members to seek further and additional information to take the petition forward and create a Register of Judicial Interests for members of Scotland’s Judiciary.
I would also like to submit further developments since members last considered the petition, where reports in the media have revealed senior members of Scotland’s judiciary serving in overseas courts, particularly in the Gulf States such as UAE, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and others.
It should be of interest to members that in the case of Lord McGhie, who is currently listed on the Judiciary of Scotland’s website as Chairman of the Scottish Land Court and President of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, the biography of Lord McGhie’s interests does not mention the fact he also serves on the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts.
Of note, the ADGM Court does list Lord McGhie’s service in Scotland as a member of the judiciary, however the Judiciary of Scotland omit all details of Lord McGhie’s overseas judicial service, as can be noted from the two separate judicial biographies forwarded to the Justice Committee,
An investigation by the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed 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 – yet given there is clearly no mention of his service abroad, and the fact Lord McGhie will be subject to a judicial oath in the UAE as well as adhere to his judicial oath in Scotland, clearly a register of Judicial Interests would require information such as this to be published, while currently, the Judicial Office for Scotland does not publish such information.
It would be useful for the Justice Committee to make enquiries as to the two separate judicial oaths and terms of service which Lord McGhie is subject to, here in Scotland, and in the United Arab Emirates, as clearly, such information should be present in a publicly available Register of Judicial Interests.
The dual service of Scottish judges in overseas jurisdictions, including the Gulf States should be further examined, in the light of the published reports and significant public interest in the cases of lawyer David Haigh, where a Scottish Sheriff accepted Mr Haigh’s account of Human Rights abuses, and torture in Dubai, and the case of Matthew Hedges – held for five months without explanation, then charged with, and found guilty on allegations of espionage.
In recent enquiries with the Judicial Office for Scotland, I have noted there are no recusals by Justices of the Peace since the guidance on recusals was extended to JPs as of January 2018.
However, since Tribunal members interests were added to the recusals register, recusals jumped from around 20 a year to 49 in the past year.
The lack of recusals for Justices of the Peace, who number around 450 and comprise the highest proportion in terms of numbers of Scotland’s judiciary, are worthy of scrutiny, particularly as the Scottish Justices Association have expressed negative sentiments towards reform and transparency in the past, notably in the case of media reports in relation to overseas trips by Justices of the Peace, which are covered in a Sunday Herald investigation forwarded with this submission.
As part of the further information which the Justice Committee may wish to seek on judicial conflicts of interest, I would suggest making enquiries to the Judicial Office on how the guidance on recusals is being implemented, and how far down the line it goes, for instance, in selection and subsequent training of judicial office holders prior to their service on the bench and how such guidance plays a role in every day court proceedings.
From the report of the Justice Committee’s initial consideration of the petition, I agree with the support expressed by members for progressing the petition from Rona Mackay, Daniel Johnson, and John Finnie MSP who stated “Future generations will be surprised that we do not have such a register already.”
The Scottish Parliament, by way of the Public Petitions Committee, MSPs during the full debate in October 2014 and now the Justice Committee have amassed a level of information and submissions on this petition which should go forward in the public interest to create a Registrar of Judicial Interests – and apply the same level of transparency for members of the judiciary, which already exists for all other branches of the Executive and those in public life.
However, the above submission was initially rejected, by a Scottish Parliament clerk – who claimed there was no existing biography for Lord McGhie on the Judiciary of Scotland’s website, and that Lord McGhie was in-fact retired.
The clerk was challenged on his claims after journalists confirmed the existence of the biography for Lord McGhie remained on the Judicial Office website – and that Lord McGhie had in-fact sat as recently as 2018 on cases in the Court of Session, sitting alongside Lady Paton and Lord Drummond Young.
The clerk, who has since been identified as Seán Wixted – did not reply to the petitioner’s information confirming the existence of the biography of Lord McGhie, nor was any response given as to why court opinions also show Lord McGhie sitting in court, despite the clerk’s claim the judge was retired.
A revised submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee contained the following substitute paragraphs:
It would be useful for the Justice Committee to make enquiries in relation to members of Scotland’s judiciary who serve in overseas jurisdictions and details in relation to the two separate judicial oaths and terms of service which judges swear to, in jurisdictions such as the United Arab Emirates and here in Scotland, as clearly, such information should be present in a publicly available Register of Judicial Interests.
The dual service of Scottish judges in overseas jurisdictions, including the Gulf States should be further examined, in the light recent media coverage of the dual service of Scottish judges and significant public interest in such cases.
and added the following suggestion MSPs experienced in the petition should be asked for evidence:
Lastly, and noting the recommendations listed in papers for members consideration of this petition on Tuesday 5 February 2019, I would like to request the Justice Committee invite members of the Public Petitions Committee to give evidence to the Justice Committee on this petition, given the PPC’s six years of experience, dedication and exceptional work on this petition, which has accumulated significant evidence, testimony and backing from all sections of the community in favour of creating a Register of Judicial Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.
It was further noted in emails provided to the media the petitioner was not allowed to inform MSPs of the clerk’s demand the submission was edited at the request of the Committee’s own clerk, Mr Wixted.
Previously, on the Register of Judicial Interests Petition –
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.
Scotland’s second Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson OBE also supported the petition and the creation of a register of judicial interests during an evidence session at Holyrood in June 2015.
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.
Justices of the Peace listed no recusals in court.CONCERNS are being expressed that Justices of the Peace are unwilling to declare conflicts of interest in court proceedings – after it emerged NOT ONE of Scotland’s Four Hundred and Fifty Justices of the Peace recused themselves from court proceedings in the past year – according to
The revelation comes after the Judicial Office for Scotland was quizzed on the lack of any registered recusal by a Justice of the Peace in the published Register of Recusals available on the Judiciary of Scotland website here: Judicial Recusals – Judiciary of Scotland.
In response to media enquiries the Judicial Office admitted it had not been informed of any recusal motion by any of Scotland’s Justices of the Peace.
The Judicial Office said: “We have received no notification of a JP recusing themselves from a case since the guidance came into force, which was in January 2018”
In response to further enquries for information relationg to any refusals of Justices of the Peace to recuse, the Judicial Office stated: “We are to be informed if a formal motion for recusal is granted or refused, or if the Judicial Office holder decides at their own accord to recuse. Nothing has yet been reported to us.”
The worrying admission from Scotland’s top judges of their lower ranking colleagues failure to declare any conflicts of interest – comes after a solicitor suggested Justices of the Peace are unwilling or are refusing to declare what are known to be numerous conflicts of interest.
The statistics of not one single recusal by Justices of the Peace – who vastly outnumber Sheriffs, Judges of the High Court and Court of Session – have raised eyebrows in legal circles – after the steep increase in published judicial recusals from around 20 a year to 49 resulted after a change in recusal guidance last year – which saw requirements placed on tribunal members to register conflicts of interest.
Further enqiuries to legal sources have established there is some reticence on the part of Justices of the Peace to comply with the new guidance on recusals.
Speaking on condition of anonymity – a solicitor who has represented clients in relation to cases with troubling outcomes – heard by a Justice of the Peace with a known history of failing to address issues in the JP court – commented that he felt Justices of the Peace were not respecting requirements to list or declare their conflicts of interest.
The solicitor added that – particularly if someone is unrepresented before a JP court, there is little incentive for court clerks or the Justice of the Peace themselves to recuse themselves – given there is currently no fully published Register of Judicial Interests in Scotland.
Guidance requiring Justices of the Peace to declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from court hearings came into force in 2018 after calls for JPs to be brought into line with rules of recusals which apply to the remainder of Scotland’s judiciary.
The remainder of Scotland’s judiciary – currently headed by Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) – have been required from April 2014 to recuse themselves from court hearings in which a potential conflict of interest may emerge, the Register of Recusals.
However, and curiously – the numerically superior force of Justices of the Peace were excluded from the Register of Recusals, created by Lord Brian Gill in April 2014 as a response to a probe by the Scottish Parliament into a petition calling for a fully published Register of Judicial Interests:
There has never been an explanation offered by Lord Gill, or his successor Lord Carloway – for the exclusion of Justices of the Peace from the Register of Recusals when it was created five years ago after the then Lord President Brian Gill, attempted to thwart what became a six year Parliamentary probe by the Public Petitions Committee into Judicial Interests – 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.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support from a full debate at Holryood in October 2014.
The investigation by MSPs of the proposal to create a Register of Judicial Interests – now in it’s seventh year – has since been taken over by the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee – and is due to be heard again on 5 February 2019.
Justices of the Peace resited scrutiny of junkets – demanded cull of whistleblowers:
It has also emerged that bitter divisions within the Scottish Justices Association – which saw ‘hysteria’ by senior figures in the Justice of the Peace courts against the Sunday Herald – after the paperreported on numerous publicly funded junkets for Justices of the Peace to New Zealand and around the world – have similarly been expressed in private against the new requirements of Justices of the Peace to reveal their conflicts of interest.
A further article in the Sunday Herald in relation to troubles at the Scottish Justices Association – after the Sunday Herald exposed the JP junkets – is reprinted below:
Mole-hunts and mass culls … justices of the peace accused of ‘borderline hysteria’ after junket exposé
By TOM GORDON Sunday Herald 1 November 2015
THE Scottish Justices Association has been accused of “borderline hysteria” after proposing a mass cull of potential whistleblowers after being repeatedly criticised for overseas junkets.
The taxpayer-funded justice quango, which represents the country’s 400 justices of the peace, is considering axing its entire board as part of an extreme mole-hunt.
The idea was proposed after the Sunday Herald revealed SJA chair John Lawless was going on a five-day, £3,500 conference trip to New Zealand in September.
The Glasgow and Strathkelvin JP had previously been to conferences in Malaysia and Uganda in 2011 and 2012 at a total cost of £3,800.
When the Sunday Herald enquired about his latest jaunt, outgoing SJA secretary Keith Parkes sent a furious email to the organisation’s executive committee.
“The leak to the press should be considered a very serious breach of judicial ethics,” he said, recommending an immediate report to a senior judge.”
Parkes, who sits as a JP in Perth, suggested a complete clear-out of the SJA hierarchy.
“I consider that the whole of the SJA executive committee should resign with immediate effect with new elections where no current members would be allowed to stand.”
Parkes is expected to raise the matter at the SJA’s annual general meeting later this month.
Last year, the Sunday Herald revealed how Parkes, a former RAF pilot, sparked a row inside the SJA by going on a £3,000, five-day justice conference to Zambia.
Even some of his fellow SJA board members denounced the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) event as a “junket” and a “gross misuse of public funds”.
Held at the opulent Zambezi Sun Hotel next to Victoria Falls, the conference’s entire last day was set aside for sightseeing.
This year’s CMJA conference in the New Zealand capital Wellington, which Lawless attended, included two evening receptions, a “gala dinner”, and another full day’s sightseeing.
Although SJA bosses attending conferences are expected to write reports to enlighten their fellow JPs about the discussions, these have often been minimal in the past.
In 2008, two JPs at a CMJA conference in South Africa costing £4,227 produced “rather short reports that concentrated on their personal impressions of Nelson Mandela rather than what had been said at the conference”, according to a leak – one report was just 250 words long.
Lawless’s reports on his Malaysia and Uganda trips ran to 700 and 600 words respectively.
The SJA, which has a budget of around £18,000 a year, is entirely funded by the public purse.
Independent MSP John Wilson, who has previously queried the SJA’s spending priorities, said the idea of replacing the entire executive was “borderline hysteria”.
“This is a complete over-reaction,” he said. “It’s just because they’ve been named and shamed. The issue is not moles. It’s junkets when the court service is underfunded and overworked.” Lawless declined to comment.The issue is not moles. It’s junkets when the court service is underfunded and overworked;
_________________________________
BACKGROUND – JUSTICES OF THE PEACE:
Justices of the peace are lay magistrates who sit with a legally qualified adviser to deal with summary criminal cases.
There are around 450 justices, who are drawn from all walks of life.
Justices sit either alone or on a treble bench and deal with many driving offences such as speeding, careless driving, tachograph offences and driving without insurance.
They also deal with less serious assault, breach of the peace, theft and other less serious crimes. Their powers of punishment are limited to 60 days’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500 or both and to disqualify drivers on a discretionary basis.
The office of Justice of the Peace dates back to 1609, originally involving administrative, policing and judicial functions. The current justice of the peace courts were created in 2007 to replace district courts, which were operated by local authorities.
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is now responsible for the administration of Justice of the Peace courts, which are organised by sheriffdom rather than local authority area. Throughout their history, justices have remained lay people, dispensing criminal justice on a local basis.
Justices are appointed by Scottish Ministers for five-year periods on the recommendation of Justice of the Peace Advisory Committees.Portree.
The proposal, first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support from a full debate at Holryood in October 2014.
Now, members of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee are set to look at the proposals, already backed by many MSPs and the Public Petitions Committee.
5. Once a petition has been referred to a subject Committee it is for the Committee to decide how, or if, it wishes to take the petition forward. Among options open to the Committee are to: Keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government or other stakeholders seeking their views on what the petition is calling for, or views on further information to have emerged over the course of considering the petition; Keep the petition open and take oral evidence from the petitioner, from relevant stakeholders or from the Scottish Government; Keep the petition open and await the outcome of a specific piece of work, such as a consultation or piece of legislation before deciding what to do next; Close the petition on the grounds that the Scottish Government has made its position clear, or that the Scottish Government has made some or all of the changes requested by the petition, or that the Committee, after due consideration, has decided it does not support the petition;
The Committee may wish to consider what action, if any, it would like to take in relation to the petition. Possible options are set out at paragraph 5 above. If this is an issue that the Committee would like to explore further, it may wish to consider writing to those listed at paragraph 9 to ask whether they had anything to add to their earlier contributions. It could also seek more information on the Norwegian model, and then obtain an updated briefing from SPICe.
Included also in the Committee papers are submissions from the Petitioner, and Moi Ali – Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer – who gave evidence to the Public Petitions Committee in September 2013, supporting the petition’s calls for the creation of a register of judicial interests.
The submission from Moi Ali reads as follows:
This brief submission to the Justice Committee relates to its consideration of a proposal to implement a register of interests for the judiciary. I am writing as an ordinary citizen, but my submission is informed by my experience as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR).
In that previous role I gave evidence to the Petitions Committee in support of a register of interests.
Although now writing in a private capacity, I have served on public boards for nearly two decades and as a Board Member I have (rightly) been required to complete a register of interests for each role, to provide assurance to the public that my dealings are not motivated by money, family connections or friendships.
The Justice Committee members who will take the decision on a register of interests, as MSPs must publish their interests too.
It is time that the judiciary joined the rest of those in public life in taking this small, simple step to improve transparency and accountability, thereby enhancing their own reputation in the process.
I have long campaigned for greater transparency in public life, yet in my role as JCR I occasionally found the judiciary to be needlessly secretive.
I am not suggesting that there was anything to hide, but a failure to be transparent inevitably left the public with whom I dealt feeling suspicious.
I will not rehearse the arguments in favour of a register of interests: they are well known.
However, I would emphasise that although opposed by the judiciary, it is in their own interests as well as the public interest that there be a register of interests.
I would like to conclude by reiterating my respect for the judiciary and the essential work that they undertake. Judicial independence is vital to a democracy, but with independence goes accountability. A register of interests is a mechanism for enhancing accountability. Ms Moi Ali 18 September 2018
In March of this year, after lengthy deliberations & evidence, the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee backed the petition calling for the creation of a register of interests, and concluded the proposal to increase judicial transparency – should become law.
Members of the Committee concluded that such a register should be introduced into law – and cast aside arguments put forward by two top judges that such a register was “unworkable
Petitions Committee Convener Johann Lamont MSP (Scottish Labour) said: “In the course of our consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred—most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide, or be requested, to decline to hear a particular case. “
“The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information that is captured in the register. However, the core action that was requested by the petition was the establishment of a register of financial interests.”
“We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken those arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of this committee that such a register should be introduced.”
Deputy Convener Angus MacDonald MSP (Scottish National Party) added: “This is another long-running petition, having been live since December 2012—for as long as I have been on the committee. It was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn.”
“Along with a wide range of back benchers from across the political spectrum, I spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests during a debate in the chamber in the previous session. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life as well as ensuring that people can have confidence in those holding public office. I believe that a register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that.”
“The petition has already secured a result, which you have referred to, with the introduction of a register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. You also referred to the fact that the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals.”
“I would be keen for the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland to do some further work on the introduction on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested as possibly being the way forward, in the first instance we should refer the petition to the Justice Committee to allow it to move the issue forward.”
The Petitions Committee have since written to the Justice Secretary Michael Matheson, and Lord Carloway.
When responses are received, MSPs will consider further action.
Video footage and a transcript of the Public Petitions Committee hearing follows:
The Convener: The next petition, PE1458, calls for the introduction of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. As members will recall, we have previously agreed to write to the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and have considered a draft letter at previous meetings. The petition has received much consideration since it was lodged in 2012. I express my gratitude to the petitioner for raising the issue and to all those who have engaged in discussions on the issues that are raised in the petition, including the Lord President, Lord Carloway, and his predecessor, Lord Gill.
In the course of our consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred—most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide, or be requested, to decline to hear a particular case. The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information that is captured in the register. However, the core action that was requested by the petition was the establishment of a register of financial interests. We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken those arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of this committee that such a register should be introduced.
In reaching that view, the committee is very clear that it does not consider there to be a basis for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland’s judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making. Rather, it is the view that we have reached, based on the principles of transparency and openness in public life. While that is the view of this committee, we also understand that the Lord President and the Scottish Government have indicated they do not support the introduction of a register.
Would it be appropriate for us to invite the Justice Committee to consider the petition in light of our recommendation? Would members be content to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration? Do members have any comments?
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP): This is another long-running petition, having been live since December 2012—for as long as I have been on the committee. It was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn. Along with a wide range of back benchers from across the political spectrum, I spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests during a debate in the chamber in the previous session. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life as well as ensuring that people can have confidence in those holding public office. I believe that a register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that.
The petition has already secured a result, which you have referred to, with the introduction of a register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. You also referred to the fact that the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals.
I would be keen for the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland to do some further work on the introduction on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested as possibly being the way forward, in the first instance we should refer the petition to the Justice Committee to allow it to move the issue forward.
Rona Mackay: I broadly agree with what my colleague has said. That is a natural way forward for the petition. I do not think that we can take it any further, given the history that we have just heard. I think that it is sensible to send it to the Justice Committee for its consideration.
The Convener: Do we agree to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration?
Members indicated agreement.
Decision:PE1458 by Peter Cherbi on Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out its view that a register of interests should be introduced and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, under Rule 15.6.2 of Standing Orders, for its consideration.
The judicial interests petition – filed at Holyrood in October 2012 and first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
The move to create a register of judicial interests enjoys cross party support, is widely supported in the media and in public debate as a result of media coverage.
The petition secured early support of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali, and her successor – Gillian Thompson.
Scotland’s second Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson OBE also supported the petition and the creation of a register of judicial interests during an evidence session at Holyrood in June 2015.
A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.
Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand’s Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.
As you may be aware, the above petition was lodged in December 2012 and has been considered by the current Public Petitions Committee and its Session 4 predecessor. Over this period MSPs have taken on board the arguments for and against a register of interests and the nature of the interests that might be covered in such a register. This letter sets out the conclusions that the Public Petitions Committee has reached on the petition.
In setting out these conclusions, I would emphasise that the Committee absolutely recognises that an independent and well-functioning judiciary is, and must be, an essential part of our system of government.
I also make clear that the Committee’s consideration of the petition, and the views set out in this letter, reflect our viewpoint that there is no basis for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland’s judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making.
The Committee has reached its views based on the wider contemporary picture of transparency and openness in public life wherein preventing the perception of any undue influence is important in ensuring confidence in those holding public office.
Register of recusals
One of the welcome developments in the course of this petition has been the introduction of a register of recusals. The Committee notes that this register was brought into effect in April 2014 directly as a result of the petition and a meeting between the then Lord President, Lord Gill, and representatives of the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee. In recent discussions with the Committee, and the petitioner, you agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals. As a result, the register will now ensure transparency about recusal across courts and tribunals in Scotland. The Committee very much welcomes these measures.
In doing so, we note that this addresses one of the arguments made against a register of financial interests – that it would not capture those instances where consideration of any potential conflict in a case was based on a social or personal connection that may not be known about prior to a case coming to court.
The Committee agrees that the practicalities are such that it would not be possible or proportionate to require advance registration of personal connection with parties that may at some point be relevant within a particular case. However, we do consider that public transparency of such connections is vital and the register of recusals is the tool that strikes an appropriate balance in this regard.
We would also observe that the value of collating information about recusals is that it enables analysis to be undertaken of the way the recusal systems operates and for this analysis to inform ongoing thinking about the administration of justice through the Scottish courts.
Register of financial interests
Turning now to the core question of a register of interests, the Committee’s most recent consideration of the petition focussed on seeking to understand and explore some of the arguments put forward against the introduction of such a register.
These arguments have included—
• a risk of online fraud due to retribution from dissatisfied litigants (which, it was argued, may have an inhibitory effect on the administration of justice if judges start to decline roles on public bodies such as the board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service) and,
• the possibility of the existence of a register of interests having a damaging effect on recruitment.
Members do, of course, have an understanding of the practical operation of a register of interests given the duties that apply to elected members. However, in considering the arguments put forward, we have not considered the role of judges as analogous to the role of elected members or had in mind any particular model for a register of interests that might be appropriate for judges.
Instead, our consideration has been based on an understanding of the expectations that apply to all holders of public office, whether elected or unelected, in relation to disclosure of financial interests. As we noted above, such disclosures not only allow for demonstration that decision-making is not influenced by personal interests but also prevent the perception of the influence of interests on decision-making.
Having considered these arguments and the thinking behind them, the Committee has not been convinced that a register of interests is an unworkable idea and it is the view of the Committee that such a register should be introduced.
Recognising that the Scottish Government and the Judicial Office for Scotland have indicated that they do not support the introduction of a register, the Committee today agreed to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, inviting that Committee to consider the petition further, in light of our recommendation.
Yours sincerely: Johann Lamont MSP Convener
The National reported on the success of the six year petition calling for a register of judicial interests, in the following articles:
IT’S taken nearly six years and 25 hearings but as The National predicted yesterday, a register of interests for all Scottish judges is set to become law.
The petition for a register by legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi will now go the Justice Committee at Holyrood with a recommendation that the register becomes law.
The current and previous Lord Presidents, Lord Carloway and Lord Gill respectively, both strongly opposed the register which they feel will make it difficult for judges to be recruited.
Committee chair Johann Lamont said: “The committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable and it is the view of the committee that such a register should be introduced.”
She said the committee’s view had been reached with regard to “the principles of openness and transparency in public life”.
Having achieved his success after years of work, Peter Cherbi told The National: “I am delighted to hear the Public Petitions Committee support the creation of a register of interests for judges, and applaud their work on this petition.
“From filing the petition in 2012, being a part of the process to submit evidence, report on hearings, and observing witness evidence, I am very impressed that Holyrood followed this through from committee, to a full debate in the main chamber in October 2014, where the petition gathered overwhelming cross party support, to now, with the decision to recommend the creation of a register of judicial interests.
“Key evidence from Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali in September 2013 was, I believe, the turning point and a key moment where the proposal for register of judicial interests gathered steam.
“MSPs were able to hear for themselves from someone within the justice framework how a register of interests for judges would not only benefit transparency, but also bring back much needed public trust and respect to the justice system and our courts.
“My sincere thanks to MSPs Angus MacDonald, David Torrance, current Convener Johann Lamont, ex-convener David Stewart, Jackson Carlaw, particularly Alex Neil who asked key questions several times in the process, former MSPs Chic Brodie and John Wilson and all members of the Public Petitions Committee past and present who have given their considerable time, effort and input into this petition, have taken the time to study the evidence, and arrive at the conclusion transparency in the judiciary is a good thing, and not as Lord Carloway and Lord Gill claimed ‘unworkable’.”
This is a good day for the Scottish Parliament and for transparency.
The Sunday Mail print edition reported on the Petitions Committee backing for legislation to require judges to declare their interest, and also featured a report on Alex Neil MSP – who supports the judicial transparency proposals and is prepared to bring in a Members Bill to create a register of judges’ interests:
BATTLE TO BRING IN JUDGES’ REGISTER
Sunday Mail 25 March 2018
Ex-minister Alex Neil will defy Nicola Sturgeon with a bill forcing Scotland’s judges to declare their interests.
Holyrood’s petitions committee have asked the Government to legislate for a register which may include details of financial, professional and personal connections of judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace.
Sturgeon is expected to reject the committee’s recommendation. But Neil believes there is enough cross-party support to raise his own bill, in a rare act of SNP backbench rebellion.
He said: “If no bill is brought forward by the Government, I would intend to do so myself, as there is significant support from other MSPs.”
Former health secretary Neil backs the register after representing constituent Donal Nolan, who took Advance Construction to court over a land dispute.
It later emerged that judge Lord Malcolm sat on the case despite his lawyer son Ewen Campell acting for the construction firm.
Neil said: “If the committee decide to recommend a bill, it is absolutely necessary as I have seen from cases such as Nolan v Advance Construction where there were undeclared interests.”
The Scottish Sun print edition also reported on the Petition Committee’s backing for a register of judicial interests and Alex Neil MSP’s plan for a Member’s Bill:
JUDGE LIST IS BACKED
Scottish Sun 23 March 2018
MSPs defied Nicola Sturgeon yesterday by calling for judges to list their financial ties.
Holyrood’s cross-party Public Petitions Committee backed a register of interests for the judiciary.
Its convener Johann Lamont said the move was based on “principles of transparency and openness in public life”.
Top judge Lord Carloway claimed the register would hit recruitment and the Government has said it was “not needed”.
Last night Nats MSP Alex Neil warned if plans for the list are not backed he is “prepared to do it as a Member’s Bill”.
AFTER nearly six years and 25 sittings of evidence and debate on the petition to create a register of judges’ interests, The National has learned that the Holyrood Petitions Committee is set to recommend legislation to the Scottish Government.
The petition lodged by legal issues campaigner Peter Cherbi in 2012 called for a Register of Pecuniary Interests Bill and when it meets later today, the Petitions Committee will have a draft letter before it suggesting the Scottish Government brings in such a register.
Cherbi’s petition has been strongly supported by MSPs such as Alex Neil and equally strongly opposed by members of the judiciary led by the current and former Lord Presidents, Lords Carloway and Gill respectively, who said it could be harmful to judges and their recruitment.
Cherbi said last night: “Everyone apart from the judiciary, and apparently those with a desire on becoming a judge, gets the idea that judges should declare their interests in a register, just like everyone else in public positions.
“For the judiciary to have stalled this transparency proposal on their reasoning that judges should be given a pass from transparency just because they are judges does not fit in with modern life or expectations by the public of openness in government and the justice system.
“Two top judges have given evidence. Both adopted overwhelmingly aggressive positions to the idea that the same transparency which exists across public life, and which they are charged with enforcing in our courts, should be applied to them.
“Yet amidst their inferences that justice would shut down, judges could not be hired, and the world would stop turning, neither Lord Carloway nor Lord Gill could make a convincing case against creating a register of judicial interests.
“Prosecutors, police, court staff, even the legal aid board – all key parts of the justice system have registers of interest. Therefore there can be no exclusion from transparency for the most powerful members of the justice system – the judiciary itself.
“Who would have thought judges would have been so fearful of transparency and disclosing their own interests, that it would have taken six years for the Scottish Parliament to reach this stage of recommending legislation? Time now to take openness forward for our judiciary, which will ultimately help regain a measure of public confidence in the courts.
“This is a win win for Scotland. We as a team, petitioners, the media, Judicial Complaints Reviewers, those in our courts and even the legal profession who back this move – changed the judiciary’s expectations of openness and requirements of transparency.”
The video timeline of debate at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee from 2012 to 2018 on Petition PE1458:
The Committee decided to call for submissions on the petition from the Lord President, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and Crown Office.
Petition PE1458 by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to legislate to create a Register of Interests for Scotland’s judiciary was heard today 5 March 2013. The Committee decided to call for further evidence and also to invite the Lord President Lord Gill and others along to speak to MSPs and be questioned on the matter.
A petition calling for a register of interests for Scotland’s judiciary has again been debated at the Scottish Parliament, where upon the Lord President Lord Gill’s refusal to attend the Petitions Committee to give evidence, the Petitions Committee decided to repeat its invitation to Lord Gill to attend, and also agreed to seek the views of the Judicial Appointments Board and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.
Members of the PPC decided to invite Moi Ali, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence and also to contact Dr Kennedy Graham MP of the New Zealand Parliament. Dr Graham currently has a bill before MPs in New Zealand calling for a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges. During the debate it was noted Lord Gill has refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to discuss the petition and judge’s interests, but has attended the Justice Committee to discuss court closures in Scotland.
Moi Ali, Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer gives evidence to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament regarding Public Petition PE1458 calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.
Following a private meeting between Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill, and the Convener & Deputy Convener of the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament,the Committee agreed today, 28 January 2014 to defer consideration of Petition PE1458 by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to create a register of judicial interests, pending receipt of a letter from the Lord President.
The Convener, David Stewart MSP and Deputy Convener, Chic Brodie MSP reported back to members on what had been said at the private meeting with Scotland’s top judge who refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to be questioned on his deep seated opposition to the proposal to requie Scottish judges to declare all their interests, hidden wealth, family & business links and other matters which may impact on cases being heard before judges in Scottish courts.
Committee Member John Wilson MSP requested details of the private meeting with the judge be put on the official record of the Committee, and Jackson Carlaw MSP drew attention to the fact had it not been for the Petitions Committee asking tough questions there would not even be any letters forthcoming from Lord Gill.
The petition will be heard once a letter has been received from Scotland’s top judge, who appears to be set against any attendance to face questions on why judges should not be required to register their interests, unlike all other public officials, politicians, Government Ministers and others.
The Committee agreed to seek time in the chamber for a debate on the petition. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government.
The Committee agreed to continue the petition, and is seeking a debate in the main chamber of the Scottish Parliament. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government for more detailed responses.
David Stewart: The committee’s motivation in giving consideration to the issue and in seeking time in the chamber to debate it is a point of principle and comes from the starting point of there being an assumption of openness and transparency in all areas of public life in order to shine a light, if you like, into every corner of Scottish society.
Roseanna Cunningham: The setting up of a register of judicial interests would be a matter for the Lord President, as head of the judiciary in Scotland. The Lord President takes the view that a register of pecuniary interests for the judiciary is not needed. Furthermore, a judge has a greater duty of disclosure than a register of financial interests could address.
Graeme Pearson: Until the petition was discussed, there was no knowledge of recusals in the public domain. I welcome the fact that, as of April this year, the Lord President has introduced a register of recusals. It is fair to say that without the petition and the work of the Public Petitions Committee, such a register would probably not have been considered.
Jackson Carlaw: It is perhaps difficult to take on the judiciary, because judicial independence is always mentioned. As I said, that is a cornerstone of democracy, but because there has been no separation of accountability and independence, it is easy for the judiciary to say, ‘We are independent, so don’t interfere in that.’ Unless independence and accountability are separated, legislation will continue to include no requirement for more openness and transparency.”
Angus MacDonald: If we as elected members have to register and declare our interests, I see no reason why members of Scotland’s judiciary should not be subject to a full and publicly available register of judicial interests.
Anne McTaggart: In Scotland, claims continue to emerge of trials that have been unfair as a result of religious, ethnic or national bias. As long as those claims continue to exist, it is the Parliament’s job to promote fair government. In conclusion, I declare my support for the petition and encourage support from all the other MSPs.
David Torrance: Although I understand that conflicts of interest are on occasion declared in open court prior to taking on a case, the introduction of a register of interests would provide a more consistent and sound basis on which to move forward.
Neil Findlay: We need to do much more to make our society less secretive and less closed, and I think that the register that we are discussing is just one step towards that end. I, for one, give it my full support and urge other MSPs to do the same.
Joan McAlpine: I gently suggest to the Lord President, in whose gift it is to set up a register, as we cannot legislate for it in the Parliament, that he should be mindful of the need for the judiciary to move with the times, along with every other public institution, in order to retain the confidence of the public.
John Wilson: A register of interests for judges is an area in which we could move forward and build more confidence in the system that we have in place.
Elaine Murray: “Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity–but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity.” Therefore, the issue is not that anyone doubts the judiciary’s integrity, but that the public need to see that integrity.
Roseanna Cunningham: A number of members referred to the register of interests of MSPs. However, the situation is different, because we are directly accountable to the electorate.
Chic Brodie: There is concern that a register would have unintended consequences—a phrase that has been used often in the debate—for the judiciary’s freedom and privacy and its freedom from harassment from the media or dissatisfied litigants. Those are concerns, but they are no less so for others in public life, including MPs and MSPs, who may be attacked publicly for non-declaration of interests. Although it is argued that the establishment of a register may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary, it might equally be argued that its absence might have the same effect.
The debate at the Scottish Parliament now returns to deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee on Petition PE1458 – A Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s Judiciary:
Minister for Community Safety Paul Wheelhouse gives evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on their investigation of proposals to create a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458. Mr Wheelhouse on behalf of the Scottish Government opposes the creation of a register which will inform the public about what judges have, their interests, links to big business, banks, shares in corporations and tax avoidance scams.
The Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee discussed Petition PE1458 on Tuesday 12 May 2015. The Committee agreed to call Gillian Thompson OBE – Scotland’s current Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence on the creation of a register of judicial interests.
The Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee discussed Petition PE1458 on Tuesday 23 June 2015. The Committee took evidence from Gillian Thompson OBE – Scotland’s current Judicial Complaints Reviewer who gave evidence in support of the creation of a register of judicial interests.
Lord Brian Gill, former Lord President and Lord Justice General of Scotland gives evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee on Petition PE1458 calling for a register of interests for judges.Gill refused two earlier invitations to appear before the Public Petitions Committee in 2013 and was dubbed “Lord No No.”. Several times during the debate the 73 year old ‘retired’ Lord Gill called on the panel of MSPs to show faith in the UK judiciary and scrap the petition along with calls for greater transparency of judges interests.
Petitions Committee member Kenny MacAskill MSP calls for the committee to invite the new Lord President upon their appointment to appear to give evidence. Convener Michael McMahon MSP agrees to write to the new Lord President.
The Committee decided Lord Carloway is to be called to give evidence, MSPs will also contact Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde for evidence.
The Petitions Committee decided to call Lord President Lord Carloway to give evidence, and also hear from Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde.
MSP Angus MacDonald (SNP) moves to call Professor Alan Paterson to give evidence to the committee and for msps to consider evidence from the Professor then to contact the Lord President, Lord Carloway.
Members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee decide to invite Lord President Lord Carloway to provide evidence before the Committee at a future date, and to invite Alex Neil MSP to appear before the Committee at the same meeting. The decision was taken after Lord Carloway offered concessions on the recusal register of Scotland’s judiciary – created as a result of this petition.
Lord Carloway gives evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on a proposal to create a register of judicial interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. The proposal has been investigated by the Scottish Parliament for five years, there is wide support for the register, from cross party msps to the media to both Judicial Complaints Reviewers.
The Petition will next be heard on Thursday 7 December 2017 where the Public Petitions Committee will be asked to consider taking evidence from Baroness Hale, President of the UK Supreme Court, and to seek further evidence on the operation of Norway’s Register of Judicial Interests.
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary.
Judiciary, Police & prosecutors failed to act on retired scandal Sheriff. THE WAY in which the Judiciary of Scotland deal with allegations against their own members, was never more evident, and in remiss than when the wife of a now deceased Sheriff tried in vain to report her judge husband to Police and prosecutors.
The late Sheriff Lothian, who it turns out – was well known to judicial figures and even Scottish Court Service staff – for his visits to sauna parlours, rumours of mistreatment of his family and use of prostitutes – is one of the dark, yet not so far away chapters of Scotland’s legal circuit.
Yet to this day, snippets of similar behaviour by sheriffs & senior legal figures from unpublished court documents, hearings in chambers,quietly arranged divorces and even missing Police reports – is as shielded from the public today, as it was during Lothian’s reign in the Sheriff courts.
Far from the image of judicial figures cosying up to First Ministers, Lord Advocates and the reluctant ex top judges lecturing politicians and the public on morality, transparency and accountability – members of the judiciary have recently been caught up in all kinds of seedy accusations, ranging from mega millions in hedge fund linked financial impropriety, to carefully concealed court cases and even divorce, where allegations against judges range from wife battering to drunken rages and smashing objects.
Yet, the public learn very little, if usually nothing of these events – and mysteriously, the courts, prosecutors, even Police, all comply with a very judicial silence.
The “me too” #metoo movement – a campaign to denounce sexual assault and harassment – which has somehow mysteriously skipped Scotland under First Minister Nicola Sturgeon – certainly stands no chance against angry, embittered & wife beating members of the judiciary.
Nor does “me too” stand a chance against shady senior figures in Police Scotland– who support each other when reports of sexual assault or harassment end up buried with a ‘no action’ ticket at the Policeman’s ball.
The history of the demise of Sheriff Lothian – who died in 2016 – is well known.
However, the cover up by colleagues on the bench, who knew of Lothian (and other judicial figures) associations with prostitutes, sauna bars, and the attempts by Lothian’s wife to report her husband to the Police & Crown Office – stands to this day as an example of the dark side of Scotland’s judiciary.
A carefully crafted system of cover up, denial and protection of a 500 year old white male dominated judiciary – which runs from the lowly Justices of the Peace who have criminal records for shop lifting & assault, to the most senior levels of the bench where tax avoidance, failures to declare interests, wife beating & carefully denied allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace never see the inside of a court, the pages of a recusal register or the ink of a charge sheet.
It is also worth noting, many of Scotland’s current senior judges were on the judicial bench during Sheriff Lothian (among others) penchant for boozing, sexual assault, use of prostitutes & reign of terror at home. Yet, to this day, not one judge ever spoke out.
Sheriff Lothian quietly retired on a pension of £7,000 a month.
Documents within the FOI disclosure reveal that under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981, Sheriff Lothian was entitled to a pension of £63,200.00 per annum and a lump sum of £84,547.00 and in addition Lothian would receive a service award of £50,560.00, based on a salary of £126,400.
Additionally, under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, Sheriff Lothian was entitled to a pension of £62,627.00 per annum, and a lump sum of £84,547.00 together with a net service award of £52,920.00 – based on his pensionable pay of £125,253.33.
Exchanges within the documents disclosed by the Scottish Government also reveal the then Justice Secretary – Kenny MacAskill – was not informed of Sheriff Lothian’s sudden decision to quit the bench, and further emails between heads of the justice department show concern at enquiries from newspapers as to the conduct & status of Sheriff Lothian.
In relation to the allegations against Sheriff Lothian of wife beating and other reports to Police – no action was ever taken against him by the Crown Office or Lothian & Borders Police.
A report on the allegations against Sheriff Lothian and the suffering of his wife, which exposed brutality at a judicial level, featured in the former News of the World newspaper.
It may be a grim read for some, but a necessary read for all – and much further afield than Scotland:
SICK SECRETS OF SAUNA SHERIFF
Ex-missus claims Lothian’s obsession with vice girls and booze destroyed their marriage Downed sprits daily Begged for 3-way sex Hit wife at Christmas
By MARCELLO MEGA News of the World 15 March 2009
SLEAZY sheriff Andrew Lothian is a wife-beating drunk who’s obsessed with prostitutes, his ex-wife reveals today.
The shamed 66-year-old was forced to quit the bench after claims he paid for spanking and whipping sessions with an Edinburgh hooker.
But today the News of the World can expose the SHOCKING secrets of his sordid private life.
According to long-suffering ex-wife Harriet Lothian, the twisted beak TRIED to make her have sex with strangers while he watched
ADMITTED using prostitutes during their marriage
DOWNED at least a bottle of spirits every day, and BATTERED her while their unsuspecting kids slept upstairs.
Speaking at length for the first time since her ex-husband’s sauna shame, disgusted Harriet, 57, said: “I’m surprised it took so long for his activities to be exposed.
“I tried repeatedly to alert the police and the Crown to his unsuitability for office because of his behaviour, but to no avail.
“I suffered greatly at his hands, both during our marriage and for many years after I divorced him.”
We told last November how Lothian quit his £125,000-a-year job after Crown Office bosses confronted him about allegations over his private life.
But, according to Harriet his obsession with sordid sex had been going on for YEARS.
Lothian’s wife of 19 years said: “Sexually, there were problems from an early stage in the marriage.
“I found it so unsettling that I sought advice from my father, who was a doctor, and who I could talk to about anything.
“Andrew was into kinky but fairly inadequate sex. He also had fantasies about introducing third parties, men or women, into the bedroom.
“I had no interest, but he kept asking me to do it to please him.
Repugnant
“I refused because I found the idea repulsive. He said he could pay people to make his fantasies come true.” Harriet suspected her hubby was using hookers DURING their marriage.
And she told how her elderly father was forced to confront Lothian about the sleazy claims.
Harriet said: “He confessed without any shame. He told me he had lost his virginity at 16 to a prostitute, and that he’d always been turned on by them.
“I was devastated. I told him I’d never have unprotected sex with him again but he was totally unrepentant.
“Once his obsession was out in the open, he became more demanding. If he was out at a dinner, he would bring men home and want me to have sex with them while he watched.
“I would have to throw them out, which was embarrassing. I found the idea repugnant. Apart from anything else, I had children in the house.
“My father was 68, but was very close to me and he had no hesitation in speaking to Andrew and telling him to shape up.”
The couple had married on December 28, 1983, after a whirlwind romance.
Lothian already had a son, also Andrew, from the first of two previous marriages, and Harriet had a young son, James, from a previous relationship.
Two years after their wedding, Harriet gave birth to their son Robert, but already the foundations of the marriage were beginning to crumble.
She says: “By the time Robert came along, I had serious concerns about his father’s alcoholism and how terribly ill it was making him.
“He was drinking at least a bottle of spirits a day, and that was just what I was witnessing. He was in a mess.
“I went home with Robert on New Year’s Day 1986 and Andrew was in such a terrible state that he became abusive. I threw a milk bottle at him and hit him on the side of the head.
“The next day, I insisted he saw a doctor, and he agreed because his mother was in the house.
Harriet tried to alert senior legal officals to her husband’s alcohol abuse but was snubbed at every turn.
Things spiralled further out of control and by Christmas 1996 Harriet demanded Lothian move out.
She said: “His language became more abusive. There were implied threats of violence and the odd punch to the side of the head where no visible marks were left, but I was still shocked by what happened then.”
Harriet told how their sons, James, now 27, and Robert, now 23, were in their bedrooms when a huge row erupted on Christmas Eve that year.
She claims Lothian slapped her hard in the face, before punching her full on the nose.
As their shocked mother took refuge in the bathroom, where she tried to stem the flow of blood, both sons plucked up the courage to leave their rooms and go to her aid.
Charade
With her face badly marked and her eyes beginning to blacken, the family went through the motions the next day, exchanging presents and eating dinner but the mood was understandably bleak.
Harriet said: “Until that point, I’d been trying to hold things together for my sons, but I couldn’t go on with the charade.
No child should have to see their mother pouring with blood from a blow their father has struck.
It was a total nightmare.” Robert said: “I remember clearly what happened that night and it sickens me the way he behaved. It is more than ten years since I have spoken to him.
“When I was 12 I wrote him a letter telling him I wanted nothing to do with him.” Following the attack Harriet demanded that Lothian move out of the family home in Lauder, Berwickshire.
She wept: “I feared for the safety of our sons. I had no choice.”
But in SLEAZE: summer 2001 Lothian then living in Edinburgh launched a court bid to SELL the house.
She said: “The move was especially hurtful as Robert was about to start his Higher courses.
“It was also difficult to understand as Andrew had inherited a six-figure sum the previous year when his mother died.”
Lothian’s partner at that time, Eleanor Burns, daughter of Sir John and Lady Eleanor Burns, had also inherited a substantial sum on the death of her mother, just a week before Catriona Lothian’s death.
By 2002, when they finally divorced, Harriet claims exclusive that Lothian enjoyed a six-figure salary whilst Harriet took care of their children and could only work part-time as a rape crisis counsellor.
In the end she had to pay Lothian £28,000 to buy him out of the family home and finish the marriage.
Assault
Lothian and his brother Murdoch were subject to an Inland Revenue investigation in 2000 after claiming the contents of their late mother’s Stirling home were worth a mere £5,000.
This included antique furniture, jewellery, silver, paintings and pottery.
It’s understood the Inland Revenue later valued the list at £300,000.
But Harriet still wishes justice had been done for the assault she endured in 1996. She said: “Successive governments on both sides of the border have claimed to wage war on domestic violence.
“There was an opportunity for the Scottish establishment to show there was substance behind the platitudes by taking action against a senior lawyer. But typically, they covered his back.” Now self-employed in horticulture, Harriet added: “I have to work extremely hard to make a living.
Andrew’s disgrace has not made life any easier, but I feel vindicated.”
Lothian served on the Glasgow bench from 1979 to 1992 before moving to Edinburgh. He’s expected to keep his £7,000-a-month pension.
Lord Malcolm rules Lord Advocate immune from parts of Rangers admin claim. A SENIOR Court of Session judge who failed to disclose he heard a case on eight occasions involving his own son – has now ruled the Lord Advocate has absolute immunity from being sued in connection with common law claims in relation to a £9million damages claim brought by former administrators for Rangers Football Club.
The case – initially heard in the Court of Session in November 2017- was originally set to be decided by Lord Advocate James Wolffe’s own wife – Court of Session judge Lady Sarah Wolffe.
In last week’s lengthy 107 page ruling by the Court of Session Judge & Privy Councillor – Lord Malcolm ruled in 2018 where Lady Wolffe could not in 2017 – and upheld the absolute immunity of Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC – in respect of the common law claims but rejected the Lord Advocate’s submission that the article 8 claim should be dismissed in advance of proof.
Lord Malcolm’s summary and decision states: “The pursuer, and separately his former co-administrator of Rangers Football Club, are claiming damages from those said to be responsible for allegedly wrongful detentions, arrests, and prosecutions. The claims are brought at common law and in terms of articles 5 and 8 of ECHR. The Lord Advocate’s submission that the article 8 claim should be dismissed in advance of proof is rejected. However his plea of absolute immunity in respect of the common law claims is upheld. It follows that the actions against him shall proceed in respect of only the ECHR claims”
While upholding the Lord Advocate’s immunity, Judge Lord Malcolm allowed Mr Whitehouse’ claim against Police Scotland to go ahead to a proof, stating: “So far as Mr Whitehouse’s claim against the police is concerned, the court is not prepared to uphold his submission that it can be decided on the pleadings that he need not prove malicious conduct on their part. The result is that the pursuer’s claim against the chief constable, and the defences to it, shall proceed to a proof before answer (as was agreed by the respective parties in Mr Clark’s action)”
A proof will now take place at a date to be decided, regarding claims that Whitehouse’s human rights were breached by prosecutors when he was arrested.
In allowing a proof to go ahead, Lord Malcolm also ruled that the hearing should also consider whether PoliceScotland exceeded their powers and acted maliciously in their investigation into Whitehouse.
The hearing will take place alongside another set of proceedings dealing with Clark’s claims.
The £9million damages claim came about after David Whitehouse and his colleague, Paul Clark, who worked for administrators Duff & Phelps, who faced criminal proceedings following the takeover of Rangers by Craig Whyte.
However, criminal charges against both Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark were later dismissed following a hearing at the High Court in Glasgow in June 2016 – amid a clear lack of evidence for a case to proceed, and widely shared views the charges were motivated more out of headline hunting PR by the Crown Office & Police Scotland.
Both Whitehouse and Clark claimed in the court action that the Lord Advocate’s prosecutors pursued a wrongful prosecution against them and there was no evidential basis for the charges brought against them.
Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark also claimed that PoliceScotland acted maliciously against them and they should be entitled to damages from the Chief Constable – who was at the time – Phil Gormley.
Both of the former Rangers administrators believe detectives breached their legal powers during the investigation.
Gerry Moynihan QC – acting for Lord Advocate James Wolffe – told the court that his client, the Lord Advocate enjoyed absolute immunity from being sued in a civil court.
The issues surrounding the Lord Advocate’s immunity were discussed earlier this year during a debate at the Court of Session – after the case had been passed around a number of judges – beginning with the Lord Advocate’s own wife – Lady Sarah Wolffe QC – who was initially scheduled to head the case and decide on it during November 2017.
Legal representatives of Mr Whitehouse claimed their client’s ECHR human rights were breached and that PoliceScotland should pay compensation to Mr Whitehouse
Rangers went into administration in February 2012, shortly after they were bought by Whyte, and Clark and Whitehouse were appointed as administrators.
Six days later Whitehouse contacted the police to raise concerns, particularly about Whyte, said Moynihan. Later that year the Crown Office announced that it had instructed Strathclyde Police to investigate. Lawyers for the two men believe that the crown was “the directing influence” in the probe.
Rangers later went into liquidation before being sold to a consortium led by Charles Green.
In 2014 Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark were detained by PoliceScotland and held overnight, and the following year – both appeared in court on a second petition – then the case collapsed.
Craig Whyte later stood trial on criminal charges, however, he was acquitted by a jury at the High Court in Glasgow in June 2017.
In the current action, both Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark say their arrest and detention was wrongful, that their ECHR rights were infringed, and their professional reputations were damaged as a result of the case.
At a hearing held earlier this year, Whitehouse’s lawyers told Lord Malcolm that they didn’t believe that a hearing had to be held into whether the police breached their powers when investigating their client.
It was claimed that on the evidence made available to the court, Lord Malcolm was able to rule that PoliceScotland should be required to compensate Mr Whitehouse.
Whitehouse’s lawyer Heriot Currie QC told the court that his client’s arrest had affected his ability to make a living.
He added: “For 18 months the pursuer was subject to very serious, we say wholly unfounded allegations with a significant adverse effect on him, his family and his professional career.”
Gerry Moynihan QC, acting for the Lord Advocate, argued that the law stated that the Lord Advocate enjoyed immunity and that Lord Malcolm was bound to follow this.
However, Lord Malcolm refused the motion, concluding he couldn’t issue a ruling ordering PoliceScotland to hand over compensation to Whitehouse.
Lord Malcolm said the matter could only be decided following another hearing in the Court of Session.
Further hearings and a proof will take place at a date yet to be decided.
The circumstances and the parties’ contentions in the action are set out in the pleadings – which also mention the episode of the “Charlotte Fakes” emails, and reference to Craig Whyte – who initially faced charges – which were later dropped by the Lord Advocate.
[1] At the outset it is necessary to describe the background to and the circumstances of the present action. The pleadings extend to over 250 pages, therefore what follows should be understood as a summary of what is a detailed and complicated picture. In late 2010 a Scottish businessman, Craig Whyte, expressed interest in acquiring Rangers Football Club.
In March 2011 he engaged David Grier of MCR, a corporate restructuring advisory firm of which the pursuer was a partner (prior to MCR’s acquisition by Duff & Phelps in October 2011), to assist in negotiations with the club’s lenders, Lloyds Banking Group. In May 2011 Craig Whyte, through an acquisition vehicle, Wavetower Limited, entered into an agreement for the purchase of a controlling shareholding in the club and was appointed as a director. The club struggled to meet its liabilities. In February 2012 it entered administration. The pursuer and his colleague were appointed joint administrators. Later that month the pursuer met with senior officers from Strathclyde Police and informed them that preliminary investigations suggested that the acquisition of the club by Wavetower may have involved illegal financial assistance. The administrators initiated proceedings at the Royal Courts of Justice in London seeking payment of sums due to the club held by Collyer Bristow, a firm of solicitors acting for Wavetower. Subsequently the administrators raised proceedings for payment claiming an unlawful means conspiracy, on the basis that Craig
Whyte and Gary Withey (Mr Whyte’s legal advisor and a partner at Collyer Bristow) had made false representations to the previous owners as to the availability of funds to finance the acquisition, and had acquired the controlling shareholding by fraud. The police were notified of these allegations.
[2] On 25 June 2012 the Crown Office issued a press statement in the following terms:
“The Crown Office has today instructed Strathclyde Police to conduct a criminal investigation into the acquisition of Rangers Football Club in May 2011 and the subsequent financial management of the Club. The investigation into alleged criminality follows a preliminary police examination of information passed to them in February this year by the Club administrators. The Procurator Fiscal for the west of Scotland will now work with Strathclyde Police to fully investigate the acquisition and financial management of Rangers Football Club and any related reports of alleged criminality during that process.”
At the hearing it was confirmed that the press release was issued on the instructions of and with the authority of the then Lord Advocate.
[3] The club was marketed for sale by the administrators. In May 2012 a consortium led by Charles Green entered into an agreement with the administrators. It obliged him to pursue a company voluntary arrangement, with funding of £8.5 million, which failing to purchase the business and assets of the club for £5.5 million. In June 2012 the creditors rejected the CVA proposal. Mr Green’s acquisition vehicle, Sevco (Scotland) Limited, acquired the business and assets of the club and paid £5.5 million to the administrators. In October 2012 Jane Stephen and Malcolm Cohen of BDO were appointed joint liquidators, with the pursuer and his colleague vacating office.
[4] During the police inquiry officers recovered materials by executing search warrants at a range of locations, including the premises of banks and professional advisors involved in the transaction. It is averred that the second defender, through his deputes, and the Lord Advocate at all times directed the police investigation. They were made aware of all evidence recovered and approved all lines of inquiry. In August 2013 officers from Police Scotland attended at the London and Manchester premises of Duff & Phelps, the pursuer’s employers, and executed search warrants previously granted by a sheriff at Glasgow Sheriff Court. Many documents were seized, including material over which privilege was claimed, and material which was said to be beyond the scope of the warrant. Duff & Phelps instructed their solicitors to liaise with the police in relation to this matter. It is averred that in February 2014 the Crown assured Duff & Phelps that the police had not reviewed or intromitted with material subject to the privilege claim, however officers had carried out a preliminary sift of all such material. The fact of that sift was not revealed at the time. In November 2014 Duff & Phelps’ solicitor attended a meeting at Crown Office in Edinburgh with a procurator fiscal depute and James Keegan QC, the allocated depute of the Lord Advocate. The solicitor was informed that his clients were to be treated as suspects and would be detained. It is averred that the advocate depute asked him whether that would change his position on privilege. It is stated that it was erroneously believed that the privilege dispute would be resolved by the appearance of the pursuer and his colleague on petition.
[5] At dawn on Friday 14 November 2014 the pursuer was detained at his home in Cheshire by officers from Police Scotland. This was said to be in terms of section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the 1995 Act). The pursuer was informed that the basis for his detention was “fraudulent scheme and attempt to pervert the course of justice”. He was taken to Helen Street Police Office in Glasgow where he was interviewed, arrested and charged. He was held in police custody until Monday 17 November 2014 when he appeared in Glasgow Sheriff Court. Requests for him to be released or liberated on an undertaking were declined, the police citing direction by the Crown. On 17 November he was committed for further examination and admitted to bail. It is averred that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that the pursuer had committed an offence. In any event the detention was unnecessary.
[6] The pleadings set out lengthy averments and counter-averments in connection with the proposition that there was no reasonable foundation for what occurred. For example, averments are made as to the basis upon which the reporting officer, DCI Robertson, was of the opinion that there was a sufficiency of evidence available to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Mr Whyte’s allegedly fraudulent transaction could not have been completed without the involvement, knowledge or advice of the pursuer and his colleagues, and that the pursuer had misled the police about his knowledge of and advice as to the financing of the transaction (sometimes referred to as the “Ticketus deal”). It is stated that DCI Robertson suspected that crimes of fraud and attempting to pervert the course of justice had been committed by the pursuer. He provided a briefing to the detaining, interviewing and arresting officers prior to the executive action being taken, which included reference to the matters which informed his suspicion. It is averred on behalf of the chief constable that the totality of material available was sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion such as to justify interviewing the pursuer and others under caution and in detention. It was not appropriate to seek to make arrangements for voluntary attendance at a police station by multiple accused in which the offences suspected included an attempt to pervert the course of justice. It should be understood that the intention was to detain the pursuer, Mr Clark, and others as part of executive action to detain a number of suspects at the same time.
[7] At 7.15 pm on 14 November 2014 the pursuer was informed by the arresting officer that he was charged with a fraudulent scheme and an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The fraudulent scheme arose because of the false pretence which had been proffered, namely that Craig Whyte was a wealthy man who was investing his own capital in the acquisition of the club, when in fact he was using funds advanced by Ticketus. The practical result of the fraudulent pretence was that Mr Whyte was able to gain control of the club, and then force an administration, to the financial benefit of the pursuer whose firm was appointed administrators. Without the false pretence, Sir David Murray, the controlling shareholder of the club, would not have been willing to sell his shares to Mr Whyte. It was suspected that the pursuer had known of the criminal nature of this enterprise and had actively joined in it. It was further suspected that he had attempted to pervert the course of justice in providing statements to police in which he had deliberately omitted key information which he knew to be relevant to their inquiry. The arresting officer was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for this course of action and sufficient evidence to charge the pursuer on the basis of information provided to her in the interview pack prepared by the reporting officer, the detailed briefing from him, and the interview of the pursuer and his responses.
[8] The decision for the pursuer to remain in custody pending court appearance on the next court day was taken by the custody sergeant in the police station whose function it was to make such decisions in respect of all arrestees at that station at that time. She had regard to the Lord Advocate’s guidelines, the Crown Office decision that he would be appearing on petition, and the nature and gravity of the offences with which the pursuer was charged. It is averred that the police officers acted in good faith. While the pursuer no doubt disagreed and disagrees with the decisions taken, that does not render them unlawful or unreasonable or actionable. Reliance is placed upon the terms of section 22 of the 1995 Act.
[9] These averments are answered in detail by the pursuer in support of the proposition that there was no basis for any suspicion that he had engaged in criminal activity. For example, it is averred that Ticketus were known to be an existing provider of working capital to Rangers. The existing owners of the club had suggested that the purchaser should continue to use Ticketus. A key issue for the club’s board was that there should be sufficient working capital to finance the club’s operations post-acquisition. An email exchange relied upon by the first defender did not suggest knowledge of the actual arrangement entered into between the club (under the control of Whyte/Wavetower) and Ticketus. This gives a flavour of the issues which would be addressed in any evidential hearing. In general it is the pursuer’s position that he had no knowledge of any intention on Mr Whyte’s part to use Ticketus funds in the purchase of the club or to misrepresent the true position as to the funding of the acquisition.
[10] In the course of the hearing it was explained that the critical part of the alleged fraud was not the use of the Ticketus funds, but the misrepresentation as to the financing of the acquisition. The pursuer avers that if Craig Whyte claimed that “Duff & Phelps knew everything”, which is denied, that claim provided no basis for suspicion or arrest of the pursuer as an individual. In any event such a claim was wholly at odds with the available documentary evidence which clearly demonstrated deliberate concealment of information from MCR. When in November 2014 the pursuer appeared on petition in respect of charges of fraud (relating to the acquisition and subsequent management of the club) and attempting to pervert the course of justice, he was served with a summary of evidence by the Crown, which it is said made no reference to any evidence supporting his involvement in fraud. It is claimed that there was insufficient evidence to support the decision to place the pursuer on petition.
[11] In June 2015 the Crown informed the defence that the focus of the inquiry had changed, and that any subsequent indictment was likely to include charges relating to the administration and disposal of the assets of the club. On 12 August 2015 DCI Robertson delivered a letter to the pursuer’s solicitor indicating, amongst other things, that the inquiry concerning the administration period and sale to Mr Green was a live police investigation. On 26 August 2015 the Crown applied to the sheriff at Glasgow for an extension of the time limit set out in section 65 of the 1995 Act.
[12] At dawn on Tuesday 1 September 2015 the pursuer was again detained at his home in Cheshire by officers of Police Scotland. He was conveyed to Helen Street Police Office in Glasgow where he was interviewed, arrested and charged. He was told that he would be held pending a court appearance the following day. It is averred that the Crown directed the police to keep the pursuer in custody. He appeared on petition at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 2 September when he was committed for further examination and admitted to bail. It is stated that at no point were there any reasonable grounds to suspect that the pursuer had committed an offence and that his detention was in any event unnecessary. There was insufficient evidence to justify a charge. Other suspects, specifically Craig Whyte and Charles Green, were permitted to attend police stations by arrangement.
[13] On behalf of the chief constable it is averred that there was an investigation into the acquisition of the club by Charles Green and the possible involvement of Craig Whyte in that transaction. Police inquiries established a reasonable suspicion that the pursuer, along with Mr Clark, Mr Whyte, Mr Green and a Mr Ahmad, had formed a fraudulent scheme or conspired to enable Mr Whyte to acquire the club from the administrators. The pleadings set out the alleged circumstances relied upon, for example it is said that when
DCI Robertson asked the pursuer about his knowledge of Charles Green and any links he had to Craig Whyte, the officer formed the view that the pursuer was evasive. The fee for the exclusivity agreement with Sevco 5088 Limited signed by the administrators was partly funded by Mr Whyte. In April 2013 Mr Whyte was quoted in a newspaper saying, amongst other things, that Mr Green acted as a “frontman” for him in connection with the purchase of the club. It is averred that Mr Whyte had introduced Mr Green to the administrators. These are but examples of the various factors said to have been relied upon at this time. The pursuer was charged with involvement in a fraudulent scheme in terms of which the club had been acquired by Craig Whyte at an undervalue as a result of a false pretence, namely the concealment of the connection between Mr Whyte and Mr Green. Again reference is made to section 22 of the 1995 Act and to the decision of the custody sergeant on duty.
[15] In answer, amongst other things, the pursuer avers that in respect of the offer from Sevco 5088 Limited, there was nothing to suggest any involvement of Craig Whyte. The pursuer provided three witness statements to the police, all in 2012. He was not asked about Charles Green, other than in relation to proof of funds checks carried out by the administrators, nor about any links Green may have had to Whyte. The subject report submitted by DCI Robertson to the Crown in on or about 20 August 2015 made no reference to him having formed the view that the pursuer had been evasive in interview or that he had regarded the pursuer’s responses as suspicious. Again these are but examples of the counter-averments made on behalf of the pursuer, all of which will form the context of any evidential hearing. It is said that the totality of the evidence ingathered by the police prior to the second detention clearly demonstrated that Whyte’s claim to ownership of Sevco 5088 Limited was false. In any event, there was no evidence to suggest that the pursuer was aware of any involvement by Whyte in the Green bid; rather the evidence available to the police suggested the reverse. In any event there was no evidence that the true market value of the club at the point of the sale of the business and assets to Green was greater than had been represented.
[16] On Wednesday 2 September 2015 the pursuer appeared on a petition at Glasgow Sheriff Court containing charges of conspiracy to defraud and a contravention of section 28 of the 2010 Act. The procurator fiscal’s motion for committal was opposed on the basis that the charges did not represent new allegations, but were reformulations of those which had appeared in the November 2014 petition. The procurator fiscal insisted that the charges were distinct and had arisen from a separate police investigation. In the result the sheriff granted the Crown motion, and admitted the pursuer to bail. It is stated that there was insufficient evidence to place the pursuer on petition. On behalf of the second and third defenders it is averred that the service of the second petition was a considered and appropriate response to the further information being uncovered in relation to the acquisition of the club, its management, the conduct of its administration, and the disposal to Charles Green. Its service at this point avoided the risk of having two trials on related issues involving the same parties. The decision to include the pursuer was taken by experienced fiscals in good faith and in light of the evidence available against him. They had a reasonable suspicion that the pursuer had participated in the alleged crimes.
[17] The above summarises the first 100 pages of the pleadings. The next chapter concentrates, in the main, on the conduct of the second and third defenders. From time to time these defenders are referred to in a composite manner as “the Crown”. It is averred that on 3 September 2015 the court considered a Crown application for an extension of statutory time limits in which it was asserted that Duff & Phelps had recently produced a large quantity of material to the police which ought to have been made available during the August 2013 searches. At a continued hearing the advocate depute intimated that, having checked matters, there had been no such late production of material by Duff & Phelps. Instead it was asserted that Clyde & Co, a firm of solicitors who had acted for Collyer
Bristow, had recently produced 39 boxes of material that ought to have been produced in response to a warrant executed in August 2013. The sheriff granted the Crown’s application, but restricted the extension to a period of three months. The defence then sought further information about the 39 boxes, the existence of which had not previously been disclosed. In answer it is averred that the reference to the 39 boxes was made in error on the basis of internal misunderstandings within Crown Office and in communications with the police. The court was advised of this at the preliminary hearing on 16 October 2015 and an apology was tendered. At an appeal against the extension the appeal court was provided with a full explanation as to the mistaken reference to 39 boxes. Relying upon other factors the appeal court considered that the extension was justified. In response the pursuer avers that it is believed that the second petition was brought in order to influence the outcome of the contested section 65 application.
[18] On 16 September 2015, within the original time limits, the Crown issued an indictment (the first indictment) charging the pursuer with conspiracy to defraud and attempting to pervert the course of justice, and citing him to appear at a preliminary hearing on 16 October 2015. Several of the charges related to the matters dealt with in the second petition. The pursuer lodged a range of preliminary minutes, including an objection to the relevancy and competency of the charges, and a plea in bar of trial on the grounds of oppression and abuse of process. The judge continued the preliminary hearing to 11 January 2016 and fixed a debate on the preliminary minutes for the week commencing 7 December 2015. On behalf of the Lord Advocate it is averred that the decision to serve the first indictment was made because it was reasonably anticipated that the pursuer, Mr Clark, or both, might appeal the grant of the section 65 extension and, if the appeal was successful, there would be a real risk that the matters covered in the first petition would have become time barred. The Crown had recovered relevant evidence in relation to the period of administration. The indictment was drafted on the basis of this and other relevant evidence by experienced indicters acting in good faith. The pursuer avers that until the preliminary hearing the Crown adhered to the representations as to the 39 boxes.
[19] On 2 December 2015, which was the day before the appeal hearing in respect of the extension of time limits, the Crown served another indictment. At the hearing the advocate depute explained that it was to supersede the first indictment. He submitted that if the appeal was allowed, it would cause the new indictment to fall, meaning that the new charges would no longer be before the court. It is averred that no prior notice of this indictment was given. It replicated the charges on the first indictment and included additional charges. The pursuer faced a total of seven charges. The Crown states that including all charges on the second indictment was designed to ensure that the accused faced only one trial.
[20] At a preliminary hearing on 5 January 2016 the court assigned a debate on all preliminary pleas for the week commencing 1 February. After submissions were made on the pursuer’s behalf the Crown sought leave to make substantial amendments to the indictment. It was accepted that the first charge did not clearly set out the alleged criminality. In the result five of the seven charges directed against the pursuer were deleted, including all of those derived from the November 2014 petition. The advocate depute unequivocally renounced the Crown’s right to prosecute the pursuer on those charges, and the remaining charges were the subject of further debate. On 22 February the court upheld the pursuer’s plea to the relevancy and dismissed the remaining charges against him. The advocate depute informed the court that the Crown would consider whether to bring a further indictment against the pursuer. Later that day Crown Office issued a press statement, carried in the national and business press, that further proceedings would be brought against the pursuer. On 3 June 2016 the Crown confirmed that all proceedings against the pursuer were at an end. It is averred that at no point was there any justification for the detention, committal, prosecution or indictment of the pursuer. The second and third defenders never had a sufficient evidential basis for any of the charges directed against him. The Crown avers that the press statement was corrected the day after its publication to reflect the terms of the advocate depute’s advice to the court.
[21] The pursuer pleads that throughout the course of the prosecution, the conduct of the second defender’s deputes and of the third defender was marked by a disregard for their obligations. This is denied and it is explained that at all times the third defender’s predecessor in office, his deputes and procurators fiscal were aware of their obligations and sought to discharge them in good faith. In response to certain averments concerning the Crown’s disclosure obligations it is stated that the prosecution of the pursuer and his co-accused was an exceptional case involving quantities of documents and issues of legal and practical complexity not encountered in an ordinary case. The pursuer complains that disclosure was limited and sporadic. By the end of May 2015 only a third of all available productions had been disclosed to the defence. By the time of the debate in February 2016 approximately 1,000 Crown productions remained undisclosed. Certain undertakings were given in this regard on 19 April 2016, however by the time of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings several key witness statements and labels remained undisclosed, including recordings of police interviews of Charles Green, emails and other documents relating to the actions of Mr Whyte’s associate Aidan Earley, and statements of solicitors involved in the sale of the clubs assets out of administration, all of which, it is said, the pursuer reasonably anticipated would be supportive of his defence. The defence was never made aware of the total number of productions held by the Crown; such disclosure schedules as were provided were incomplete. The Crown contends that at all times it endeavoured to meet its disclosure obligations. At no point was any material wrongfully withheld. Various issues with the disclosure process made it unusually lengthy and complex, including competing claims of legal professional privilege and existing and anticipated civil actions in England. The number of documents involved necessitated the purchase of industrial scanners and the employment of additional staff members.
[22] The next chapter concerns non-disclosure of what are described as the “Charlotte Fakes” recordings. They are said to be part of a wider group of recordings made by Craig Whyte, and include conversations involving Craig Whyte and Charles Green. For the Crown it is averred that there were technical difficulties in opening and listening to the recordings which impeded assessment. Transcripts were disclosed on 29 January 2016. The pursuer avers that no audio recordings were provided nor any information as to provenance. The recordings had been in the possession of the police from at least July 2014, several months before the pursuer’s first appearance on petition. Transcripts had been available to the defenders by 2 December 2015, which was before the first preliminary hearing, and were put to Charles Green in his police interview on that date. On behalf of the first defender it is admitted that the recordings had been in the possession of the police. The Crown states that there were issues of admissibility in respect of the recordings. The pursuer avers that the recordings of conversations between alleged conspirators at the time of the alleged offences were material. They were exculpatory of the pursuer. They demonstrate that essential information, including Mr Whyte’s proposed participation in the Green bid, was withheld from the administrators; that Whyte was anxious about whether the administrators would accept the Green bid; and that third parties were to be encouraged to put financial pressure on the Club to encourage the administrators to accept the Green proposals. It is said that the recordings cannot be reconciled with the Crown’s claim that the pursuer was party to a conspiracy. The allegations in the second petition were entirely predicated upon a claim by Craig Whyte that he had acquired the business and assets of the club out of administration under the proxy of Green. It is also averred that on 4 May 2018 the pursuer’s agents recovered a series of subject sheets – communications from the police to the Crown – relating to the criminal investigation. These revealed that by June 2014 the police had recovered – as part of the Charlotte Fakes materials and from other sources – the contents of email accounts belonging to Craig Whyte. The police estimated the accounts to contain approximately 100,000 emails. On 19 June 2014 the reporting officer advised the Crown of the recovery of the emails, and as to their extent. On 4 August 2014 he advised the Crown that the emails related, inter alia, to the periods around the acquisition and administration of the Club. On 9 February 2015 the reporting officer advised the Crown as to the terms of certain emails which were assessed as being incriminatory of Craig Whyte. It is said that these emails were of central relevance to the allegations against the pursuer, and in particular his knowledge of and participation in any criminal conduct by Craig Whyte. On behalf of the Crown it is claimed that much of the Charlotte Fakes material did not impact upon the pursuer but, to the extent that it did, it included incriminating material. In response it is averred that the discussions involving the pursuer were in no way incriminatory, but were indicative of nothing more than the pursuer discharging his obligations as administrator.
[23] The pleadings continue by reference to disclosure issues surrounding a report by Pinsent Masons solicitors and the evidence of Aidan Earley, a business associate of Craig Whyte. For example it is averred that in July 2015 the defence asked the Crown for disclosure of various witness statements provided by Mr Earley. On 28 April 2016, after the dismissal of the remaining charges against the pursuer, the Crown disclosed a transcript of a series of text messages taken from Earley’s phone. These included a number of communications between himself and Craig Whyte at the time of the administration of the Club, which are said to be entirely exculpatory of the pursuer. The source material for the transcripts had been in the possession of the police since at least 13 April 2015, well before the September 2015 petition and the service of the first indictment. The text messages were put to Charles Green in his police interview on 1 September 2015, details of which were never disclosed to the pursuer.
[24] The pursuer then sets out various issues concerning what is described as the Crown’s obligation to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry. For example, it is said that before indicting the pursuer, the Crown failed to interview staff of the pursuer and his co-administrator who had worked on the administration, the preparation of valuations, and the sale negotiations with other parties. It is averred that at no time did the Crown have an evidential basis for the claim that the assets of the club had been sold at an undervalue.
[25] The pursuer avers that the Crown failed to respond to requests for information and other correspondence from his agents. On several occasions the Crown was careless as to the accuracy of information given to the pursuer and to the court. Statements were made to the court which were misleading and lacked candour. DCI Robertson acted recklessly and without reasonable cause at various stages during the investigation and the criminal prosecution. He made unwarranted accusations to solicitors. He told Duff & Phelps that he would “shut down the Shard” (a reference to their headquarters in London) if they did not produce required material. Again by way of example of the complaints in this section of the pleadings, it is averred that the court was invited to grant a warrant on the basis of one-
sided information. The exercise of the warrant in London involved officers wearing bulletproof vests and tasers interrupting a client reception. An emergency injunction was then granted to the firm of solicitors concerned by the High Court in London. On 5 February 2016 the High Court of Justiciary granted suspension of the warrant on grounds of oppression. On 6 October 2016 the Queen’s Bench division of the High Court of Justice ordered the first and third defenders to pay the firm of solicitors’ costs on an indemnity basis, the court noting that the actions of the first and third defenders were “an abuse of state power”.
[26] It is averred that DCI Robertson sought to interfere with legitimate defence investigations. For example, it is stated that he threatened witnesses with imprisonment unless they changed their accounts. He amended draft statements provided by witnesses.
In response, amongst other things it is said that DCI Robertson did not consider that he received full cooperation from a number of witnesses. In order to progress the investigation applications were made properly by the Crown for warrants to recover documentation. The warrant relating to the solicitors’ premises had been drafted by the Crown. It was granted by a sheriff in Glasgow. Steps were taken to minimise disruption. DCI Robertson and his officers were not in uniform, and he had not requested uniform presence, but this is what was provided by the local police. At all times he acted in good faith. He was required to investigate matters robustly, probe inconsistencies, require truthful answers from witnesses, recover evidence, and be authoritative when executing court orders.
[27] It is averred that the Crown instructed forensic accountants to prepare reports in the hope that they would provide an evidential basis for the charges against the pursuer, however they were not given all of the relevant factual material, in particular material which did not support the Crown case. The experts were invited to reach conclusions on the basis of “one sided information”.
[28] In addition to the common law claim, the pursuer avers infringements of his rights under articles 5 and 8 of ECHR. So far as article 5 is concerned, it is stated that the actings of the defenders and each of them was a disproportionate interference with the pursuer’s liberty. A time bar plea is taken in respect of the events in November 2014.
[29] The pursuer’s pleadings then revert to general averments as to wrongful conduct, for example that the detentions were “outwith the competence of the officers” and accordingly unlawful; that they lacked probable cause; that the instructions from the Crown were actuated by an ulterior motive, namely the desire to allow evidence over which privilege had been asserted to be relied upon in the erroneous belief that detention would allow the criminal purpose exception to be invoked; and that the absence of reasonable grounds for suspicion demonstrated a degree of recklessness on the part of the Crown amounting to malice. It is averred that the timing of instructions was related to concerns about the whereabouts of Craig Whyte. Similar averments as to lack of probable cause and ulterior motives are made in respect of the second detention, for example a desire to maintain a purported justification for the proceedings against the pursuer. Similar averments are made in relation to the alleged wrongful prosecution in terms of petitions, committals, and the service of indictments. For example it is averred that in the first petition, the only matter directed against the pursuer on charge one, relating to fraud in respect of the acquisition and management of the club, was that he, together with two colleagues, had prepared a letter in the knowledge that it would be used to induce Ticketus to pay out a sum in excess of £18 million. However there was no evidence to show that the pursuer had been involved in the preparation of that letter, nor that it was in any way inaccurate or misleading, and nor that it had been relied upon by Ticketus. The evidence showed that Ticketus had already paid out the sum by the time the letter was issued, and that they had taken advice on all relevant matters from their solicitors. Again by way of example, charge six stated that the pursuer had made false statements in a report to the Court of Session; however the charge materially misrepresented the wording of the report. On various occasions the pursuer’s agents wrote to the Crown detailing errors in the charges, referring to the absence of supporting evidence, and pointing to exculpatory material which had been disclosed, however no substantive response was received.
[30] In response to the Crown’s plea of absolute privilege, the pursuer avers that if any such privilege is enjoyed (which is denied) it extends only to the actions of the third defender in prosecuting crimes on indictment and to the actions of the second defender in conducting a prosecution on indictment in the name of the third defender. Any such privilege does not extend to events prior to the service of an indictment. In any event, the second and third defenders have “surrendered” any right to claim absolute privilege by virtue of their conduct. In the event that their actings do not attract absolute immunity (which is denied) the second and third defenders plead that there can be no liability at common law unless acts were done maliciously and without probable cause. It is averred that at all times the second and third defenders, and those acting on their behalf, acted in good faith on the evidence available to them.
[31] As to the article 8 claim, the pursuer avers that his private life was interfered with by his detention and subsequent bail conditions. In the whole circumstances the interference was neither necessary nor in accordance with the law. As a result of the defenders’ actions he was unable to practice as an insolvency practitioner. He has suffered financial and reputational loss. In response it is averred that if article 8 is engaged (which is denied) any interference was necessary, in accordance with the law, and proportionate. Again a time bar plea is taken in relation to the earlier events. For present purposes it is not necessary to refer to the averments concerning the pursuer’s alleged loss, injury and damage.
PASS THE PARCEL: Court of Session judges merry go round on case involving Lord Advocate James Wolffe
In January of this year it was reported that a series of judge swaps on this case, from Lady Sarah Wolffe, to Lady Morag Wise, then Lord Paul Arthurson – led to a FOURTH judge – Lord Sidney Neil Brailsford – presiding over hearings in a case which could also decide the fate of the Lord Advocate’s immunity from legal action in cases of wrongful arrest.
The NINE million pound damages claim against Scotland’s top cop and top prosecutor was lodged in the final months of 2017 by David Whitehouse – a former administrator at Rangers FC – who is seeking financial damages from Police Scotland’s Philip Gormley and Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC.
However, it emerged at a hearing in November the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) had quietly scheduled Lady Wolffe to preside over a crucial hearing in the case against her own husband – James Wolffe QC.
A copy of the Court Rolls handed to the media revealed Lady Sarah Wolffe QC – an outer house senator of the Court of Session – was scheduled to hear the case involving the claim involving the Lord Advocate – her own husband – A295/16 David Whitehouse (represented by Urquharts) v Liam Murphy &c (represented by Ledingham Chambers for SGLD – Scottish Government Legal Directorate) – on November 15 2017.
Prosecutor Liam Murphy who is named in the action – is currently listed as a Crown Office Procurator Fiscal on “Specialist Casework”.
However, Lady Wolffe was removed from the hearing with no official comment from the Judicial Office.
Claims surfaced at the time Lady Wolffe was suddenly dropped from the case when it ‘emerged at the last minute’ her husband – Lord Advocate James Wolffe – was involved in the case.
A second Court of Session Judge – Lady Morag WiseQC – was then scheduled to hear the case.
For reasons which have not been fully explained, Lady Wise was also dropped from the hearing on Wednesday 15 November which saw the case handed to a third judge – Lord Paul ArthursonQC – who set dates for a four day hearing of legal arguments.
During a hearing at Edinburgh’s Court of Session on 14 December 2017, judge Lord Brailsford arranged for a debate on legal issues surrounding the case to take place over four days in May 2018.
Lord Brailsford said: “I acknowledge that this is a very serious litigation relating to matters of substance.”
After Lord Brailsford departed from the case, Lord Malcolm took the case.
Lord Malcolm is chiefly known for failing to reveal a conflict of interest in relation to a £6million damages claim against construction firm Advance Construction Ltd (Scotland) – who was represented by none other than the judge’s own son – Ewen Campbell, a suspended but now reinstated Sheriff – Peter Watson, and the Glasgow based law firm – Levy and Mcrae who were previously accused in connection with a £28million pound writ by the liquidators of Heather Capital.
The trail of judge swapping – leading to at least four judges who have now heard this case in the Court of Session, and the silent replacement of Lady Wolffe with Lady Wise, and then Lord Arthurson – continues to raise serious questions as to why there are no written references to any note of recusal made by Lady Wolffe in the Register of Recusals published by the Judicial Office.
Given the fact Lady Wolffe clearly holds a conflict of interest in the case – in which one of the core participants in the action is her own husband – the Lord Advocate – the public are entitled to see a note of recusal entered into the Register of Recusals referring to a case in which she was scheduled to hear and decide on legal action against her own husband.
A report on Lady Sarah Wolffe’s role in the sequence of events and her initial appointment to decide on the claim against her own husband, featured in aSunday Mail newspaper investigation, here:
Lady Sarah Wolffe was originally scheduled to oversee a hearing in David Whitehouse’s £9m lawsuit against Lord Advocate James Wolffe.
By Craig McDonald 24 DEC 2017
A former Rangers administrator’s £9million lawsuit against Lord Advocate James Wolffe was given an emergency judge swap – after it emerged the case was originally handed to his wife.
David Whitehouse, 51, is suing Wolffe, Police Scotland chief Phil Gormley and prosecutor Liam Murphy amid claims he was “unlawfully detained” during an investigation into Craig Whyte’s doomed 2011 club takeover.
Court officials had to draft in a replacement judge when they realised Wolffe’s wife Lady Sarah Wolffe was scheduled to sit on the bench for a procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last month.
The late switch from Lady Wolffe was ordered after the conflict was discovered.
Lady Morag Wise was asked to take her place, although the hearing eventually went ahead in front of Lord Paul Arthurson.
Yet another judge, Lord Neil Brailsford, was on the bench when the case was called again earlier this month. It is scheduled to go ahead next year.
The removal of Lady Wolffe is not noted in the official list of judicial recusals – where a judge declines jurisdiction – as it was reallocated before it was called in court.
A Scottish courts spokesman said: “Lady Wolffe was assigned to hear procedural matters in a number of cases on November 15.
“One of those cases was listed on the court rolls as David Whitehouse v Liam Murphy and others.
“Subsequently, when the papers were checked by the Keeper’s office, it became apparent the Lord Advocate was the third defender and, accordingly, the case was reallocated to a different judge.
“The case was initially reallocated to Lady Wise but, having regard to the level of business and in order to avoid unnecessary delay to the parties, was ultimately dealt with by Lord Arthurson.”
Whitehouse and colleague Paul Clark were arrested during the Rangers probe but charges against the pair were later dropped.
They worked for Duff & Phelps, who were appointed as administrators of the club in February 2012. The business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc, who entered liquidation later that year, were sold to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5million.
Police launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the takeover. Whyte was cleared of fraud by a jury at the High Court in Glasgow in June.
Lawyers acting for Whitehouse claimed their client was “unlawfully detained” by detectives in November 2014. They also said that, throughout the period of detention, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect he had broken the law.
Whitehouse claims police and prosecutors didn’t follow correct legal procedure and his arrest damaged his reputation and caused him significant loss of income.
The defenders in the action, including the chief constable and Lord Advocate, claim correct legal procedure was followed and want his case to be dismissed.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh faces Senate Committee.FOR THREE days this week, citizens in the United States of America, and anyone across the globe has been able to tune into the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary nomination hearings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh – for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
The hearings, broadcast via C-SPAN – the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network – have been a regular occurrence for several years now, airing to the public hearings where elected senators of the US Senate are able to quiz nominees for judicial posts in the US – including those nominated by the sitting President for a position on America’s top court.
After the death of Justice Anthony Scalia in in 2016, and the blocking of former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to join the US Supreme Court, President Trump has already succeeded in adding one Justice – Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court – in April 2017.
Now, President Trump’s second nomination to SCOTUS – Judge Brett Kavanaugh – who has stirred up significant controversy amid allegations of thousands of papers being withheld from scrutiny during his involvement in previous White House administrations – looks likely to be confirmed, despite concerns on Kavanaugh’s responses to significant issues of public concern raised by the minority Democratic Party Senator members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Without examining who did what and when – and there is a lot of this to consider – the fact these hearings take place in public, where members of the judiciary are rightly quizzed by democratically elected representatives in a national legislature as to their views on law, legal precedents, their past work, experience, and so on – is a bonus to transparency, public awareness of the law, the courts, and the role of the judiciary,
The Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh are available at the following links, for viewing:
Among several shorter clips of the hearings posted by C-Span, is the series of questions from Senator Kamala Harris to Judge Kavanaugh – which is well worth watching – here:
For more on the hearings, events at the US Supreme Court, and campaigning groups calling for reform of accountability and transparency at the US Supreme Court, please visit the excellent website of FIX THE COURT.
Fix the Court is a national, non-partisan grassroots organization created to take the Supreme Court to task for its lack of accountability and transparency and to push Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s eight associate justices to enact basic yet critical reforms to make the court more open and honest.
It educates the American people about the many problems plaguing the court and its justices and is building a movement of conservatives, independents and progressives demanding change with a common voice.
For more information on the reforms Fix the Court is pursuing, click here.
A world away from the United States & Senate Committees quizzing members of the judiciary, here in Scotland, as in the rest of the UK, judicial recruitment and appointments more or less come down to members of the judiciary appointing members of the legal profession, often personally known to them – to plush, well salaried, powerful positions within Scotland’s judiciary.
Judicial Appointments in Scotland – as demonstrated by the appointment of Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) to what became little more than a simple elevation of Carloway as Lord Justice Clerk to that of the grandiose title of Lord President and Lord Justice General – aka Scotland’s top judge – are a behind closed doors process which the public, media, elected representatives have absolutely no role to play, or right to see.
All that the public, Scottish Parliament MSPs and media were able to inspect of Carloway’s appointment, were disclosed in a Freedom of Information request, published by DOI in April 2016
SECRETLY SELECTING A PRESIDENT, SO SECRETLY:
How judges select Scotland’s judges – in secret The selection panel for the office of Lord President – of which Lady Dorrian was a member – considered five candidates for the position of Scotland’s top judge – according to papers released by the Scottish Government in response to a Freedom of Information request by the media.
While there was significant speculation during 2015 that a female judge would be appointed to the top judicial post of Lord President, the unpredicted shift away from a male only top judge did not happen this time around.
Responding to queries, the Scottish Government refused to disclose the genders & diversity information relating to any of the candidates for the top job, citing privacy concerns.
Written exchanges between civil servants and the selection panel reveal a short listing meeting was held on 1 September 2015. The panel considered that two applicants Lord Carloway [Redacted] merited an interview on the basis of the quality of their applications.
The panel agreed that given the level of appointment, candidates needed to be able to demonstrate that they met the criteria to an exceptional degree [Redacted].
The content of the selection panel’s report recommending Lord Carloway for the nomination of Lord President, was completely censored by the Scottish Government.
Emails between Scottish Government show First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had decided on Lord Carloway’s nomination as Lord President around 18 November 2015. Lord Carloway’s appointment as Lord President was finally made public a month later in December 2015.
The disclosure, heavily redacted, and composed of twenty two short pages of meagre detail – are a far cry from public judicial nominations in the United States, handled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
And, there is a reason for this – revealed by none other than Lord Carloway’s former boss – Lord Brian Gill – who was described by Lord Neuberger during a valedictory speech in London as an ‘iron fist in a velvet glove’ – just weeks before Gill’s secret divorce of his long time wife was revealed in the Scottish Sun newspaper.
During early November 2015, Lord Gill – who had stood down after a testy, tumultuous three year term as Lord President in which he battled overwhelming backing for a register of judicial interests – finally gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament, and on the subject of judicial recruitment, Brian Gill told MSPs of his complete disdain for the US Justice system, attacking the way in which judicial nominees had to face questions from those outside the judiciary’s carefully closeted world.
Official Record: Petitions Committee 10 November 2015
Angus MacDonald: Thank you. It was important to get that fundamental view on the record.
What is your view of the fact that the United States of America has successfully introduced a register of judicial interests? Has the system in the States increased public confidence in the judiciary?
Lord Gill: I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is.
Angus MacDonald: I will not pick up on that particular point.
Has there been any evidence on the impact that the US system has had on the independence of judges or the way in which the media treats judges in the USA?
Lord Gill: I would be very sorry to see a judiciary in which candidates ran for election and in which candidates’ election campaigns were based on fundraising from companies and corporations that might be litigants in their courts. I would also be very sorry if the day ever came where, before appointment, judges had to come before a committee of this honourable legislature for confirmation and for examination of their political, ethical and social views.
In between refusing to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament, Lord Brian Gill spent his time on international travel, and giving a lecture on judicial ethics while on a taxpayer funded state visit to Qatar – a country not known as a haven of transparency or human rights.
A year on from the confrontation between Lord Gill and the Scottish Parliament – only after two refusals to give evidence – MSPs await to hear from Scotland’s current top judge Lord Carloway – who, like his predecessor, given an equally hostile opinion on the very notion of judicial transparency and requirements of judges to declare their interests.
The proposals before the Scottish Parliament received cross party backing from MSPs during a full debate at Holyrood during October 2014 – Debating the Judges – call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, 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 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.
Scottish Govt fracking ban does not exist – judge. SCOTLAND’S top court has ruled that claims by Ministers that fracking is banned, are not consistent with current law, and therefore the forced extraction of extracting shale gas from subterranean rocks – has not been banned in Scotland.
The Court of Session’s decision also hits out at numerous “mistaken” statements by SNP ministers of a ban on what many regard as an environmentally damaging process which uses water and chemicals pumped at high pressure into underground shale beds to release methane gas.
Earlier today, the Judiciary of Scotland published Lord Pentland’s ruling on the INEOS challenge to the Scottish Government’s claims of a ban on fracking – in which the court threw out the challenge, on the grounds there was and is no existing prohibition against shale gas extraction in Scotland.
Despite claims of a ban on fracking by numerous Scottish Government Ministers, including the First Minister herself Nicola Sturgeon, Lord Pentland ruled that no such ban exists, and that in reality there is little more than an evolving planning policy.
Revealing there is no existing legal basis for claims by the First Minister & others that a ban on fracking is in force – Lord Pentland said statements by ministers including Paul Wheelhouse MSP and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon that a ban existed “did not accurately express the legal effect of the decisions” involved.
The statement issued by the Judicial Office notes that [despite numerous claims by Ministers] “the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, made it clear to the court that such statements were mistaken and did not accurately reflect the legal position”.
Lord Pentland’s judgement concludes that “as a matter of law, there is no prohibition against fracking in Scotland”.
The ruling issued today followed statements by the Scottish Government to the Scottish Parliament during October 2017 that fracking had effectively been banned through the use of new guidance on planning consent.
Similarly, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said “fracking is being banned in Scotland – end of story”.
Earlier this year, and after the continued claims by the Scottish Government and it’s supporters of a ban on fracking, Ineos Upstream Ltd and Reach CSG sought a judicial review of the effective ban, the Scottish Government began t changed its tune.
When the case was called in court, the Scottish Government’s own lawyer – James Mure QC – claimed the legal challenge by Ineos was premature as SNP ministers had “not yet adopted a position” and that in effect Ministers had merely announced a preference for a ban.
James Mure QC was forced to admit to the court that his client the Scottish Government had merely spun the issue of a preference of a ban, into an actual ban.
The QC was forced to tell the court in the earlier hearing: “The concept of an effective ban is a gloss. It is the language of a press statement.”
However, in the Court of Session opinion issued today, Lord Pentland’s judgement rubbished Ministerial claims of a ban on fracking, concluding that “as a matter of law, there is no prohibition against fracking in Scotland”.
In the judgment, Lord Pentland also rejected Ineos and Reach CSG’s case on the basis that no ban exists.
The Herald newspaper reported on the court’s decision today, and also reported – “After the judgment was released, the SNP rewrote the environment section of its website, deleting the words “The Scottish Government has put in place a ban on fracking in Scotland”.
Ineos, which runs the Grangemouth refinery and already imports US shale gas as a precursor for petrochemical works, would like to frack gas in the Central Belt.
It has previously accused the government of an “Alice in Wonderland” position on fracking.
Ineos said it now expected all planning applications for fracking to be considered on merit, not “prejudice and political expediency” and ministers of wasting public money by not being clearer earlier.
Mr Wheelhouse, who told MSPs there was a ban, welcomed the Court saying there wasn’t.
He said: “This decision vindicates the extensive process of research and consultation which the Scottish Government has undertaken since 2015.
“As I set out in October, our preferred position is not to support Unconventional Oil and Gas extraction in Scotland, and that position remains unchanged.
“I have repeatedly set out to parliament that we would undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ahead of finalising that position and that approach has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament.
“The work to complete the SEA and a Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment is currently underway and the findings will be carefully considered.
“In the meantime, a moratorium is in place which means no local authority can grant planning permission and Ministers would defer any decision on any planning application that did come forward until the policymaking process is completed.
“The practical effect of the current moratorium and the policymaking process which is underway to finalise our position is that no fracking can take place in Scotland at this time.”
In his judgement published earlier today, Lord Pentland quoted First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Mr Wheelhouse’s statements in parliament about there being a ban.
However, in what seems an attempt at appeasing the misleading statements by Ministers, Lord Pentland was forced to add that the accuracy of such misleading ministerial statements was not the core issue – even though the existence of the misleading claims by the First Minister & Scotish Government led to the Ineos legal challenge in the first place.
Lord Pentland said: “The legal question is not whether ministers have accurately described or commented on their understanding of the legal effect of the various steps they have taken or authorised to be taken under the planning system, but the fundamentally different question of what the legal effect of those steps really is.
He added: “The ministerial comments reflecting the opinion that there was an effective ban on fracking are (a) irrelevant to the legal question before the court; (b) not binding on the court; (c) in any event, not determinative of the question of construction that the court has to address; and (d) to the extent that they did not accurately express the legal effect of the decisions taken must be left out of account when it comes to answering the legal question.”
“To the extent that some sections of the ministerial statements made to the Scottish Parliament were capable of being read as suggesting that the policy would amount to a ban on fracking, Mr Mure QC accepted on behalf of the Lord Advocate that such statements did not accurately reflect the legal position; they were to that extent mistaken.”
A petition seeking judicial review of certain acts and decisions of the Scottish Government in implementation of what was purportedly an indefinite ban on “fracking” has been refused. The Court of Session held that the legal effect of certain statements and planning directions made by the Scottish Ministers to the effect that the Scottish Government will not support the development of unconventional oil and gas extraction in Scotland, and a subsequent decision that the directions should continue in force indefinitely, is that there is in fact no prohibition against fracking in force. The following is a summary of the detailed opinion issued by Lord Pentland.
On 28 January 2015 the Scottish energy minister, Mr Fergus Ewing MSP, made a statement to the Scottish Parliament on the development of unconventional oil and gas extraction in Scotland (“UOG”) to the effect that there was to be work on planning and environmental regulation, a health impact assessment, and a consultation process on UOG. He stated that given the importance of this work it would be inappropriate to allow any planning consents in the meantime. He therefore announced what he described as a “moratorium” on the granting of planning consents for all UOG developments, including the method of oil and gas extraction known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”. The moratorium was to continue until such time as the work referred to had been completed. The minister stated that a direction would be sent to all Scottish planning authorities to give immediate effect to that policy. A similar direction would be issued to SEPA.
The 2015 Planning Direction and the 2015 SEPA Direction gave legal effect to the moratorium, by requiring planning authorities to intimate the receipt of planning applications for any UOG developments to the Scottish Ministers, prohibiting planning authorities from granting planning permission within 28 days of notification to ministers, and giving ministers the power to call in applications for determination by them. The power of the Scottish Government to call in planning applications for determination by them, coupled with the 2015 Planning Direction and the 2015 SEPA Direction gave Scottish Ministers the means to control two of the essential legal requirements for onshore extraction of UOG. By refusing planning permission or authorisation of controlled activities, the Scottish Government could prevent onshore UOG development extending beyond drilling of core samples. To date, the notification requirements under the 2015 Planning Direction have not been triggered. No application has been remitted to ministers by SEPA under the 2015 SEPA Direction.
Following further research into the impact of onshore UOG development in Scotland and a public consultation, the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy, Mr Paul Wheelhouse MSP made a statement to the Scottish Parliament on 3 October 2017 in which he confirmed the Scottish Government’s “preferred position”, namely that it would not support the development of UOG in Scotland and that it would use planning powers to deliver its position; that it had written to local authorities across Scotland to make it clear that the directions that give effect to the moratorium would remain in place indefinitely; and that this action was sufficient to “effectively ban” UOG in Scotland.
On 5 October 2017 at First Minister’s question time, in reply to an observation that there was concern that the ban was not yet legally watertight, the First Minister said that: “What Paul Wheelhouse outlined to the chamber earlier this week is an effective way of banning fracking and … is the quickest way of banning fracking.”
At a debate on UOG in the Scottish Parliament on 24 October 2017, Mr Wheelhouse said that the Scottish Government was honouring the commitment it had previously given to allow MSPs an opportunity to “endorse our carefully considered and robust position on unconventional oil and gas”. An amended motion was passed endorsing the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce an immediate and effective ban on UOG and noting that this position would be subject to a strategic environmental assessment before being finalised.
In December 2017 Ineos Upstream Limited and Reach Coal Seam Gas Limited, which both hold interests in petroleum exploration and development licences (“PEDLs”) in respect of certain onshore areas in Scotland raised the present proceedings, seeking judicial review of the acts and decisions of the Scottish Government in relation to UOG in Scotland. The basis of the petitioners’ case was that in 2017 the Scottish Government unlawfully imposed an indefinite ban on fracking.
The Lord Advocate on behalf of the Scottish Ministers maintained that, on a correct understanding of its acts and decisions, the Scottish Government did not impose any such ban. He contended that since there was no ban the petitioners have no case; the petition for judicial review was based on a series of fundamental misunderstandings of the Scottish Government’s position and should accordingly be refused.
Refusing the petition, the judge held that, as a matter of law, there is no prohibition against fracking in Scotland. The fact that the emerging policy position was expressed as being a “preferred” one shows that the Scottish Government understood that unless and until the strategic environmental assessment was completed, a policy on UOG could not lawfully be finalised and adopted. Ministerial comments reflecting the opinion that there was an effective ban on fracking were (a) irrelevant to the legal question before the court; (b) not binding on the court; (c) in any event, not determinative of the question of construction that the court had to address; and (d) to the extent that they did not accurately express the legal effect of the decisions taken must be left out of account when answering the legal question.
Lord Pentland’s opinion stated: “The petition is predicated on the proposition that the Scottish Government has introduced an unlawful prohibition against fracking in Scotland. Whilst acknowledging that there have been a number of ministerial statements to the effect that there is an effective ban, the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, made it clear to the court that such statements were mistaken and did not accurately reflect the legal position. The stance of the Scottish Government before the court is that there is no legally enforceable prohibition. For the reasons set out in this judgment, I consider that the Government’s legal position is soundly based and that there is indeed no prohibition against fracking in force at the present time. What exists at present is an emerging and unfinalised planning policy expressing no support on the part of the Scottish Government for the development or extraction of UOG in Scotland. The process of policy development is not yet complete; the important stages of a strategic environmental assessment and a business and regulatory impact assessment have still to be carried out. There is no basis on which the court should interfere with those procedures; the petitioners will have a full opportunity to contribute to and participate in them. I conclude that since there is no prohibition against fracking, the petitioners’ case is unfounded; their application for judicial review of the alleged ban must accordingly fail.”
The Top judge who said court lawyers & judiciary should profit from & serve shale gas extraction & fossil fuel interests:
THREE years ago, Scotland’s now former top judge – Lord Brian Gill spoke on the very same day the Scottish Government announced the ‘moratorium’ on fracking, expressing his desire – and ultimately judicial policy – that fracking for shale gas should go ahead, and will increase business in the courts.
In a speech given at a Holyrood digital media conference on the same day that Minister Fergus Ewing MSP announced the moratorium on fracking, Lord gill also said he wanted to turn Scotland’s legal system into a mediation haven for big business, big oil, shale gas barons & bankers, according to a speech he gave on the theme of “Digital Justice” last week.
Lord Gill’s plans for fracking & big oil mediation was hoped to draw in millions for lawyers and judges – without the need to declare any interests.
During the fourteen page speech – Gill (72) also urged the legal sector to better exploit Scotland’s “natural resources” and renewable energy for their own profit.
Speaking on the issue of fracking, and taking aim squarely at the Scottish Government’s alleged policy on a moratorium, Lord Gill told conference delegates: “Our resources of energy may be increased by the retrieval of shale gas, if that should be allowed. It seems to me therefore that the opportunity that our natural resources present should be served by the court system.”
Lord Gill said: “In the 1960s and 1970s the economy of Scotland was transformed by the discovery of North Sea oil. The judges and lawyers of that time were not alert to the opportunity that Scotland could be an international forum for resolving disputes in the oil and gas industry. We paid a price for our complacency when the international oil and gas industry passed us by.”
Gill continued: “Half a century on we should look at Scotland’s economic opportunities and see how the courts can best serve them. In recent years a commitment to renewable energy has brought wind power to the fore as an energy source. Other forms of renewable energy may follow.”
The top judge also claimed Scotland can be made an international centre for litigation and mediation.
Gill said “Our legal system should be a driver for economic progress in Scotland. Our courts and our judges can and should contribute to the prosperity of our country. We can do that if, by the excellence of our judges, and our legal profession and the efficiency of our courts, we make Scotland a forum of litigation that not only retains litigations that at present go elsewhere but also becomes a forum of choice for litigations from abroad..”
Lord Gill’s own speech on the issue of fracking, and personal desire for shale oil gas extraction to go ahead, as a matter of judicial policy – was at complete odds with the statement issued by Scottish Government Minister Fergus Ewing on the same day to MSPs at Holyrood.:
While Gill gave his ‘fracking is good for the legal profession, courts & judiary’ lecture, Mr Ewing told the Parliament: “I want to ensure that the voices of the communities likely to be most affected are heard, and are heard in a more formal and structured way.I am therefore announcing today that in addition to the technical work I’ve referred to on planning, environmental regulation and upon assessing the impact on public health, Scottish ministers will also launch a full public consultation on unconventional oil and gas extraction.”
Have a tip or a story about a lawyer, a judge, the legal profession, Judiciary, Crown Office, a Court case, issues of Justice or Injustice, information on corruption in public bodies, politics & Government?
Contact the Diary of Injustice team. Send news & items for investigation & publication to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Exclusive Report: Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper reveal Prosecutors based at Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have been charged with a string of criminal offences over crimes ranging from violence to misuse of drugs, making threats and offences against Police Officers.
The top judge claimed justice could grind to a halt in a constitutional calamity if judges were forced to declare their vast wealth, property owning interests, professional links and other financial affairs – just like politicians, members of public bodies, local councillors are required to reveal. Read more here:LORD NO-WAY: Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal
Crime Flies Crown
Exclusive Report Exclusive Report: Prosecutors based in Edinburgh at the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) - are now spending as much time in the air jetting between international destinations than chasing some of Scotland’s biggest crooks, tax dodgers, gangsters & serial offenders.
Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper show Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland and his team of staff jetting off to 39 international destinations including Hong Kong, Mauritius, Taiwan South Africa, Australia, Malta, San Francisco, and New York – all visited by Crown Office employees on taxpayer funded air junkets. Read more here: CRIME FLIES: Crown Office jet set junket racket
The proposals, backed by cross party MSPs during a debate in the Parliament’s main chamber on 9 October 2014 - Debating the Judges - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, 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 documents, released to Justice Diary – reveal the latest lists of shareholdings & interests of Scotland’s top judges - who are fighting to prevent the public from scrutinising their hidden wealth.
Need a Lawyer?
Yes, sometimes we all need a lawyer. Whether the reason is criminal defence or civil law & litigation, or help against injustice, an unaccountable judiciary, adversarial institutions & public bodies or challenging poor legislation, there are always some things which can be done much better with a lawyer, than without.
But, be careful where you tread. Think first, before you spend your assets on the legal profession, unless you have clear goals, a time line to stick to, and make sure your solicitor plays by the rules as much as you should adhere to in your dealings with the justice system and your legal representatives.
With no gain or favour in mind, and under strict rules of no interference with solicitor-client relationships once established, Diary of Injustice & Scottish Law Reporters can occasionally recommend legal representatives to those in need of assistance with the law, legal aid, and defence in times of justice & injustice.
To find out more, or to state your case, provide details in confidence and ask for a legal agent, email scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Trust a Lawyer?
Media Report: RESEARCH conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – the body charged with investigating solicitors in England & Wales, shows there is strong support in the rest of the UK for a move to make the SRA fully independent of the Law Society of England & Wales. Unlike Scotland, where the Law Society of Scotland ‘fronted’ regulation model – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) – continues to be driven by former Law Society staff - the English based Solicitors Regulation Authority wants a complete break from the over arching power & influence of the legal profession’s representative body – to enable it to conduct fully independent regulation of legal practitioners. Read More here:A QUESTION OF TRUST: Should solicitors be independently regulated? UK public say “Yes”.
Crime Society
Crime Society: The powerful Law Society of Scotland – the lawyer’s trade union body which controls self regulation of Scottish solicitors – is facing calls to be stripped of any role in regulating the legal profession.
The Scottish Sun’s The Big Read: Law and disorder reports: CRITICS are calling for an end to the secretive “old boys’ club” which sees Scots lawyers police themselves. It took the Law Society of Scotland four years to give police details of its probe into an alleged mortgage fraud linked to solicitor Christopher Hales and MP Michelle Thomson. But legal experts insist this would not have happened if we had the same system of outside supervision that operates down south.
To be the Judge
The Big Read:The Scottish Sun investigatesthe selection of Scotland’s most senior judge. The position of Lord President – with a salary of £220,655 a year, including perks, international travel and unrivalled power to challenge even the Scottish Parliament - is responsible for leadership of the entire Scottish judiciary in addition to chairing the Board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Lord President is the most senior judge in Scotland, with authority over any court established under Scots law, apart from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
In response to questions from MSPs, JCR Gillian Thompson said: “I do not see that there is a reasonable argument to be made against people who are in public service—I might go further and say, in particular, people who are paid by the public pound—providing information, within reason, about their other activities.” Facing further detailed questions from the committee, JCR Gillian Thompson remained of the view judges should declare their interests including business activities, shareholdings and more – in a publicly available register of judicial interests.
The top judge came unstuck after he opposed the declaration of judicial interests, wealth & connections to big business. Prior to retirement, Gill waged a bitter two year battle with Scottish Parliament MSPs who are investigating proposals to create a register of judicial interests.
Media Report: Aninvestigation has revealedParliament House – the seat of power for Scotland’s judiciary and the nation’s highest, most expensive, elusive and pro-big business courts – has been lost to Edinburgh City Council after it was revealed Scottish Ministers gifted the land titles to the Faculty of Advocates after a £58m public funded refit of the sprawling court complex. Media attention to the land grab and questions in the Scottish Parliament have prompted Edinburgh City Council to demand the courts be returned to public ownership.
In a speech to the Commonwealth Law Conference 2015 in Glasgow, Lord Gill went on to joke about protesters being lucky they are not dragged away by Police. Gill took further shots at politics, judicial independence and democracy before fleeing the legal gathering with Lord Neuberger and other judges after they learned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was booked to speak at the event.
Judging the Judges
Media report: Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), Moi Ali has published her final and highly critical Report of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer 2013-2014 on how judges handle complaints against other judges. The stinging attack on Scotland’s judiciary, reported here: Judging the Judges reveals details of allegations against judges including alleged racial bigotry, bullying, lying, omitting details from records, conflicts of interest, and even making secret recordings of meetings.
Register for Judges
Media ReportMSPs overwhelmingly supported a petition urging the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges. The 90 minute debate, held on Thursday 09 October 2014 in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber saw msps round on secretive judges who refuse to disclose their hidden wealth, secret links to big business & even criminal records. Read more about the proposals for judicial transparency put forward in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and watch video clips of MSPs debating a judicial interests register at InjusticeTV
Bank of Legal Aid
Revealed: TIMES ARE TOUGH but not for Scotland’s legal profession as it was revealed the Scottish Legal Aid Board handed over more than One Billion Pounds of public money to lawyers since the 2008 financial market crash. The Billion pound Bank of Scottish Legal Aid is there to help out Scotland’s ‘struggling’ lawyers looking for a second car, fishing rights, sending kids to posh private schools, or a third buy-to-let property.
Judge Air Miles
Exclusive Report: JET-SETTING judges spent £26,000 of taxpayers' cash on overseas trips last year, a Scottish Sun on Sunday investigation can reveal. Top beaks flew out to destinations including Russia, Israel, Switzerland, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Qatar. The most expensive was a £5,800 trip to Canada by Scotland's second most senior judge, Lord Carloway. Lord Gill - who is the Lord President - also spent five days on a £2,800 trip to Doha, Qatar, where he gave speech on judicial ethics.
Judge Rich List
Exclusive Report: DISCLOSURES of judges personal shareholdings obtained under Freedom of Information legislation from the Scottish Court Service reveal a startling snapshot of the wealth of several key members of Scotland’s judiciary who sit on a powerful quango which controls Scotland’s courts. The declarations of the seven judicial members of the Scottish Court Service Board – including Scotland's top judge, the Lord President & Lord Justice General Brian Gill who earns £220K a year - reveal judges benefit financially from shareholdings in companies who provide services to the courts & justice system, companies convicted of criminal offences & involvement in ‘industrial’ espionage against China, banks fined for international financial market manipulation, and companies involved in bribes, bid rigging, and tax dodging.
Judge Recused
Exclusive Report: SCOTLAND’S top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill has been forced to stand aside from hearing an unidentified case in the Court of Session because a relative who turned out to be Brian Gill jr, one of Lord Gill’s sons, represented a party involved in the court action which court officials are keeping secret.
Investing Judges
Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Scottish Sun on Sunday newspaper has revealed a top judge holds shares in a firm hit with a £13.9million proceeds-of-crime bill for bribing Saddam Hussein's regime,The Scottish Sun on Sunday can reveal. Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop 62, has a stake in Glasgow based Weir Group, hammered in 2011 for paying kickbacks to land contracts in Iraq. He also has shares in mining giant Rio Tinto, whose executives admitted bribery in China four years ago. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Benched Judges
Exclusive Report: The Sunday Mail newspaper reports Scotland's judges are coming clean when they have to step away from court cases because of a conflict of interests. Scotland’s top judge has decided that for the first time the public can see online why judges and sheriffs have stood down from hearing criminal trials and civil actions. It comes after the Sunday Mail told of MSPs' anger that the Lord President Lord Gill had dismissed calls for a judicial register of interests and snubbed invitations to discuss his position at a Holyrood committee, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Judges Revealed
Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Sunday Herald newspaper reveals a senior sheriff presided over a court hearing involving Tesco at the same time as he held shares in the multi-national supermarket giant. Sheriff Principal Dunlop QC did not absent himself because having shares in a company that is party to a court action does not require a member of the judiciary to step down from a case. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Private Judge
Media Report: Top judge Lord Gill met petitions committee members behind closed doors to discuss Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and conflict of interests, but no minutes were taken. The Sunday Mail reports Scotland’s top judge met two MSPs in private after twice snubbing requests to give evidence in front of their committee. The judge is opposed to the transparency call and has previously refused invitations to attend the Scottish Parliament and face questions in public on his opposition to judicial transparency and the creation of a register of judicial interests. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Media Editorial: The Sunday Herald newspaper says in an editorial Judges should not be above scrutiny. The Lord President, who is the country's top judge, is against requiring his colleagues to list their financial interests (as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary) but he seems to have recognised political concerns about a lack of transparency.To this end, he is investigating the possibility of compiling a register of "recusals", which means examples of judges ceasing an interest in a court case due to a perceived conflict. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Judge fears register
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Scotland’s top judge Lord Brian Gill has twice refused to attend the Scottish Parliament to answer questions on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. Fearing transparency, Lord Gill is hostile to plans to ask judges to declare their interests in a statutory register of interests, fearing openness will reveal judges who own hidden undeclared wealth, offshore investments, have undeclared paid relationships with law firms & big business, and also reveal judges who have criminal records. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
No Justice unseen
Media Editorial: The Sunday Mail newspaper says Senior judge's refusal to give evidence to MSPs shows a lack of transparency, says Mail Opinion on calls for judicial transparency in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. It was an opportunity for Scotland’s top judge to go to Parliament and talk about how our legal system works and might work better. It would have added, as the public relations executives and politicians like to say, a little transparency. Instead, his refusal has only hardened the suspicion that our judges live and work in a bubble smelling of horse hair wigs, vintage port and even more vintage attitudes. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary
Guilty Judges
NEWS SPECIAL: Coverage of the Annual Report 2012-2013 of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer reveals Scottish judges are slammed for secrecy, anti-transparency views & how they investigate complaints against other judges.Moi Ali, appointed by the SNP’s Justice Secretary as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewersaid: “I think fundamentally the problem is the legislation. “The way it’s created, it’s about self- regulation so you have judges judging judges’ conduct. There isn’t really an independent element.”. Read more HERE
Judicial Snub
Exclusive Report : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill refuses to attend Scottish Parliament to give evidence and explain his opposition to Petition PE1458: A Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. MSPs expected the £214,000-a-year judge to appear in person to explain why he was opposed to the transparency motion. But the 71 year-old rejected their request, insisting he had given a full written response and had nothing more to add
Judicial Complaints
REVEALED : Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer gave evidence to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament stating her office has no powers to properly investigate complaints against Scottish judges and that the judicial office regularly block access to files and information relating to complaints. In England & Wales, it is done very differently. Read more HERE
Investigate Judges
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Scotland’s judiciary are refusing to cooperate with the independently appointed Judicial Complaints Reviewer over complaints made against Scottish judges. Scotland’s top judge also stands accused of regularly blocking independent access to key documents relating to allegations made against judges. Read more HERE
Pleading Judge
Exclusive Report : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill claims judges are exempt from declaring their full financial & other interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary A register could be created by the Scottish Parliament or by the Judicial Office for Scotland, which incorporates the Lord President’s office. Typically, such registers reveal details of hospitality, gifts, property ownership, shareholdings and personal or financial connections to outside organisations.
Criminal Judges
If you think Scotland's judges are honest, think again. An investigation reveals the true extent of their undeclared finances & interests. Read more HERE. Investigations have revealed Scotland's Judges have secret criminal records, massive wealth, unchecked influence, & murky investments along with connections to offshore tax havens, all of which go undeclared as there is no register of interests for the judiciary.
Travelling Judges
Exclusive Report: Scotland's judges have racked up thousands of air miles on overseas trips, including jaunts to the US, India, Morocco and Malaysia. Taxpayers paid £83,644 to send judges and sheriffs and their partners around the world in the past three years revealed in this document. The Lord President also travels to Taiwan, South Africa & other countries yet refuses to travel 700m to the Scottish Parliament to face MSPs questions about judges’ secret undeclared interests.
EU Justice Report
A MUST READ REPORT by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals the Scottish justice system as the most unproductive, yet most expensive in the entire European Union. Scottish lawyers take tens of millions more in legal aid representing a population of 5 million than Italian lawyers who serve a population of 60 million. The report also reveals Scots judges are paid the highest in Europe, Scottish Sheriffs taking home an average taxpayer funded salary of £120K plus, while others in Scotland’s judiciary are paid £200K plus expenses.
Justice in Dock
Exclusive Report : A report published by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals Scottish lawyers take home a lavish £161million in legal aid payments on a tiny client base compared to other EU countries’ lawyers. The EU REPORT also shows that Scotland disciplines a tiny number of lawyers compared to countries of similar size, and that Scotland’s sheriffs & judges top the EU pay league. A large proportion of alleged criminals reported to prosecutors in Scotland are also escaping justice while lawyers scoop up legal aid fees for dealing with cases which never make it to court.
Civil Courts Review
The Scottish Civil Courts Review of 2009 authored by the then Lord Justice Clerk, now Lord President Lord Brian Gill, castigated Scotland’s Civil Justice System as being Victorian, costly, and unfit for purpose, yet years on from the review, little of the proposed reforms have been implemented due to pressure from vested interests in the legal world, and a lack of political will to deliver access to justice to all Scots.
The ‘independent’ lawyer run Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has lurched from scandal to scandal, and proved to be even worse at regulating complaints against Scottish solicitors than the Law Society of Scotland. Clients of Scottish solicitors who are forced to make complaints to the SLCC should read our previous reports on how the anti-client regulator may treat their case.
MasterPolicy Report
Exclusive Report: A Research Report from the University of Manchester School of Law, commissioned by the SLCC on the Law Society of Scotland’s two discredited client compensation schemes, the Master Insurance Policy & Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund reveals the extent of suicides, illness, broken families and financial ruin among clients who fall victim to rogue solicitors and attempt financial claims in order to recover funds & assets embezzled or stolen by their lawyers. The research report concludes the Law Society's Master Policy is set up “to allow solicitors to sleep at night”, so they can go on to ruin other unsuspecting clients. Read the full shocking story HERE
Name & Shame
If you are making a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates about your solicitor or legal representatives, one of the best things you can do is tell the media about it & name your crooked lawyer.
Send your complaint details to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com and get some publicity on your side to protect you and others from rogue lawyers.
Suspended at large
Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed twice suspended but still working as a solicitor John G O'Donnell has impersonated a deceased lawyer as part of an elaborate fraud, while staff at the law firm he worked at said nothing to clients. The Law Society of Scotland did nothing to prevent O’Donnell continuing his reign of scams against clients even after he was twice suspended & made bankrupt. O’Donnell was only found out after one of his clients, saw his photograph in an earlier Sunday Mail newspaper investigation..
Citizens Advice ?
Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed a lawyer who works for the Citizens Advice Bureau is being probed after it’s claimed he targeted vulnerable clients for a crooked legal firm. A client involved in a rent dispute turned to CAB lawyer Gilbert Anderson, who is based at Hamilton Sheriff Court on a taxpayer funded salary. But the ex-Royal Marine sent the client and a friend into the clutches of twice suspended solicitor John G O'Donnell , who does not have a practicing certificate.
If YOU believe YOUR LAWYER is committing legal aid fraud or is breaking the law, read more HERE and tell your story to us at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Legal Aid Claims
Read more about how one Kilmarnock lawyer Niels S Lockhart walked off with well over HALF A MILLIONPOUNDS of YOURLEGAL AID MONEY in TWO YEARS and escaped prosecution after an investigation by the Scottish Legal Aid Board found evidence of dodgy claims. Dirty deals between the Law Society of Scotland and the secretive Legal Defence Union let him off the hook while his clients ended up ruined.
If YOU suspect YOUR lawyer is doing the same to you and your legal aid case is going nowhere, tell us at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
Crown Office
An investigation reveals Scotland’s Prosecutors have been caught up in their own BONUS CULTURE where fat cash hand-outs at the end of the year worth tens of thousands of pounds and sly Press Releases short on facts seem to be more important than catching real crooks and delivering on protecting the Scots public.
One of Scotland’s most famous Crooked Lawyers, Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso in the Scottish Borders. Read the MEDIA COVERAGE of the case, details which the Law Society of Scotland and several Edinburgh law firms tried to bury.
If you have a similar experience with Stormonth Darling Solicitors, or any other corrupt law firm, we want to hear about it at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
