Scottish Lord President fails to cooperate with Judicial Complaints Reviewer

[John]

Judicial Complaints Reviewer reports ups and downs in first year.
5 February 2013

Differences with the Judicial Office over the extent of her powers have ben revealed in the first annual report of Scotland's Judicial Complaints Reviewer.

The Reviewer, Moi Ali, was appointed under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 to review the handling of complaints investigations into members of the judiciary, from justices of the peace to the Court of Session and High Court, to ensure they have been dealt with in accordance with the rules. She does not herself investigate the merits of complaints, but reports on whether complainers have been fairly dealt with.

While some fears had been expressed about an additional layer of cost and bureaucracy, Ms Ali records that apart from her daily fee of £210 for up to 36 days a year (she actually worked 44 days in her first year), her annual budget to cover running costs is a mere £2,000. She has office space with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Much time was, she says, setting up procedures from scratch, and working towards a memorandum of understanding with the Judicial Office. However differences emerged over whether she was entitled to see correspondence between the Judicial Office and the disciplinary judge dealing with the complaint, as well as with the complainer, and this issue remains unresolved. Ms Ali believes she needs to see files in their entirety in order to carry out an effective review, as otherwise "it is difficult to satisfy myself, let alone complainers, as to the fairness of the process".

There was also disagreement over whether she was entitled to share with the complainer wider recommendations stemming from a review, the Judicial Office taking the view that she was limited to telling complainers whether the rules had been followed. Ms Ali records: "I have been sharing my complete findings with complainers and this has not been further challenged by the Judicial Office".

However she says that overall she has a good working relationship with the Judicial Office.

Regarding actual complaints, during the year Ms Ali received nine review reauest letters, which ultimately involved 20 separate reviews. Four had been completed by the end of the year, with a breach of the rules being found in one. This resulted in the Lord President revoking the determination and referring the complaint for a rehearing, following which it was dismissed. Other cases had been completed but await comment from the Judicial Office; further breaches of rules have been found in cases so far completed in 2012-13.

The Reviewer however records a number of issues arising from cases considered. These include a lack of even-handedness by the Judicial Office in one case; issues relating to timescales for dealing with correspondence; and confusing terminology. There is also a potential gap in the legislation, as an investigation ceases if a judicial office holder leaves office, even though they could subsequently be appointed to a different office. The Lord President has asked that this matter be reviewed.


http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1012185.aspx#.UUJslVdQdmc

[John]

LET HER EAT CAKE : Scotland’s Top Judge & snooty judiciary refuse to cooperate with Judicial Complaints Reviewer as Lord President revokes findings in rules breach case
Friday, March 01, 2013

Moi Ali was ‘frozen out’ by Lord Gill and secretive judiciary. MOI ALI, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to independently review judges handling of complaints made about judges has been cast aside by successive Lord Presidents who have apparently refused to even meet her or cooperate in investigations. Even worse, in the single case where the JCR found rules had been breached, Scotland’s current Lord President, Lord Gill, revoked the findings, had the case sent back to a fellow judge who then dismissed it.



In an excerpt from the JCR’s first report, available here: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Annual report 20011/12 document that allegations of inappropriate judicial conduct were raised and found to be wanting, however “When the Judicial Office made an initial assessment of this complaint, it was not reasonable for them to conclude that the behaviour complained about, which left the complainer “insecure and scared”, fell into the category of judicial decision/case management/court programming. According to the Rules, they should have referred that element of the complaint to the disciplinary judge for consideration. This did not happen, and instead the complaint, in its entirety, was dismissed. For that reason I made a referral to the Lord President, who then revoked that part of the original determination and referred it to the disciplinary judge, who then dismissed the complaint.”

Further references were made throughout the JCR’s report to a lack of information sharing & cooperation from the judges and the judicial office, who clearly resented the presence of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.

Article from the Sunday Mail newspaper, who also report Scotland’s Lord President has angrily attacked and rejected a public petition being considered by the Scottish Parliament calling for requirements of judges to disclose their pecuniary interests :

[John]

JUDICIAL INVESTIGATOR LEFT IN THE DARK

May the watchdog appointed by the Scottish Government to investigate complaints against judges have leave to approach the bench, Your Honours?  NO.. SHE MAY NOT!

EXCLUSIVE : Russell Findlay Sunday Mail 10 February 2013

A watchdog appointed to look into complaints against Scotland's judges fears she is being frozen out.

Moi Ali has accused the country's most senior judge, Lord President Lord Gill, of undermining her work by blocking access to vital documents.

She revealed her frustration in her first annual report since taking up the newly-created role of Judicial Complaints Reviewer.

Ali said she was only seeing the correspondence between the Judicial Office, who act for the judges, and the complainers.

But she was not allowed to see the internal memos and reports between the office and the judges about complaints.

She said: "I believe that in order to conduct a review, and to make wider recommendations on complaints handling, I need to see files in their entirety. "Without this, it is difficult to satisfy myself, let alone complainers, as to the fairness of the process. "I have continued to complete reviews but have made it clear to complainers that I have not had access to all documentation in their complaint file."

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill defied judicial opposition to create the part-time job to monitor how complaints against judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace are handled.

And Ali fears there is still resistance from within the judiciary to her role as an independent investigator.

She said: "With any profession, there's a feeling that regulation should come from within. "But this is the first time that the judiciary have been exposed to this kind of scrutiny, which other professional groups are more used to. "Most have accepted there is some kind of mechanism to scrutinise their conduct. That doesn't mean that we don't have a free and independent judiciary."

Ali also revealed that she has still not met 70-year-old Lord Gill, who was appointed to his £214,165-a-year post last June, and did not meet his predecessor Lord Hamilton.

She said: "I'm not overly concerned but I'm slightly surprised that the Lord President did not proactively suggest a meeting. I don't need to meet him but I think it would have sent out a positive message."

Ali is more concerned at the decision to block her access to documents.

She said: "This came to light because in review number one I was sent all the documents but then I didn't get the same ones for the second review. "At that point I discovered that I had been given them in error the first time. "I can't see any reason why and that worries me because I can't understand it."

Ali also voiced concerns that judges being investigated could evade punishment by quitting before the probe is complete. And she found there has been a breach in the rules in the way one of the four complaints she reviewed had been handled. Ali also urged the judiciary staff to use plain English when dealing with the public.

Her lack of administrative support was also highlighted - on her first day, she did not have a computer, printer, phone, email address or stationery - and she said it meant she was "unable to give the level of service that I would like to provide".

A Judicial Office for Scotland spokeswoman said: "In the short time the JCR has been in the post, we have worked very closely with Ms Ali in implementing, developing and reviewing the rules and how they are applied.

"With any new system, there is always a period of adaptation and adjustment and we are grateful to Ms Ali for the helpful suggestions and recommendations she has put forward and which, for the most part, have been implemented.

"A review of the rules is due to take place shortly and the Lord President is committed to working constructively to ensure the complaints procedure develops effectively."

TOP JUDGE REJECTS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Lord Gill has rejected calls for judges to register their interests - because he fears they may be harassed by "aggressive media".

A petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament is calling on the judiciary to reveal any commercial, business or legal links in case they raise possible conflicts with their cases.

But in a letter to the public petitions committee, Scotland's most senior judge said current safeguards are enough.

Lord Gill said: "In practical terms, it would be impossible for all judicial office holders to identify all the interests that could conceivably arise in any future case.

"The terms of the judicial oath and the statement of principles of judicial ethics ensure that such a difficulty does not arise and that the onus is on the judicial office holder to declare any interest at the outset."

He said details held on a register could be abused by "aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants".

The call for a register has also been rejected by the Law Society of Scotland.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[John]

Scotland's top judge summoned to appear before MSPs after trying to block register of interests.

A HOLYROOD committee want the law chief to explain why he tried to halt a register which would reveal judges' business, professional and financial links.




SCOTLAND'S top judge is to appear before MSPs after he tried to block a judicial register of interests.

Lord Gill – the £214,000-a-year Lord President – dismissed the need for judges to reveal business, professional and financial links.

The identity of a judge convicted of benefit fraud would also be likely to be revealed if such a register existed.

Holyrood’s petitions committee want Gill, 71, to explain his opposition to the transparency motion by legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi.

Committee member Jackson Carlaw, Scottish Conservative deputy leader, said: “When I first saw this petition I wasn’t terribly impressed. But I’m more impressed as a consequence of the responses we received.

“The student anarchist in me slightly smells the whiff of vested interests closing doors and backs being slapped in an effort to shut the whole matter down.

“I would very much like us to commission an evidence session and invite the Lord President, if that’s within our competence, and other vested interests who believe we should close this down to justify their position to the committee.

“Since it’s quite clear no other area is examining this at present, I think that, on behalf of the petitioner, this is an issue that should be aired in public rather than just in writing.”

Committee chairman and Labour MSP David Stewart plans to ask Gill how many judges have “recused” themselves – stepped down – from cases in which they have an interest.

Stewart said: “The petitioner put quite an interesting argument forward to say that there’s no real evidence here.

“I mean, how many judges are declaring an interest and recusing during the course of a case? Or are there any judges holding a case in which they’ve got an interest and they’re not declaring an interest?

“Also, lots of other public groups have to have a register of interests – why are judges any different?”

Members of the judiciary, including judges, sheriffs and JPs, adhere to various rules including an oath of office.

In his written opposition, Gill said he and his colleagues could be abused by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.

But the SNP’s Chic Brodie said: “If you want to take out ‘judges’ and put in ‘politicians’, why are they different?”

Last year, we revealed that a judge had been convicted of benefit fraud but his or her identity was kept secret.

Cherbi believes that a register would have forced the crooked judge to declare his or her conviction.

He was inspired by similar moves in New Zealand which were sparked by a judge failing to declare that he owed money to a lawyer involved in a case.

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.

Cherbi, from Edinburgh, who campaigns against Scotland’s legal self-regulation and secretive justice, said: “Lord Gill’s style might have worked in 1813 but clearly does not work in 2013.”

In a written submission to the committee, Cherbi said: “It is plainly wrong to suggest that, just because someone is a judge, they are above transparency and accountability.”

The Judicial Office for ­Scotland said: “The Lord President has not received any approach from the committee following its consideration of the relevant ­petition, and while the members’ comments are noted it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage.”

Last month, the country’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, accused Gill of blocking access to vital documents.

Three years ago, he delivered a damning report on Scotland’s “Victorian” civil courts. That led to last month’s Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, which it is hoped will make access to justice cheaper and faster.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotlands-top-judge-summoned-appear-1753545

[John]

The stink of what passes for Scots justice is overwhelming.

The Scottish Justice System is rotten to the core!