Scottish Government spend £800K of public cash on the appointment of 6 new Sheriffs as Courts look for business

Six new sheriffs added to Scotland’s burgeoning judicial elite. the AS local courts across Scotland close, allegedly to ‘save money’ and tens of millions of pounds are spent on maintaining the Parliament Square powerbase of Scotland’s ageing judges, the Scottish Government have this week swollen the ranks of Scotland’s judiciary even further with the appointment of six solicitors as Sheriffs on an annual salary of £130,875 plus the usual range of perks and multi million pound judicial pensions.

Those appointed in the latest round of additions to the judiciary are Mrs Aisha Yaqoob Anwar, Solicitor as a sheriff of Glasgow and Strathkelvin; Ms Lorna Allison Drummond, QC, as a sheriff of Tayside, Central and Fife; Ms Alison Nancy Stirling, Advocate and Mr Gordon Fleetwood, Solicitor as sheriffs of Grampian, Highland and Islands; Ian Macdonald Fleming, Solicitor Advocate as a sheriff of North Strathclyde; and Mr Brian Anthony Mohan, Solicitor as sheriff of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway. First Minister Alex Salmond nominated those recommended for appointment on the basis of a report by the independent Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.

Aisha Anwar graduated with an LLB Hons from the University Edinburgh in 1996 and a Bachelor of Civil Law (Oxford 1998). She joined Maclay Murray and Spens in 1998 as a trainee, was admitted as a solicitor in 2000 and became an associate in 2003. From 2009 to 2012 she became a partner and then head of litigation at DLA Piper. She was appointed as a part-time sheriff in 2011. She has authored numerous publications, lectured and tutored. She recently co-authored the Civil Bench Book for Sheriffs on behalf of the Judicial Institute.

Brian Mohan graduated with an LLB Hons from the University of Glasgow in 1981. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1988. In 1992 he became a partner in Cartys Solicitors, concentrating on employment tribunal and sheriff court work in Hamilton and Airdrie. In 2009 he completed an LLM in Human Rights. Mr Mohan served as a Children’s Panel safeguarder in North Lanarkshire. He was a tutor in Glasgow University’s courses in Public Law (1989-2003) and Diploma in Legal Practice (2010-2014).

Alison Stirling graduated with an LLB from the University of Edinburgh in 1992. She was admitted as a Solicitor in 1994. In 1995 she became Legal Assistant to the Lord President and was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1997. She has been Deputy Editor of Session Cases since 2001. She was appointed a part-time sheriff in 2011 and in 2014 was appointed a Legal Assessor to the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Ian Fleming graduated with a LLB Hons from the University of Strathclyde in 1983. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1985. He was a trainee solicitor, assistant and partner with Paton and Co before becoming a partner with Fleming and Reid in 1990. He became a solicitor advocate in 2001. He was appointed as a part-time sheriff in 2005, a Convenor of Mental Health Tribunals in 2010 and a member of the Judicial Panel of the Scottish Football Association in 2011.

Lorna Drummond graduated with an LLB Hons from the University of Glasgow in 1985 followed by a Masters in Philosophy from the University of Cambridge. She was admitted as a solicitor in 1993 and employed as Assistant Scottish Parliamentary Counsel and Assistant Legal Secretary to the Scottish Law Officers before being called to the Bar in 1998. She was appointed Standing Junior to the Advocate General and to the Scottish Ministers. She was appointed a part time sheriff in 2009 and took silk in 2011.

Gordon Fleetwood graduated with an LLB Hons from the University of Edinburgh in 1973. He was admitted as a Solicitor in 1975 and became a Solicitor Advocate in 1994. Solicitor, More and Co, 1977-1982; then in Inverness with Sutherland and Co, 1982-1986 and Fleetwood and Robb, 1986-2004. He was principal in own practice, 2004-2008. He has been a part-time sheriff since 2003 and a legal member of the Parole Board since 2010.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland was established by Ministers in 2002 and it became an independent advisory non-departmental public body on 1st June 2009. The board has statutory responsibilities under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. The board’s role is to recommend for appointment to the office of judge, sheriff principal, sheriff and part-time sheriff. The First Minister retains the statutory responsibility for making nominations to Her Majesty the Queen. The First Minister is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making his nomination to Her Majesty.

Solicitor Advocate Andrew Miller appointed as £130K a year floating sheriff for Grampian, Highlands & Islands

On 20 March 2013 Her Majesty the Queen appointed Mr Andrew Miller, Solicitor Advocate as a floating sheriff for Grampian, Highland and Islands based at Dingwall.

First Minister Alex Salmond nominated Mr Andrew Miller for appointment on the basis of a report by the independent Judicial Appointments Board.

Mr Miller will take up appointment on 29 April 2013.

Andrew Miller was admitted as a solicitor in 1991 following a civil traineeship with Borland, Johnston & Orr, Solicitors, in Glasgow. He then worked as a solicitor in private practice dealing with a wide range of civil and criminal cases before joining the Crown Office as a Procurator Fiscal Depute in 1995. After holding a number of posts within Crown Office he was appointed as Procurator Fiscal for Dumbarton in 2005. He qualified as a Solicitor Advocate in 2003, an Advocate Depute in 2008 and a Senior Advocate Depute in 2010.

The salary of a sheriff is £129,579 per annum.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland was established by Ministers in 2002; and it became an independent advisory non-departmental public body on 1st June 2009. The Board has statutory responsibilities under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. The Board’s role is to recommend for appointment to the office of judge, sheriff principal, sheriff and part-time sheriff.  The First Minister retains the statutory responsibility for making nominations to Her Majesty the Queen.  The First Minister is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making his nomination to Her Majesty.

From New Zealand to Scotland : Public Petition launched at Scottish Parliament calls for a Register of Interests for Judges & Sheriffs

In Scotland’s best interests, a register of interests for judges. A PUBLIC PETITION calling on the Scottish Parliament to implement a Register of Judicial Interests for Scotland's judiciary will be looked at by MSPs in the New Year. The petition, authored by law journalist Peter Cherbi has its origins in New Zealand, where the Government are going ahead in bringing into legislation a register of pecuniary interests of the country’s judiciary via a bill from New Zealand MP Dr Kennedy Graham. Unlike what would happen in Scotland, the Law Commission of New Zealand is apparently supporting the move and has published a report on its views HERE

Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary is now open for signatures from the public, calls for 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.

From Diary of Injustice : The idea for a register of interests of judges comes to Scotland after investigations by law journalists revealed several members of the judiciary have criminal records, with one judge being convicted of benefits fraud and suggestions of financial irregularities including participation in offshore tax avoidance schemes. More on the investigation into the judiciary can be read on Diary of Injustice HERE & HERE.

The petition goes on to report how the Parliament of New Zealand is debating legislation to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Mr Cherbi says he believes it is time for Scotland to move in the same direction and create a similar register of interests for the judiciary of Scotland and all its members, increasing the transparency of the judiciary and ensuring public confidence in their actions & decisions.

The full details of the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, should be looked at for a model of similar legislation in Scotland, can be viewed online here  Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.

New Zealand MP, Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill on judicial interests states : It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach, and suspicion thereof. Public confidence in the standard of behaviour and conduct observed by leading servants of the people is a cornerstone of social harmony and political stability. A threshold of confidence to that end should ideally be enshrined in constitutional and legislative form. Little scope should be available for individual discretion or subjective perception.

The principle of transparency in this respect pertains in particular to issues of financial (pecuniary) interest. Nothing undermines public confidence in a nation’s institutions and procedures more than suspicion that a public servant may have, and especially proof that one has, suffered a conflict of interest arising from a pecuniary interest in a particular dealing in which he or she was professionally involved.

The correct balance in this respect appears to have been achieved over the years–the public interest in such annual statements is significant without appearing prurient, and few complaints have been voiced by those on whom the obligations are placed. There seems to be a general acceptance that such exercises are in the public interest and are neither unduly onerous nor revealing.

No such practice, however, has been observed in the case of the judiciary. Recent developments within New Zealand’s judicial conduct processes suggest that application of the same practice observed by the other two branches of government might assist in the protection of the judiciary in future.

Being obliged under law to declare pecuniary interests that might be relevant to the conduct of a future case in which one is involved would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgements about his or her personal affairs as each case arises. Having declared one’s pecuniary interests once, in a generic manner independent of any particular trial, a judge may freely proceed in the knowledge that, if he or she is appointed to adjudicate, public confidence for participation has already been met. Yet care is to be exercised to ensure that the final decision is left to the individual judge whether to accept a case. There should be no intention of external interference into the self-regulation of the judiciary by the judiciary.

This is the reasoning behind this draft legislation–the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as stated, is to promote the due administration of justice by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system, and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.”

Mr Cherbi said in his petition : “I believe the same aims of the New Zealand legislation as quoted above, are compatible with the public interest in Scotland and to promote the due administration of justice by providing the public with greater transparency within the judicial system.”

The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill is an example of similar legislation for a register of judicial interests in New Zealand, bought to the New Zealand Parliament by Dr Kennedy Graham.When asked whether a register of interests existed for Scottish judges, the Judicial Office for Scotland said “The Judicial Office for Scotland does not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so. The Lord President has set out formal guidelines to the judiciary in the STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS Para 4.9 and 7.2 address this particular point.”

However in an age of transparency where the decisions of Scottish judges affect all our lives, whether the case be criminal or civil, there must be a requirement for all public servants particularly those in positions of such importance as the judiciary to submit their interests to a publicly available register of interests.

New Zealand’s Law Commission issued paper supporting a register for judges interests. In New Zealand, the New Zealand Law Commission has argued for a wider remit to include all officials whose positions given them potential to influence a case to be included in such a register of interests. The Law Commission stated : “If there is to be legislation, should it apply to all judges, or only to judges of some levels, or to all judicial employees and officials such as prosecutors and registrars? An argument can be made that if there is to be financial disclosure it should be required of all officials whose positions give them sufficient potential to influence the outcome of a case, whether as a result of a bribe or other improper influence.” The New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests can be downloaded here :  NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges pecuniary interests? (pdf)

The Sunday Mail newspaper has reported on the petition for the register of Judicial Interests, here :

Petition to hold judges to account

by Russell Findlay
Sunday Mail November 04 2012

A legal campaigner has urged MSPs to create a register of interests for Scotland’s judges.

Peter Cherbi has secured a Scottish Parliament petition calling for all sheriffs and judges to declare financial interests and hospitality.

The legal blogger from Edinburgh, said: “Like those in other areas of public life, members of the judiciary should be required to disclose their interests, financial or otherwise.

“This would increase transparency and help to ensure public confidence in their actions and decisions.

“It has been suggested to me some judges have offshore investments for the purpose of tax avoidance while others may have shares or other connections to businesses.”

Cherbi was inspired by a similar proposed law which is being debated in New Zealand.

The closing date for the online petition is December 7.

Judges were issued with ethical guidelines which were drawn up by senior judges headed by Lord Osborne two years ago.

The Judicial Office for Scotland: “We do hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so.”

Lord President’s ‘tap on the shoulder judge routine’ : Solicitor Philip Mann appointed as £128K a year sheriff of Grampian,Highlands & Islands

NOMINATED by Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond, who in actuality plays only a bit part in sending the Lord President, Lord Hamilton’s ‘tap on the shoulder job offer to a legal colleague’ onto the Queen for approval, solicitor Philip Mann of Moray based law form Stephen & Robb has now been appointed as sheriff of Grampian, Highlands & Islands, earning a taxpayer funded salary of £128,296 a year plus expenses.

The law firm’s website still lists Mr Mann as “still available to give you the benefit of his considerable experience in many areas of the law but principally in buying and selling properties, Wills and Powers of Attorney and reparation claims”

The Scottish Government Press Release :

Appointment of Mr Philip Mann, solicitor, as sheriff of Grampian, Highlands and Islands based at Kirkwall and Lerwick.

Her Majesty the Queen has appointed Mr Philip Mann, solicitor, as sheriff of Grampian, Highlands and Islands based at Kirkwall and Lerwick.

First Minister Alex Salmond nominated Mr Mann for appointment, which was made on 16 April, on the basis of a report by the independent Judicial Appointments Board.

Mr Mann will take up his role on 2 July.

Philip Mann was educated at Keith Grammar School and Aberdeen University where he gained his degree in Law.  He was admitted as a solicitor in 1975 when he joined Fyfe and Murray, Solicitors, Greenock, having served his apprenticeship with Stephen & Robb, Solicitors and Estate Agents, Keith.  He re-joined Stephen & Robb in 1976 and has remained there throughout his career.  He is now their senior partner.  In 2002 Mr Mann became an honorary sheriff for the sheriff court district of Elgin.  In 2006 he was appointed as a part-time sheriff and in that capacity sits in courts all over Scotland.

The salary of a sheriff is £128,296 per annum.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland was established by Ministers in 2002 and it became an independent advisory non-departmental public body on 1 June 2009. The Board has statutory responsibilities under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. The Board’s role is to recommend for appointment to the office of judge, sheriff principal, sheriff and part-time sheriff. The First Minister retains the statutory responsibility for making nominations to Her Majesty the Queen. The First Minister is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making his nomination to Her Majesty.

One expensive ‘Tap on the Shoulder’ as Scottish judiciary chooses its new £214K a year plus expenses Lord President to replace retiring Lord Hamilton

Hunt is on to find replacement for Lord Hamilton who retires in June 2012. AS reflected in the current Lord President’s previous explanation of recruitment of members of the judiciary, where a friendly tap on the shoulder appeared to suffice, the Scottish justice system is again to tap someone else on the shoulder to fill the Lord President’s post upon the retirement of Lord Hamilton, the current Lord President in June 2012. An announcement from the Scottish Government reflects the position that bit-part-justice-player, “The First Minister”, has convened a selection panel, to choose the new Lord President, but only after the members of the selection panel were ordered to fill recommended for the post by the legal establishment.

Choosing a new Lord President (and 49 other ways to make potato waffles – Ed)

Following notification of the current Lord President, Lord Hamilton's, intention to retire in June 2012, the First Minister has established a selection panel to make recommendations for a new Lord President. That appointment process has begun today, 4 January 2012, with the office being advertised and applications being invited by 31 January 2012. The selection panel will interview shortlisted candidates and make a report to the First Minister with their recommendations shortly after that.

The selection panel consists of:

Sir Muir Russell (Chair), Chair of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland;
Professor Andrew Coyle, Lay member of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland;
Rt. Hon Lord Hardie, Senator (Inner House), and
Hon Lady Dorrian, Senator (Outer House)

The office of Lord President is the most senior judicial office in Scotland and the office holder is responsible for leadership of the entire Scottish judiciary, in addition to chairing the Board of the Scottish Court Service. The salary is £214,165.

The procedure for appointing the Lord President is governed by sections 19 and 20 and Schedule 2 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 and section 95 of the Scotland Act 1998. The 2008 Act requires the First Minister to establish a panel to recommend individuals who are suitable for appointment. The First Minister must have regard to the panel's recommendation but is not bound by it. Once the panel makes its recommendation, it is for the First Minister to make his nomination to the Prime Minister, after consultation with both the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. The Prime Minister has responsibility for recommending to Her Majesty the appointment of a person as Lord President, but may not recommend any person who has not been nominated by the First Minister.

Sir Muir Russell was appointed as lay Chairing Member of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland in October 2008 for a period of three years and re-appointed in October 2011 for a further three years. He was educated at the High School of Glasgow and Glasgow University, where he took a first class honours degree in Natural Philosophy. He was Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Office and then the Scottish Executive from 1998 to 2003 and Principal of the University of Glasgow from 2003 to 2009.

Professor Andrew Coyle was appointed as a lay Member of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland in November 2008 for a period of three years and re-appointed in 2011 for a further three years. He is Emeritus Professor of Prison Studies in the University of London and Visiting Professor in the University of Essex. He was the founding Director of the International Centre for Prison Studies (1997-2005) and a former prison governor. Professor Coyle has a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and is a Fellow of King's College London. He is a member of the Foreign Secretary's Advisory Group on Torture Prevention.

The Rt Hon Lord Hardie was appointed as a Senator of the College of Justice in March 2000 and was promoted to the Inner House of the Court of Session in December 2009. Lord Hardie is a graduate of Edinburgh University (MA, LLB Hons) and qualified as a solicitor in 1971. In 1973 he was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates and he served as an Advocate Depute from 1979 to 1983 and Dean of Faculty from 1994 to 1997. He served as Lord Advocate from 1997-2000.

Hon Lady Dorrian was appointed as a Senator of the College of Justice in 2005, having served as a Temporary Judge since 2002. Lady Dorrian is a graduate of the University of Aberdeen (LLB). She was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1981 and was Standing Junior Counsel to the Health and Safety Executive and Commission between 1987 and 1994. She served as Advocate Depute between 1988 and 1991, and as Standing Junior to the Department of Energy between 1991 and 1994. Lady Dorrian was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1994 and between 1997 and 2001 she was a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Eligibility for appointment as Lord President is open to:

Serving Court of Session Judges
Sheriffs principal and sheriffs who have held continuous office for at least five years
Solicitors who have had rights of audience in both the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary for a continuous period for at least five years
Advocates of at least five years standing
Writers of the Signet of 10 years standing who have passed an examination in civil law set by the Faculty of Advocates two years before appointment

Lord Hamilton was first appointed as a Senator of the College of Justice in 1995 and was promoted to the Inner House of the Court of Session in 2002. He was appointed to the offices of Lord President and Lord Justice General in 2005. Lord Hamilton is a graduate of the universities of Oxford (BA, Worcester College) and Edinburgh (LLB). He was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1968 and was Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Development Department (1975-78) and the Inland Revenue (1978-82) He served as an Advocate Depute from 1982 to 1985.

Judicial Appointments : Scotland gets two new ‘floating’ sheriffs

George Alexander Way and James Hunter Williamson have been appointed as all-Scotland ‘floating sheriffs’, to be based in Dundee and Kirkcaldy.

Scottish Government Release :

Appointment of sheriffs

22/04/2009

Her Majesty the Queen, on the recommendation of the First Minister, has appointed Mr George Alexander Way and Mr James Hunter Williamson as all-Scotland floating sheriffs based in Dundee and Kirkcaldy.

First Minister Alex Salmond nominated Mr Way for appointment on the basis of a report by the independent Judicial Appointments Board.

They both will have a commission enabling them to serve where required throughout Scotland's sheriff courts, but in practice they will be expected to sit mostly in the Sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife.

Mr Way (52) graduated from Edinburgh University in 1978. He was admitted as a solicitor in November 1980 and as a Solicitor Advocate in November 2003. Since 2003 Mr Way has been the Procurator Fiscal to HM Court of the Lord Lyon and the Senior Litigation Partner with Beveridge & Kellas SSC in Edinburgh since 1983. He is a Past President of the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts and Convenor of Civil Justice on the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. He is an accredited mediator and arbiter.

Mr Williamson (48) graduated from the University of Dundee in 1982, and gained a Diploma in Legal practice in 1983. He was admitted as a solicitor in September 1983 and as a part-time sheriff in 2003. Mr Williamson is currently a partner in the Court Department, specialising in criminal law and civil court work with Messer Lawson Coull & Duncan in Dundee.

The salary of a sheriff is £128,296 per annum.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland was established by Ministers in 2002. The Board is an independent advisory body whose role is to recommend for appointment to the office of judge, sheriff principal, sheriff and part-time sheriff. The First Minister retains the statutory responsibility for making nominations to Her Majesty the Queen. The First Minister is required by statute to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session before making his nomination to Her Majesty.

Law & Order : Latest appointments of part-time sheriffs reveal 'tennis prosecuting' Law Society fiscal goes to the bench

The latest round of appointments to the office of part-time sheriff see Mungo Bovey QC & others ‘elevated’ to the bench by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. (will Kenny levitate elevate himself one day ? – Ed)

One surprise among the promotions to some might be the name of Paul Reid. of Law firm Fleming & Reid, Glasgow. Mr Reid has acted as a prosecuting fiscal for the Law Society for several years on controversial cases, where clients of crooked lawyers have apparently been excluded from hearings …

We note it was Paul Reid who prosecuted Michael G Robson, the former lawyer from Ratho caught up in various client scandals, which we reported on earlier here : Law Society of Scotland and Fiscal accused of deliberate exclusion of witness evidence in Court of Session appeal

Scottish Government Press Release :

Part-time Sheriffs

03/04/2009

Scottish Ministers have today announced new appointments to the office of part-time sheriff following recommendations by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.

The appointees are:

* Mungo Bovey QC * Paul Vincent Crozier * Paul Anthony Reid * Paul Francis Joseph Wade

Mr Bovey (49) graduated from Glasgow University in 1980. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1982 and admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1984. He took silk in 1998 and practices at the Scottish Bar.

Mr Crozier (47) graduated from Strathclyde University in 1983. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1985 and as a solicitor advocate in 2002. He is currently a partner with Croziers, Solicitors and Notaries.

Mr Reid (45) graduated from Strathclyde University in 1980. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1986 and as a solicitor advocate in 2002-criminal and 2007-civil. He is currently a partner with Fleming and Reid in Glasgow.

Mr Wade (56) graduated from Glasgow University in 1974. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1976 and as a solicitor advocate in 1993. He is currently a partner with Simpson & Marwick in Glasgow.

Part-time sheriffs were first appointed in 2000. They assist in maintaining the programme of business in the courts when full-time sheriffs are unavailable owing to sick leave or attendance at training. Part-time sheriffs may also assist when the court programme experiences increases in business which cannot be accommodated without additional judicial assistance. Most part-time sheriffs have a continuing professional practice as either an advocate or a solicitor.

All appointees were recommended for appointment by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland. The qualifications required for part-time sheriffs are the same as those for full-time sheriffs. Part-time sheriffs are paid a daily fee for each day of service, currently £583.

Too much of the old boys club as Scots Judiciary fails the definition of transparency, variety & reality …

When you think of judges in Scotland, you think of (unrepeatable) and things such as white, upper class, privately educated etc … and don’t forget the oblivious to reality part too.

That is exactly the way it is with the Scots judiciary, fully laid bare by the Sunday Herald this week in an excellent investigation.

The Sunday Herald reports:

Male, white, middle class, privately educated, Edinburgh resident, New Club member ... is it time to change the face of the Scottish judiciary?

INVESTIGATION: By Paul Hutcheon, Investigations Editor, and Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

IT IS not often the heads of government and the courts come together in the same room in Scotland. The separation of political and judicial power, one of the mainstays of the nation's democracy, means the first minister and lord president are rarely in each other's company However, in the coming weeks, Alex Salmond will be legally obliged to confer with Lord Hamilton on the selection of three new judges.

Together, they will pore over a list sent to Salmond on Tuesday by the Judicial Appointments Board, recommending who should be awarded the scarlet robe, known colloquially at court as the "red jersey". Their decision will then be forwarded to the Queen for final approval.

The rarity of the encounter emphasises its importance, as judges are at the heart of Scotland's establishment. Their decisions not only reflect the civil and criminal law, they also contribute to it, establishing precedents that affect the lives of thousands.

In 2001, Lord Abernethy's acquittal of a student accused of rape because there was no evidence of force, despite the woman repeatedly saying no, threw the country's rape laws into chaos. Although a later review rejected this interpretation, it is only now that legislation is passing through Holyrood to reform Scotland's antiquated sexual offence laws.

***
Yet in spite of their power, precious little is known of the men and women in wigs who earn some of the largest salaries in the public sector. On the eve of a momentous decision for Salmond and Scotland's legal system, a Sunday Herald investigation of the 35 judges in post on January 1 this year reveals the country's bench to be deeply unrepresentative of Scotland in terms of race, gender, and class.

While appointments must be made on merit - no-one would argue for incompetent judges - the investigation shows how the Scottish bench invites a perception that is a self-perpetuating and well-guarded clique likely to deter applicants with the "wrong" background.

Earlier this year, amid much media approval, three female Scottish judges made history by sitting together on the same civil case. What was less well publicised by the Scottish Court Service was that the trio constituted almost the entire female judiciary of the nation.

Only four women - Ladies Paton, Dorrian, Smith and Clark - wear the scarlet robe, compared with 31 men at the start of the year, a paltry 11%.

Other areas of public life, such as politics and less elite parts of the law, have managed to address equally striking gender inequality, but never the Scottish bench.

According to Sex And Power, an index produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, female appointments to the bench lag significantly behind other areas of public life. Women filled 32% of all public appointments in 2007-2008, covering 26% of all head-teacher posts in secondary schools and 21% of university principals. A third of MSPs are women.

In the law in Scotland, there has been progress in terms of women taking up the profession. Half of this autumn's trainee advocates are women, compared with one in 20 in the 1990s, but on present form, there is little prospect of this being mirrored on the bench. In the past six years, only two of the 14 judges appointed have been female.

The legal establishment's record in appointing ethnic minority judges is also poor, as not a single member of the bench is black or Asian, and two Jewish judges, Lord Caplan and Lady Cosgrove, have now retired.

"We need to work towards a truly representative judiciary," said a spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. "How many disabled people, people from the LGBT lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community or from different race or faith groups sit on the bench? What are the barriers that prevent these groups from progressing in our legal system? Our judiciary needs to become more reflective of Scottish society."

***
The living arrangements of the 35 judges also point to a caste far removed from those appearing before them in the dock. Although the court of session, which hears civil and appeal cases, is in the capital, the high court, which hears the most serious criminal trials, moves around the country.

Yet public records show that 89% of the "senators of the College of Justice" live in the Lothians, 83% in the capital itself, and 71% in just four plush Edinburgh postcodes. Twelve judges, or 34%, live in the New Town area, and five in the Grange. Another five, or 14%, have an EH4 1 code, which covers the most affluent parts of Edinburgh's west end, while 8% stay in Trinity. Not a single judge lives in Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen or any other Scottish city.

The most recent Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, which two years ago divided the country into 6505 small neighbourhoods and ranked them according to poverty and affluence, confirms the extent to which the country's judges and their families are physically cut off from most of Scotland.

The second-least deprived neighbourhood in Scotland - area 6504 on the index - consists of a handful of streets and just under 800 people, but they include no less than five judges: Lords Carloway, Kingarth, Turnbull, Uist and Nimmo Smith all live within a few yards of each other in the west end of Edinburgh, near the Dean Bridge Two judges live three doors apart on Ann Street, regarded as the city's most desirable address. The average house price in area 6504 last year was £488,143 - more than three times the national average. The pattern is repeated across the judiciary.

The most affluent 1% of Scotland on the index is home to 13 judges, or 37% of the total. The richest 5% is home to 20 judges, or 57% of the bench. By contrast, the poorest 5% of Scotland's council wards produce 25% of the prison population.

***
Wealth, of course, is a factor. On the lowest rung of the judicial pay ladder, remuneration for the 21 senators of the College of Justice currently sitting in the court of session's Outer House is £170,200. Above them, the 11 judges of the Inner House, who hear appeals, each earn £193,800.

The country's most senior judge, the lord president, earns £211,000, while his deputy, the lord justice clerk, earns £203,800. Lord McGhie, chair of the Scottish Land Court, who makes up the 35th member of Scotland's judiciary, is a relative pauper on £136,500. All told, the combined bill for judges' salaries this year will exceed £6 million.

A survey of the senators' schooling suggests judges have a similar upbringing, as well as similar tastes in property later in life. While only 4.5% of children in Scotland attend private schools, 71% of judges were educated in the independent sector. A third attended either George Watson's College, Edinburgh Academy or Glenalmond in Perthshire.

Sometimes the clubbishness is quite literal. Membership of the exclusive New Club, a lynchpin of the Edinburgh establishment, appears de rigeur amongst senators, with 43% of judges listed as members in Who's Who.

The patterns becomes even more vivid at the highest levels of the judiciary.

While four members of the 35-strong bench are female, only one woman currently sits in the Inner House, equivalent to 9% of the total. Similarly, while 71% of all judges live in just four Edinburgh postcode sectors, such as EH3 6 and EH4 1, the percentage jumps to 90% for the Inner House. Attendance at independent schools also increases for Inner House judges, from 71% to 82%.

The creation in 2002 of the JAB, which advises ministers on the selection of judges, appears to have made little progress in modernising the bench. Set up to make the appointments system more transparent, the board's recommendations have helped appoint 14 judges. Of these fourteen, two (15%) are women - a slight improvement on the overall figure of 11% - while four (29%) attended state schools, the same figures for judges overall.

Both the board and the wider legal profession acknowledge that a problem exists. Neil Stevenson, head of diversity at the Law Society of Scotland, said: "It is vital that membership of the judiciary is diverse and reflects modern Scotland and that the system of appointing judges is open and transparent.

"The society is working with the JAB and others to examine the barriers that might exist - or that people perceive exist - about becoming a judge or sheriff. We want to ensure that Scottish solicitors are supported and encouraged to apply to become a judge, if that is their career choice."

It is against this backdrop that the three vacancies to the bench have taken on an added significance. Two of the vacancies are the result of recent deaths - Lord Macfadyen and Lord Johnston - while the third has arisen through the forthcoming retiral of Lord McEwan. Applications for a red jersey are supposed to be secret, but in the gossipy world of the Scottish legal system, a handful of favourites have already emerged.

These include Gordon Jackson, the former Labour MSP for Glasgow Govan, and the QCs Valerie Stacey and Paul Cullen. As Glasgow residents, Jackson and Stacey buck the trend for living in the capital - although both have houses in the exclusive Pollokshields area.

Cullen, a member of the New Club, lives in Edinburgh's Morningside. Another name being mentioned is sheriff Ian Peebles.

There is a growing consensus that increasing diversity on the bench is a worthwhile goal, although not everybody signs up to this ambition. Lord McCluskey, a retired judge, said he was sceptical of the arguments for diversity. "It isn't just a case of saying we should appoint three women to the bench," he said. "If I am going to be in hospital for an operation on my brain, I don't want the surgeon to be picked by reason of diversity. I don't want a one-eyed woman from Jamaica. Merit is the only consideration."

Scots judiciary allegedly biased against women as figures reveal only one in nine are judges

Could it be the surprise of the century that only one in nine judges in Scotland are women ? We think not ...

Read on for more as the Scotsman reports :

Justice in dock: only one in nine judges is a woman

By MICHAEL HOWIE

THE body in charge of selecting judges and sheriffs is to carry out a major investigation aimed at ending the virtual monopoly that white men have on the bench.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland is to examine the "barriers" it believes are preventing women and people from ethnic minorities from progressing into senior positions.

Equality campaigners fear the lack of women and non-white sheriffs and judges is damaging public confidence in the legal system. They argue that the predominance of white men in the judiciary is off-putting to some victims, for example women who are raped.

Sir Neil MacIntosh, the chairman of the board, insists women who apply to become sheriffs or judges have as much chance as men. But he told The Scotsman too few were putting themselves forward for the most senior positions.

"When women do apply, they are successful," he said. "But there is a gap between the number of potential women candidates and the number who actually come forward."

He believed "a range of factors" was probably preventing women and non-white people from applying to become a sheriff or judge.

He said: "Is it the hours? Is it perhaps that female candidates are still working their way into the more senior ranks – the 'trickle-down' effect? Is it because of the nature of the jobs, as the bulk of appointments are all-Scotland? In other words, you've got to be willing and prepared to travel across the whole of Scotland when called upon to do so. Does that mean that women with family responsibilities still are disadvantaged by that?

"We need to find out whether there are barriers preventing them from coming forward. The process should be equally accessible to anyone.

"I suspect there are a whole range of factors. The important thing is that we address them."

Sir Neil, who retires in June after six years as chairman of the board, which was set up in 2002, went on: "Some people suggest it's just a matter of time, but I'm not convinced. That assumes the trickle-down effect is the only factor. I don't believe that. I think it's an absolute duty (to promote greater diversity]."

But Sir Neil rejected far more radical moves to improve diversity. "We don't operate quotas," he insisted.

Nicky Kandirikiria, executive director of the equality campaign group Engender, is among those who believe the composition of the judiciary is damaging the justice system.

"You have to consider whether having such a male-dominated judiciary is contributing to the fact we have one of the lowest conviction rates for rape in Western Europe," she said. "We know many women who suffer violence don't go to court because it's so male-dominated. More women judges would help."

Under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill, the appointments board will have to give people posts "solely on merit". However, there are some in the legal profession who believe a candidate's suitability for the job should be based partly on whether they will help create a more diverse judiciary.

But one senior figure said such action could result in the wrong judges being appointed.

Lord McCluskey, a retired judge, said: "

The nature of justice does not vary in its character depending on whether the person administering it is male, female, black or white.

"If I go into hospital for brain surgery, I want the very best person for the job. I don't want to be told 'it's your turn to be operated on by someone brought in to create diversity for Bangladeshi immigrants'."

Figures show the judiciary's lack of balance in terms of gender and ethnicity. Only four of the 35 serving judges – or 11 per cent – are women. None are from ethnic minorities. Of the 140 full-time sheriffs, 26 – 19 per cent – are female, and only one, Rajni Swanney, who was appointed nine years ago, is from an ethnic minority. She moved to Scotland from India at the age of two and was brought up in Dundee.

While 36 per cent of the legal profession are female, less than a quarter of applications to be sheriffs or judges are from women.

Osama Saeed, the chairman of the Scottish-Islamic Foundation, said:

" The dispensing of justice requires juries to be of your peers, and the judiciary similarly has to be representative of society.

It has an impact in the trust in the system."

The appointments board has set up a working party to examine the composition of Scotland's legal profession. Led by Professor Alan Paterson, from Strathclyde University, it will include representatives from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.

The working party plans to survey about 12,000 solicitors, advocates and sheriffs, seeking their attitudes towards becoming a judge or sheriff. Women, people from ethnic minorities and other minority groups will be "tracked" to find out if, and how, their careers are progressing. Steps will then be taken to overcome any hurdles.

Ros Micklem, of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the inquiry should go beyond gender and ethnicity.

"We would expect them to ensure they look at all the potential barriers to participation. How many of our judges or sheriffs are disabled? Why is there such a small percentage of women or people from ethnic minorities? Does the environment in which they work encourage them to be honest about sexual orientation, or faith and belief?"

Bill Aitken, MSP, the Scottish Tories' justice spokesman, said judicial appointments should be made on merit, but he would welcome more women and people from ethnic minorities.

'People should have the opportunity to apply if they want and not feel there is little point'

I WOULD love the opportunity to apply to become a judge. As a career move, it would be a fantastic prospect.

But, as I see it, there are too many deterrents for me, both as a woman and someone from an ethnic minority group.

Applying to become a "floating" sheriff – who is required to work across Scotland – is a "no-no". I have two very small children and a husband who has a very successful and high-profile career. The responsibility to look after the children would fall to me at the end of the day.

This project by the appointments board is a good start, but it will take some years to work through, because of the old mentality of how things are done. There will have to be some genuine incentives in the appointments process and job descriptions to encourage not just people like me, but also those from other minority groups to feel confident about applying to become a judge.

People should be given the opportunity to apply if they want and not feel there is little point because of who they are. If I was white I'd think that too, that just being a mum would mean I wouldn't fit in. But being non-white makes me even further away from what I would imagine the panel are looking for.

However, times are changing – and the quicker the better. The old boy network is still there, but I think it's on the way out.

It might be thought that because I am non-white I won't be able to deal with the type of people coming before me in the dock. But I think the judiciary will appear more in touch with the public if the traditional white, male profile is seen in equal numbers with members of minority groups. It's important that the judiciary visibly reflects the society that it serves. I don't actually think it's the case that judges are out of touch. But the perception is that they don't understand the everyday, "streetwise" life. This is bound to have an impact on confidence in the system.

• Farah Adams is a Blairgowrie-based solicitor who is convener of the Law Society of Scotland's equality and diversity committee.

Retired sheriff takes humorous swipe at regulation as judiciary fights reforms

Nothing like a spot of sour grapes to keep the day afloat for some ...

The Scotsman reports :

Proposed judicial complaints body prompts lighter look at possibilities

By IAN C SIMPSON

Ian C Simpson QC, a retired sheriff, takes a humourous look at what could happen with proposals to reform the complaints procedure against jugdes.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL DISAPPOINTMENT BOARD FOR SCOTLAND 2010

CHAIRWOMAN: LADY FRANKIE KNOWEV-HALL

IT HAS been a challenging but stimulating first year for your board, set up to investigate complaints against judges and sheriffs. Our early relocation to Auchenshoogle proved to be a mixed blessing. While Auchenshoogle Castle is a spectacular setting for a workplace environment, the need to install appropriate, fit for purpose, office equipment led to unfortunate tension with Historic Scotland.

Acutely aware of the imperative to fully use our budget by year-end if we wanted the same allocation next year, we went ahead with the changes that were vitally necessary – open-plan space, fluorescent lighting throughout, cables for computers, male and female toilets for staff and the public, disabled facilities, status-appropriate space for board members and senior staff with carpets and furniture to match.

All this seemed more important than retaining inappropriate relics of feudalism, the Great Hall, the hole for pouring boiling oil on intruders, dungeons, and the like. It has, unfortunately, been necessary to set aside a contingency fund to cover the costs involved in our defence as we have been charged with a number of breaches of the planning legislation. We do not comment on this as it is sub judice, and, in the same spirit, we are holding as pending the 67 complaints we have uncovered against the local sheriff, Sheriff McTavish.

The relocation has been only partially successful in bringing employment to this remote area. We have attracted one local employee, and he on condition that he is not required to wear a commissionaire's uniform as he stands at the castle gates.

For the rest of our loyal, re-located employees we are actively addressing the issue of overcharging by local bed and breakfast establishments.

Our publication, A Guide for Girners, has been freely available in every court and we have received 2,609 complaints against judges and sheriffs. The complainers divide by class, gender and age along predictable lines. When number-crunching postcodes, we were surprised to find disproportionate numbers of complaints from the Riddrie area of Glasgow and the Longstone area of Edinburgh. Further consultation with appropriate agencies revealed that a large prison is situated in each location.

One statistic stood out: 2,590 complaints came from those who were case-losers; one came from a case winner.

The lady in question had been awarded a residence order in respect of her five children, described by the local social work department as "hyperactive and irredeemably feral".

The rest of the complaints relate to delays in issuing judgements, but our heavy workload has thus far prevented us from dealing with those.

Most of the complaints could be categorised as "sour grapes". We found some substance in a series of complaints that a High Court judge grinned broadly while sentencing, the longer the sentence, the broader the grin. His Lordship informed us that at moments of stress he suffered from trapped wind and the perceived grin was really a grimace. We dismissed the complaints against him, with a recommendation that he should take a couple of antacid pills before sentencing.

Great challenges lie ahead. Next year we hope to start investigating judges of the past. Lord Braxfield is reputed to have told one accused: "Y'er a very clever chiel, man, but ye wad be nane the waur o' a hanging." A suitable case for us, I feel sure.

Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Bill : Lord President to be made head of Judiciary & Complaints.

The recent announcement of the Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Bill has both the judiciary and critics up on arms over what's in and what's out of the legislation, which comes from the reviews of the previous Scottish Executive.

Peter Cherbi reports on the issue from his blog A Diary of Injustice in Scotland :

Judicial 'independence' in Scotland sees Lord President appointed head of judiciary & 'Law Society' style complaints system against judges

The definition of the word "independent" certainly takes a tumble when it comes to matters involving the Scottish legal establishment - as a judge is put in charge of a planned new complaints procedure system against judges & sheriffs, long resisted by the judiciary to the point of threat of legal action.

Certainly while the limited moves to reform Scotland's 'law unto itself' judiciary are welcomed, the lack of reforms to the way members of the judiciary are appointed, and regulated, are disappointing to say the least. In essence, the accountability of the judiciary will still rest with, the judiciary in the proposed Bill.

The Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Bill, will see the current Lord President, Lord Hamilton, made head of the Scottish Judiciary, along with taking on responsibility for all court business, conduct issues involving complaints made against sheriffs & judges, while also guaranteeing statutory independence for the judiciary.

Read more here on the Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Bill from the Scottish Government in acrobat pdf format : Proposals for a Judiciary (Scotland) Bill

On the face of it, not too bad a deal for the judiciary then, who have long threatened rebellion, even legal action, against any proposed reforms to the judicial bench, or even any prospect of an investigation into the judicial bench

In fact, the judiciary have long felt strongly over the issue, or even just a 'thought' about judicial reforms, an example of which in 2001, where the Sheriffs Association threatened the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament, Chaired by Christine Grahame (SNP) MSP that even if only the Committee investigated the status of Sheriffs, there may be legal action under Article 6 of ECHR - no surprise then that Ms Grahame's Justice 1 Committee held a meeting in private and then extracted the Sheriffs from their "regulation of the legal profession" inquiry, which to all purposes was ran by the Law Society of Scotland anyway, and also saw members of the public embargoed from testifying in public over their difficulties with the legal system.

You can read the Sheriff Lockhart's letter to Christine Grahame's Justice 1 Committee who were carrying out their 2001 "Regulation of the legal profession" cover up inquiry ordering them not to consider investigating members of the judiciary on the Scottish Parliament's own web site here : Secretary of the Sheriffs Association Sheriff Lockhart's letter to the Justice 1 Committee "Regulation of the legal profession" inquiry 2001

Threatening legal action against the Parliament and Government seems to be a hobby for members of the legal establishment, where, when faced with the loss of control over part of the complaints system against solicitors, Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill threatened the Parliament & Executive with legal action if the Law Society wasn't allowed to remain supreme regulator of the legal profession.

My coverage of Douglas Mill's threat of legal action over losing complaints regulation : Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

Douglas Mill, as you all know, brought in an English QC - Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to author an opinion it was 'against a lawyers human rights under ECHR' for anyone else except a lawyer to investigate a complaint against a lawyer ! - a desperate move which didn't succeed in preventing the relevant legislation contained in the then Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill from being passed into law in late 2006.

So you see, the legal establishment do have a track record in threatening legal action against any prospect of reforms to the way they regulate or conduct themselves - hardly something one could call acceptable in a democracy ?

Douglas Mill, who can't go quick enough as Chief Executive of the Law Society, according to some lawyers themselves, even lied to Parliament over the Law Society's interference in claims & complaints against crooked lawyers ... so if the legal establishment feel themselves brave or strong enough in their power to lie to Parliament & Government Ministers, on camera - how can they ever be trusted ?

My coverage of Douglas Mill's misleading testimony to the Scottish Parliament & the confrontation with John Swinney : Law Society boss Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints.

Given the Scottish taxpayer will be pumping in a few million pounds a year into the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which saw the same Lord President recently help with the appointments of its members, mainly lawyers, ex police and other figures to 'independently' investigate complaints against Scottish solicitors, it might have been more effective to hand over the complaints & investigation process involving complaints made against the judiciary to the new 'independent' commission .. at least taking the judges themselves out of having responsibility for the procedures, which surely are something of a conflict of interest.

However, it appears giving an 'independent' body any oversight or regulatory role in matters involving the judiciary is one step too far for Scotland's judges, who are as intent as Douglas Mill, the current (resigning soon) Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland in maintaining control over regulatory matters for themselves .. as well as appointments of their colleagues, and every other matter involving the judiciary.

One of the arguments for the Judiciary & Courts Bill, is to guarantee the independence of the judiciary in statute. That is of course a good and necessary thing. No argument there - but there has to be transparency & accountability, and who is going to guarantee that ? the judges themselves ? ... I think not, as we have all suffered the legal profession's attempt to do that over the decades by way of the Law Society of Scotland investigating complaints against lawyers - a very corrupt arrangement indeed, as many media outlets have reported over the years - and many of us Scots have experienced first hand.

I have covered at length previously how the Law Society have investigated complaints against lawyers, here are some examples :

Lawyers complaints system thought to have caused intimidation of clients for years

Law Society of Scotland covers up history of crooked lawyer as new President indicates little change on pro lawyer anti client policies

Andrew Penman & Norman Howitt : Lawyer & accountant team up to ruin Cherbi executry estate

Quoting today's Scotsman article : "The bill also aims to modernise the machinery for sacking judges and sheriffs, who have long been considered "above the law", on the grounds of unfitness for office. Under the proposals, they would be investigated by a tribunal chaired by a judge and containing a lay element."

Yes indeed, the Law Society of Scotland have lay members on their Complaints Committees - and they have done not one bit of good whatsoever - usually always siding with the lawyer element to get crooked lawyers off the hook, and even bizarrely changing their decisions to prosecute, after secret intervention from senior members of the Law Society itself.

In short, the lay element of regulation does not work, when it comes to professions such as lawyers, accountants and other 'self regulatory' professions which certainly qualifies as a good description of the way the judiciary handles complaints against itself ...

I have reported on matters regarding the 'lay element' of Committees involving the legal and accounting professions before - where these two professions regularly swap individuals and senior members, to ensure complaints against each other's respective members are covered up to the nth degree.

Fears over corrupt self regulation as accountants regulator draft in ex Law Society President and solicitor as Public Interest members

Restrictions required on the interests of lay members in the world of self regulation

Oh, and if you are wondering about how the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission lay membership qualifies as independent, read the following article, which reveals that 'independence' or 'lay membership' when it comes to all matters legal, is anything but.

Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 'lacks impartiality' despite Ombudsman's appointment as Chairman

Levels of Lay Membership on new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission questioned as lawyers begin attempt to plant allies in positions

While of course, the Lord President and the judiciary should be independent of Ministers, the relationship between Minister & the Lord President seems to come in handy for the legal establishment when for instance, the Lord President and Justice Secretary sit down together to cancel any applications for rights of audience & representation made under Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1990, which were implemented only after a long campaign from the legal profession to keep them off the law books, ensuring that only lawyers and the legal profession could grant the public access to justice & legal services.

In fact, so intent was the legal profession on maintaining a closed shop of legal services, a serving Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie recommended repealing of Sections 25-29 to keep the lawyers monopoly on the publics use of legal services, a tradition the current Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and the Lord President have been continuing, by vetoing all applications for entry into the legal services market since the 2007 implementation of Sections 25-29.

So, the Lord President & Ministers get along fine when it comes to excluding the public from freedom of choice of legal services ... but not when it comes to regulation of the judiciary ...

To quote the Scotsman article once more : "It is likely a code of conduct will have to be drawn up, governing the conduct of Scotland's sheriffs and judges."

If that code of conduct is anything like the one used by the Law Society of Scotland, it will be as much use as no use, and will even contain such things as the ability to make & change rules as they see fit ... a great vote for transparency & accountability ...

Independent regulation of the judiciary and an independent appointments process - a few 'great democracies' seem to get along with it fine ... across the Atlantic for instance ... so how about some 21st Century reforms for the legal establishment in Scotland .. not 17th Century reforms as we seem to be getting ...

Finally, a brief note on something which has been raised in comments to my article on the Douglas Mill resignation.

Yes, its true the Law Society are out for revenge over John Swinney's questioning against Douglas Mill before the Justice 2 Committee over the Law Society's interference & intervention in claims & complaints against crooked lawyers.

Some documents currently in circulation, with an origin from 'legal quarters', seem to be an attempt to discredit individuals who have taken a stand on certain issues. This is nothing new, we have had this before, and we will have it again. This is the legal profession's way of defending itself - resorting to dirty tricks when things don't go its way and mounting highly personalized campaigns against people to 'discredit them'.

Whatever the Law Society tries to do against Mr Swinney, or anyone else who has taken a stand on such issues, will only undermine the legal profession itself and their position, while hopefully at the same time, kicking into touch the Justice Secretary who still seems to be so in love with the Law Society and his legal colleagues. After all, the Justice Secretary can hardly go around praising the very profession which seems to be bent on causing trouble for one of Scotland's most capable politicians as many of you have pointed out in emails to me today.

Good thing its all on video, isn't it ...

The Scotsman reports :

Shake-up to ensure that judges are not a law unto themselves

By Michael Howie

SCOTLAND'S judiciary will undergo one of the biggest overhauls in legal history under new legislation designed to protect judges and sheriffs from ministerial interference.

The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill, published yesterday, proposes to make the Lord President, currently Lord Hamilton, the head of the Scottish judiciary, with overall responsibility for all court business.

If approved by MSPs, the bill will, for the first time, place a statutory duty on the First Minister to safeguard judicial independence.

However, the radical proposals will also see members of the bench subject to a formal complaints procedure to deal with allegations of misconduct.

For the first time, witnesses and accused who feel they have been mistreated by a sheriff or judge will be able to trigger disciplinary proceedings which, in extreme cases, could result in the official being removed from their post.

The bill proposes to move responsibility for the running of the Scottish Courts Service from ministers to a new board that will include judges and be chaired by the Lord President.

The historic move last night appeared to have eased fears that the Lord President would become increasingly dependent on the support of government-selected civil servants, blurring the lines between two pillars of democracy which have existed in Scotland since the 1500s.

The moves will give judges greater freedom to put forward their own policy ideas to ministers regarding how key areas of the justice system should be run.

The bill also aims to modernise the machinery for sacking judges and sheriffs, who have long been considered "above the law", on the grounds of unfitness for office. Under the proposals, they would be investigated by a tribunal chaired by a judge and containing a lay element.

It is likely a code of conduct will have to be drawn up, governing the conduct of Scotland's sheriffs and judges.

Some sheriffs are thought to be opposed to the move, believing it is an attack on their independence as they will constantly have to watch what they say.

However, ministers have rejected that charge, insisting sheriffs and judges should be subject to the same rules about decent behaviour that govern other office-bearers.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, said the bill would "strengthen and modernise" the judiciary, adding: "The legislation is of constitutional significance (and] considers the relationship between the judiciary and other branches of government."

Lord Hamilton, who welcomed the bill, said: "I believe the bill presents an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to make law of considerable constitutional significance, which will place the relationship of the judiciary with the Scottish Government, and with the parliament itself, on a new footing."

He said there had been dialogue over the proposals between judges, ministers and officials for two years, adding: "That dialogue has been constructive and allowed for detailed and productive discussion on the full range of topics in the bill.

"Of course, that does not mean the senior judiciary agree with each and every detail of it. We shall wish to study its provisions carefully over the next few months and listen to the views of others about the bill, all with a view to our making suggestions to the parliament as to how its provisions might be improved."

One leading QC, Paul McBride, said the proposals would help to bring "errant" sheriffs and judges to book. "This is more to do with the conduct, both on and off the bench. It will allow errant people who behave inappropriately to be brought to account.

"But, vitally, they will still be able to take decisions that will be unpopular among our political leaders."

He said the legislation represented the "biggest review there has been of the role of judges and sheriffs in a modern society".

"The hope is that judicial independence will remain and be strengthened – but that if there is judicial incompetence, there is a process by which such a person can be removed from office."

KEY POINTS

• Statutory guarantee of judicial independence

• Make Lord President head of the Scottish judiciary with responsibility for court business, training, welfare, deployment and conduct

• Make Scottish Courts Service a non-ministerial department run by board chaired by Lord President

• Formal complaints procedures for conduct issues involving a sheriff or judge

• Streamline procedure for considering fitness for office of judges and sheriffs

Judicial Appointments Commission - England no different from Scotland as change lacks substance

Judicial reform - a hot topic which usually sees a flow of anti government court judgements after even the ideas of reforming the judiciary are announced, is back in the news in Scotland, but what has happened south of the border by way of judicial reform ?

The Judicial Appointments Commission, stands accused of having a stranglehold over the way judges are appointed .... something the legal establishment in Scotland know all about and have practiced very well for decades.

The Times reports :

Judges still have too much influence

The new Judicial Appointments Commission must change, and soon, if it wants to retain its credibility

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor of The Times

Do the judiciary and executive still have a stranglehold over the way judges are appointed, ensuring a perpetuation of a white, male, middle-class oligarchy?

The answer, according to the Law Society, is a resounding "yes". It is more than year since the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) was set up as a new independent and transparent body overseeing judicial appointments, and to create more diversity. But the society believes that little beneath the surface has changed.

In its response this month to Gordon Brown's Governance of Britain proposals for reform, the Law Society, which represents 100,000 solicitors in England and Wales, is scathing in its verdict.

The creation of the JAC, it notes, was "an opportunity to sweep away the old and bring in the new; an opportunity which we believe has not yet been fully realised". The Government retains "too much influence" , both over the staff of the commission itself (82 per cent of whom are on secondment from the Ministry of Justice or Whitehall); over its members, "selected primarily by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice"; and over appointments: the Lord Chancellor is responsible for considering and deciding on selections that the commission makes.

And it is not just a question of Government. Judges, of course, must have an input, but the society "remains concerned by the influence of the serving judiciary". Five of the 15 JAC members must be judges, while at present three others happen to be current or former judges.

Finally, for good measure, it notes that procedures remain skewed towards judicial influence: the practice of seeking references before deciding who should be interviewed rather than after interview has "tended to give disproportionate weight to the views of the judges in the selection process". In turn, that will tend to disadvantage those from less traditional backgrounds: women, black and ethnic candidates and solicitors.

It is true that the progress up the judicial ladder of women, candidates from ethnic minorities and solicitors remains slow, especially at the higher levels. A total of 21 candidates have been approved to become High Court judges under the new system. Ten have so far been put in post, all white, male and former barristers. Of the 11 still awaiting appointment as vacancies arise, three are women — which will, when they make it to the bench, at least boost the total of 10 women out of the current 108 High Court judges. None of the three ethnic minority solicitors who applied made it to the final round and none of the seven solicitors who did made the shortlist.

When set up in 2006, the commission was meant to herald an end to a system felt to be too closed, too reliant on so-called "secret soundings" and "taps on the shoulder" — in short an "old boys' network." But solicitors are disillusioned with the pace of change.

Ironically judges and barristers are not happy either. The JAC has come under fire for being over-bureaucratic; painfully slow, bogged down in procedures that require lengthy form-filling and a host of modern selection techniques such as self-assessment and written tests. The old system, senior judges say, may have required modernising, but it worked when judged by the quality of candidates selected.

The JAC accepts that all is not rosy. In its own response to the Governance of Britain proposals, it calls for a series of reforms to help it in its task: in particular it wants an overhaul of the management of the appointments process so that estimates of vacancies are better forecasted and candidates are not left "in professional limbo" with many months of uncertainty as to where their futures will lie.

But it makes the point, with justification, that the arrival of the commission itself was "nothing less than a quiet revolution". A spokeswoman says: "Remember we have come a long way from the old system. Appointment is now only by open competition."

The recent awards of Queen's Counsel give qualified grounds for hope. Not all QCs become judges and many judges are not QCs. But it is one measure of how the senior ranks of the profession are being selected by another body. Of the 98 QCs appointed, only 20 were women, but that was 39 per cent of all applicants. The picture for ethnic minority applicants was less encouraging: four were appointed (or fewer than one in five of the applicants) and only one QC was a solicitor (representing 17 per cent of all applicants).

Yet although women did well proportionately, they did less well than last time, when 33 of the 175 appointed were women, 49 per cent of all female applicants.

The JAC rebuts suggestions that its procedures are not fair; but recognises that references, with self-assessment, are not an adequate basis for decision in many cases. So it is moving towards shortlisting for the "vast majority" of appointments on written tests. Panels will use a mix of tests, interviews and roleplays as well as self-assessment and interview to enable "well-informed and fair" selection, it says.

In its current competition for 76 recorder positions, there will be a new qualifying test for all candidates, the first large-scale exercise to use the test. (When this was tested on existing recorders recently most of them scored very poorly.)

Meanwhile, it has embarked on a strategy with the Bar Council and Law Society to reach a more diverse group of candidates. Research will be undertaken into the pool of candidates and barriers to entry; and roadshows held to promote judicial posts. Five have been held this month (Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff and Leeds). The challenge is, it insists, "for all of us in the legal and judicial world, not just us". The profession has to do its bit. If people don't apply — or reach senior levels of the profession — they can't be appointed.

Its touchstone is still appointment on merit and that, in time, its selection processes (open and fair to all applicants, regardless of their gender, race or background) will "deliver a more diverse judiciary". Timeliness is all, however. If it is retain credibility, the pace of change must now be quicker