Holyrood backs petition for register of judges' interests

MSPs have called on the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a petition to set up a register of interests for Scotland's judges, despite ministers indicating that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure judicial impartiality.

Following a debate yesterday, the Parliament unanimously backed a motion by David Stewart MSP on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee to note Petition PE1458, in the name of Peter Cherbi, on the issue of a register of interests.

Mr Stewart told the chamber that the petition was inspired by a bill in New Zealand, which followed the resignation of a former Supreme Court judge accused of misconduct for "allegedly failing to disclose a large debt he apparently owed to a lawyer appearing in a case before him".

"The judiciary there [in New Zealand] was not overly enamoured at the suggestion of a register of interests," Mr Stewart said.

"I think that is a fair assessment of the position here to say that is probably true as well as far as the judiciary are concerned."

The committee had been disappointed at the refusal of the Lord President, Lord Gill, to meet with them in public. Mr Stewart added: "The petitioner has said that the catalyst for his petition was investigations by the Scottish media into members of the judiciary here. The petitioner told the committee that the media investigations had revealed a number of criminal charges and convictions.

"The petitioner points out that there is a greater public expectation now in terms of transparency and accountability across all branches of public life. And that the judiciary has a duty to be accountable to the wider community and should be expected to adhere to the same standards as those which apply to others in public life, such as MSPs, ministers, and MPs."

For the Scottish Government, Legal Affairs Minister Roseanna Cunningham claimed that the safeguards currently in place were sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary. These were the judicial oath, the Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics for the Scottish Judiciary, issued by the Judicial Office for Scotland in 2010, and the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which contains provisions to regulate and investigate the conduct of judicial office-holders.

She pointed out that judges could not be compared with MPs and MSPs, who maintain a register of interests, because they could not reply in public if attacked or criticised, and added: "I must ask what would be included on a register. If we are agreed that it is far less likely to be financial interests that create problems, the register would somehow have to encompass social, familiar and other relationships. A register that included those relationships would be difficult to compile."

She cited the findings of the Council of Europe Group of States Against Corruption report on the UK which found "nothing emerged during the current evaluation which could indicate that there is any corruption in relation to judges, nor is there evidence of judicial decisions being influenced in an inappropriate manner".

Criticising the Lord President's failure to meet the committee, Jackson Carlaw (Conservative) commented: "Had Lord Gill subjected his reasons to the open test of committee discussion, which would have been perfectly friendly and informed, they would, most likely, have persuaded the committee that, on balance, they represented the correct position."