Former Lord President challenges Petitions Committee to declare its confidence in Scotland’s judges

Lord Gill who retired as Lord President of the Court of Session in the summer, yesterday challenged Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee on three separate occasions to make a public declaration of its confidence in the honour and integrity of the Scottish judiciary.

Lord Gill had previously declined to appear before the committee to give his views on a petition lodged by Peter Cherbi calling for a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

However in a 45 minute evidence session he not only restated his opposition to the creation of a register and asked the committee to close its deliberations on the petition but he asked its members on three separate occasions to make a public statement in support of the integrity of Scotland’s judicial office holders.

Lord Gill said: “The underlying assumption is that some judges are not to be trusted.

“I would like this committee to express its confidence in the judiciary.

“We will all be the better for that.”

Later in his evidence he pressed the committee again saying: “The people of this country have a judiciary that they know and can trust.

“The Scottish judiciary is admired and respected around the world.

“It would be a tribute if this committee could put that on the record.”

Deputy convener of the committee, David Torrance, asked Lord Gill if he could explain how he thought the current safeguards against conflict of judicial interest are sufficient.

Lord Gill cited the Code of Judicial Ethics and the Judicial Oath “which is the lamp by which judges are guided in their judicial career.”

Conservative member, Jackson Carlaw, asked if Lord Gill did not accept he might be out of step “in a more cynical age” where there is a greater public expectation of transparency.

Lord Gill remained unmoved.

“You may be right. But I know of no examples where this register would have helped. The most common issue is where a judge knows someone in the case and this petition would not pick that up. … What it comes to is this, this register does not meet what it claims to address,” he said.

The committee agreed to reflect on the evidence heard at a future meeting.

As it stands, judges and sheriffs are not required to disclose details of shareholdings or directorships.

In contrast, other senior public figures, among them MSPs, MPs, public board members and councillors are required to reveal these interests.

Where a member of the judiciary finds there might be a conflict of interest they are required to recuse themselves.

Lord Gill has expressed opposition to the plans in the past and wrote to the committee previously saying a judge’s privacy would be negatively affected by “aggressive media or hostile individuals”.

He also said: “The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the judiciary.”