SCOTLAND’s top judge has clashed with MSPs after saying he was “surprised” they were still investigating whether members of the judiciary should publish details of their finances.
The Lord President, Lord Carloway, has also asked a Holyrood committee for more information before agreeing to give oral evidence on the disclosure of judges’ outside interests.
Peter Cherbi, a legal campaigner whose petition put the issue under the spotlight, said it was “disappointing” that the judge was taking this position.
Holyrood's Public Petitions committee has for four years been considering whether judges and sheriffs should have to declare "pecuniary" interests such as directorships and shareholdings.
Politicians, quango board members and other public sector figures have to publish a register, but judicial office holders face no requirement.
However, the proposal has been resisted by the judiciary, whose members fear their privacy would be infringed.
Lord Gill, the former Lord President, twice snubbed the committee’s request for him to follow up his written evidence with a face-to-face grilling.
He cited a provision of the Scotland Act 1998 that exempts judges from having to give evidence, but he eventually appeared in front of MSPs after he retired.
Lord Carloway, who replaced Lord Gill, is similarly opposed to a register of interest. In written evidence to MSPs, he claimed: “The proposal for a public register of the judiciary’s interests, gifts and hospitality is both unnecessary and undesirable.
“It is inappropriate for judges to make public comment beyond their judicial opinions in relation to individual cases. Therefore, unlike an elected representative or a member of the Government, a judge enjoys no right of reply.”
Weeks ago, MSPs on the committee decided they wanted to hear from Lord Carloway in person:
Angus MacDonald, an SNP MSP and deputy convener of the committee, said at the time: “I would be interested to ask if he would be keen to come in and give oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”
In his response to the Committee’s invitation, Lord Carloway stated: “I, and my colleagues, were under the impression that this matter had concluded, or was about to do so. I am a little surprised that it has been raised once again.
“I am of course happy to assist the deliberations of the Committee as best I can. However, I covered the major issues, as I saw them, in some details in my letter of February 8. I referred in that letter to certain views expressed by Lord Gill with which I agreed.”
He continued: “I am anxious to understand what further questions might be asked which I, or my predecessor, have not already answered. It would be helpful if you could set out for me the particular issues, in relation to this proposal, upon which the Committee would wish to take further evidence from me.”
Cherbi said: “This is rather disappointing. Scotland’s top judge feels unable to give a public account of his opposition to transparency and face questions from our elected MSPs.
“How can the judiciary keep falling down at the first hurdle when someone asks them to be as open as judges require everyone else to be in court?”
Scottish Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said: “People won’t have any sympathy with judges creating some kind of trade union against any kind of public scrutiny. Virtually every other area of public life is subject to this and many will think there’s no reason why judges should be any different.”
A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said: “The Public Petitions Committee will next consider Peter Cherbi’s petition at its meeting on December 22. Both the Lord President’s letter and Peter Cherbi’s views will be taken into account when the Committee discusses the petition.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel