The Draft Judiciary (Scotland) Bill Consultation process ended today.
Here is my response: Draft Judiciary (Scotland) Bill response
The published responses to the "Strengthening judicial independence in a modern Scotland" Consultation Paper which was shelved were immensensely useful to my research and I read them all.There is an interesting article in the Scotsman 14/5/07 entitled "Plans to unify the judicial hierarchy need special care"."... Last year, senior members of the judiciary voiced deep concerns about Executive's plans for the unification, appointment, removal and management of the judiciary.
...
But there is still a feeling among senior laywers that as the core aims remain, there remains potential for judicial independence - or at least the perception of it - to be weakened rather than strengthened.
...
A lack of separation between the civil service and the courts administration could be intensified, he [Roy Martin QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates] adds, and lead to concerns that the independence of the judiciary is compromised.
...
[Roy Martin QC] I would urge any administration to recognise that the judiciary is a unique element in the justice system, existing in a constitutional framework where it is, and must be seen to be, independent, both of the Executive and the legislature and that the judicial system is not equivalent to any other component of the administration of justice"
...
[A spokeswoman for the Law Society setting up a Group convened by deputy director of Law Reform, Alan McCreadie] ... The group will suggest that the Executive consider introducing a role of chief Executive or judicial assistant. In short, judges should be left to judge"."
OH WELL
I did not have a problem with power being contained in the hands of the Lord President albeit I would not want his role and function across three tiers of the justiciary to be purely administrative.
However, I objectively focused on "appointment" and "removal" as the issues of concern to me, whilst pointing out that the independence of the judiciary has been "compromised" by including Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR - mediation) "within" the justice system in England & Wales. Lord McClusky's response informing that the law "MUST BE APPLIED" only affirms the judicial corruption that I have been subjected to at the hands of the English & Welsh legal system and thereby affirms my research on the Woolf Reforms in a practical and theoretical sense - The Woolf Reforms do not need to be replicated in Scotland and the rest of Europe but overturned as being substantially a failure of logic and knowledge in the subject of judisprudence - the science and theory of human law.
Unfortunately, I have had it affirmed that the Consultation Paper on the Subsidiarity Principle relating to the Directive on Mediation got past the European Parliament in February even although I was the only person with an opposing argument and was not interviewed - thereby enabling New Labour to rubber stamp an already settled outcome. They interviewed 2 people out of 27 published responses and thereafter interviewed a further 5 people who they deemed experts. To not interview me was either prejudice or bias.
If "Independence of the Judiciary" is the final conclusion of my research then an awful lot of heads are on the chopping block.We shall see as it is only corruption or prejudice and bias that is in the way of intelligence and one does wonder what purpose is envisaged that New Labour would weaken and undermine the judicial systems of the UK and Europe? Because the law "MUST" BE APPLIED, does that mean a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS when the law IS NOT APPLIED!!
I largely agreed with the draft Judiciary Bill only making minor amendments.
