JUDICIAL RECUSALS

 

The role of a judge is to interpret and apply the law without bias or prejudice. Judges have a duty to sit on the cases allocated to them based primarily on their availability, and must deal with them efficiently avoiding unnecessary delay.

Declinature of jurisdiction, or recusal, refers to the act of a judicial office holder abstaining from taking part in legal proceedings due to a conflict of interest; or in cases where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judges can decline to sit; or parties to a case can object to the judge’s involvement by making a motion for declinature. This might involve financial interest or a close family relationship. 

More minor conflicts may be declared before the court. The parties to the case can then either object to the judge’s involvement or proceed based on agreement that the interest is suitably insignificant.

Cases where senators, temporary judges, sheriffs principal, sheriffs, summary sheriffs, justices of the peace, or a member of a Scottish tribunal, grant or refuse a formal motion for recusal, or recuse themselves of their own accord, in open court, are recorded for the current year in the table below.

Previous years have been archived.

 

2023

 

Date JOH & Court/Chamber Case Name/Reference Motion By Refused /Granted Reason
07/12/2023 Part-time Sheriff Clapham - Aberdeen Sheriff Court AB22007447 Accused Refused On the grounds that there was not a conflict of interest in this case that would cause any unfairness to the accused or the prosecution and that the Sheriff had remained impartial throughout the trial proceedings and would continue to do so.
21/11/2023 Summary Sheriff A Michie - Falkirk Sheriff Court FAL-F67-23 Ex Proprio Motu Granted <div>On reading the Child Welfare Report it became apparent that I know a close relative of one of the parties.</div><div><br></div><div>This is a case which is likely to proceed to an evidential hearing and this individual may be called as a witness.</div><div><br></div><div>In the circumstances, I did not consider it to be appropriate for me to preside over this case at the child welfare hearing and I considered that I should recuse myself from presiding at any future hearings.</div>
18/10/2023 Sheriff N Wilson - Wick Sheriff Court Sinclair V Oag & Others Sheriff - Ex proprio motu Granted Critical Witness, Mr Miller, Veternary Surgeon, personally known to [Sheriff Wilson] from university days.&nbsp;
11/10/2023 Sheriff Gillian Sharp - Edinburgh Sheriff Court Heather Hiram v High Riggs Job Centre Sheriff Granted The sheriff has had previous contact with the defender's agents, in particular she advised on the affect of allowing support dogs access to public buildings. This formed the basis of the claim in this action.&nbsp;
11/10/2023 Sheriff Gillian Sharp - Edinburgh Sheriff Court Antonello Pellegrino v High Riggs Job Centre Sheriff Granted The sheriff has had previous contact with the defender's agents, in particular she advised on the affect of allowing support dogs access to public buildings. This formed the basis of the claim in this action.&nbsp;
15/08/2023 Lord Boyd - Supreme Courts P275/23 (3) Respondent and Reclaimer Refused The Second Division (The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Tyre and Lord Boyd), in refusing the motion for recusal, stated that the fact that a judge has made a determination against a party in a particular case is not itself a reason for that judge to decline jurisdiction in other proceedings involving that party, even where issues of credibility and reliability have been involved.
15/08/2023 Lord Tyre - Supreme Courts P275/23 (2) Respondent and Reclaimer Refused The Second Division (The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Tyre and Lord Boyd), in refusing the motion for recusal, stated that the fact that a judge has made a determination against a party in a particular case is not itself a reason for that judge to decline jurisdiction in other proceedings involving that party, even where issues of credibility and reliability have been involved.
15/08/2023 Lady Dorrian (Lord Justice Clerk) - Supreme Courts P275/23 Respondent and Reclaimer Refused The Second Division (The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Tyre and Lord Boyd), in refusing the motion for recusal, stated that the fact that a judge has made a determination against a party in a particular case is not itself a reason for that judge to decline jurisdiction in other proceedings involving that party, even where issues of credibility and reliability have been involved.
09/08/2023 Lord Pentland - Court of Session, Parliament House F66/21 Defender and Respondent Refused The First Division (the Lord President, Lord Tyre and Lady Wise), in refusing the motion for recusal, stated that did not consider that the fair-minded and informed observer would consider that there was an appearance of bias and did not consider it was demonstrated that Lord Pentland has any financial interest in the outcome, or any other significant interest in the outcome, of this reclaiming motion.
17/07/2023 Sheriff Anthony McGlennan - Stranraer Sheriff Court PF v Euan Andrew Campbell Ex Proprio Motu Granted <div>Complainer Emma Wilson was the defender in a civil case that the Sheriff determined (Wilson v Quigg or O’Mahoney STR-101-19).&nbsp; An award of contact was made which (although she effectively had withdrawn from process) she had strongly opposed. She later made a complaint to Judicial Office which was investigated and the Sheriff completely exonerated.&nbsp;</div><div>It is highly likely that Ms Wilson would consider that her evidence in the prosecution of Euan Campbell was not being assessed impartially because of the background of having made the complaint to Judicial Office.</div>
20/04/2023 Sheriff Derek O'Carroll - Edinburgh Sheriff Court SCS/2022-088193 & SCS/2022-088194 Ex Proprio Motu Granted Sheriff knows complainer and his family in one charge, to which accused pleaded guilty, so cannot sentence on the indictments.
15/03/2023 Sheriff Anthony McGlennan - Stranraer Sheriff Court PF v David Hill Ex proprio motu Granted Due to to the locus of the incident being the flat next door to the Sheriff's local residence. The complainer residing at the address. The Sheriff does not know his neighbours but does see the family going about their daily business when he comes and goes from the flat. The Sheriff's property shares a back garden and the properties share a a common dividing wall. The Sheriff would be recognised by the witnesses.
24/02/2023 Ann Marie Whiteside - Health and Education Chamber FTS/HEC/AR/22/0128 Ex Proprio Motu Granted <div>The child in the case attends the same school as my daughter.&nbsp;<span style="background-color: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; text-align: inherit; text-transform: inherit; white-space: inherit; word-spacing: normal; caret-color: auto">A witness for the respondent is known to me in their professional capacity as I liaise with them regarding the needs of my daughter.</span></div>

 

 

Archive