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Previous years have been archived.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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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). 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. </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. <span style="background-color: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; text-align: inherit; text-transform: inherit; white-space: inherit; word-spacing: normal">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> |