1989: Handling of Homosexual Judge Scandal On 22 December 1989
Lord Dervaird, a Scottish judge, resigned from the bench after two years of service. On 17 January 1990 the press reported that three senior Scottish judges had been questioned by Lord Hope, the Lord President, as to their possible involvement in vice rings or homosexual behaviour. This reportage arose because Lord Hope had called a meeting of newspaper editors at his Edinburgh home in which he detailed the rumours "unattributively" regarding three Court of Session judges (out of a then total of 24 judges). This meeting caused the scandals to be "splashed across the front pages." By December 2016 government papers covering these events had been declassified and were now available to the public. This resulted in human rights campaigner
Peter Tatchell demanding an apology from
Malcolm Rifkind, the former
Scottish Secretary, for his actions in forcing Lord Dervaird from judicial office because of rumours of his being homosexual.
2011: Scottish Appeals to the Supreme Court Lord Hope of Craighead, then Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court, allegedly suggested that Scottish Judges were somewhat hostile to cases being reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court in London. He was reported by Lucy Adams of the
Glasgow Herald as saying: "There is [in England and Wales] none of the feeling of antipathy towards cases being sent to London that lies just below the surface here in Scotland." These words were subsequently described by Lord Hope as misreported or not said at all, despite the journalist publicly offering a recording. The version of the speech Lord Hope of Craighead approved for posting on the Supreme Court website does not include the contested wording. He maintained in response a complete news blackout at a subsequent speech-giving in Glasgow a month later.
2020: Allegations by Lord Hope of Craighead of Judicial Gerrymandering Lord Hope of Craighead's diaries have been analysed by academic writer Lewis Graham. He highlights three incidents as described by the diary writer as together establishing a "deeply concerning" possibility and pattern of judges being included or excluded from hearing a case based on outcomes to be expected if they were to sit on it. Graham cites consideration by Hope of excluding Northern Irish
Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore from a devolution case; and successful lobbying, according to Lord Hope of Craighead, by
Lord Hoffmann to exclude
Baroness Hale of Richmond from a Jamaican death penalty appeal. Additionally,
Lord Judge asked, according to Lord Hope of Craighead, to be included on a miscarriage of justice case in order to further his pre-existing views. While accepting that the account of Lord Hope of Craighead could be doubted, Graham observed that the possibility of it being correct "strikes at the heart of judicial neutrality and procedural fairness".
2023: Intervention Limiting the Right to Protest Abortions In 2023 Lord Hope of Craighead introduced an amendment to the Public Order Bill at the report stage. The amendment was adopted by the Conservative government. It was designed to affect policing around abortion clinics. Police were to intervene where there was "serious disruption". The amendment widely defined this as any activity that "prevents or would hinder to more than a minor degree the individuals or the organisation from carrying out their daily activities."
2024: Displeasure of the Senior Judiciary at Lord Hope's Diaries In 2024 the
Society of Legal Scholars published the results of an academic investigation by way of semi-structured interviews given by 13 very senior judicial figures from across the United Kingdom, some attributed and some anonymously. The actions of Lord Hope of Craighead in disclosing judicial panel deliberations was a focus of the study. The disclosures by Lord Hope of Craighead were widely condemned by the interviewees as a transgression due to breach of collegiality or loyalty to other judges, and as constituting inappropriate conduct from a former judge. Additionally, the publishing of confidential deliberations was widely seen as potentially threatening " the procedural and institutional legitimacy of the court." Only one person,
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, regarded Lord Hope of Craighead's disclosures as defensible. ==Notable cases==