This public petition is similar to my Petition 306 but it’s terms have been broadened to encompass more of the decision makers whose roles may affect our lives. These now include jurors as since my original petition there have been some very high profile cases where there has been a perception among many, including high profile members of the legal profession, that the interests of justice have not been served and there is a need to know more about the background of those called for jury duty.
However the general terms are similar to PE 306, which had its genesis in a court case held at Dunfermline Sheriff Court between 1999 and 2000. The case is now known as Stott v Minogue. At a preliminary hearing before Sheriff Stuart Forbes I addressed him with my concerns that the charges of housebreaking and theft that were brought against me were motivated out of malice by a competitor who had used Masonic influence to have me charged in what was nothing more than a commercial dispute.
The sheriff after initially refusing to hear my submission that I wished a declaration of Masonic membership/status from the judge who would hear my case relented and after hearing me allocated this issue to another sheriff at a later date.
In another preliminary hearing convened to settle the question of my objection to a Mason hearing my case the Sheriff, Isobella McColl, at her discretion gave me the assurances I had sought, but said that the principle of the question of whether or not such assurances should be given on demand from a litigant was one for the Scottish Parliament.
This satisfied my immediate concerns as to my rights, but left the principle involved undetermined. With this in mind and so that others may not have to go through what I had to I decided to take the sheriff’s advice and before the outcome of my trial – which resulted in me being found not guilty of any offence – I petitioned the Parliament with my public petition PE 306.
As my trial was still ongoing I did not give details of the case but dealt instead with the principles involved.
The Public Petitions Committee website shows a brief synopsis of the main events in the life of PE 306 between 19 Dec 2000 and 28 Jan 2003. However it does not include the consideration of my petition by the Justice Minister at a meeting of the Justice 2 Committee on 04 March 2004.
My own website: http://www.tomminogue.com/blog7.php has copies of the official transcript of all the meetings at which PE 306 was considered between 19 Dec 2000 and 18 Mar 2004.
In a nutshell the petition is aimed at a court or tribunal user having the right to know if the person deciding their rights - or innocence or guilt – is a member of an organisation that has a sworn obligation to prefer their brethren over non-brethren, if such membership might be seen by a reasonable observer as possibly having an impact on the result of the court or tribunal.