Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 27 October 2011
27 Oct 2011 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Scots Criminal Law (Integrity)
If Mr MacAskill looks back at the submissions to the expert group that Lord Wallace established, he will see that only two submissions supported the route that Mr MacAskill proposes. A considerable amount of work must be done to provide evidence that supports Mr MacAskill’s view and to deal with legal and technical issues that have arisen in the discussion—there is some way to go on that. Going down the proposed route could also restrict access to justice by disallowing direct appeals to the Supreme Court.
It is important to get the law right and to produce a robust system that works in the 21st century. Several important matters, some of which are technical and complex, need to be considered fully before any amendments are made to the Scotland Bill.
I move amendment S4M-01133.3, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“regrets the inappropriate language of the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice with regard to highly respected judges of the UK Supreme Court and the threat to withdraw funding from the court; notes the conclusions of the review group chaired by Lord McCluskey on the examination of the relationship between the High Court of the Justiciary and the Supreme Court in criminal cases; welcomes the group’s reaffirmation of the continuing role of the UK Supreme Court in constitutional and human rights issues affecting Scotland; recognises that the McCluskey report and the work of the expert group set up by Lord Wallace raise some important questions in relation to devolution issues, the requirement for a general public interest certificate to be issued by the High Court of the Justiciary prior to appeal to the Supreme Court and widening the scope for appeals to the Supreme Court on European Convention on Human Rights grounds to include potential violations by any public authority, and believes that detailed consideration of all the relevant issues and implications of the range of reforms identified is essential and that this must involve discussion with all interested groups to ensure that any reforms deliver a fair and effective judicial system.”
15:22
It is important to get the law right and to produce a robust system that works in the 21st century. Several important matters, some of which are technical and complex, need to be considered fully before any amendments are made to the Scotland Bill.
I move amendment S4M-01133.3, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“regrets the inappropriate language of the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice with regard to highly respected judges of the UK Supreme Court and the threat to withdraw funding from the court; notes the conclusions of the review group chaired by Lord McCluskey on the examination of the relationship between the High Court of the Justiciary and the Supreme Court in criminal cases; welcomes the group’s reaffirmation of the continuing role of the UK Supreme Court in constitutional and human rights issues affecting Scotland; recognises that the McCluskey report and the work of the expert group set up by Lord Wallace raise some important questions in relation to devolution issues, the requirement for a general public interest certificate to be issued by the High Court of the Justiciary prior to appeal to the Supreme Court and widening the scope for appeals to the Supreme Court on European Convention on Human Rights grounds to include potential violations by any public authority, and believes that detailed consideration of all the relevant issues and implications of the range of reforms identified is essential and that this must involve discussion with all interested groups to ensure that any reforms deliver a fair and effective judicial system.”
15:22
References in this contribution
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01133, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on ensuring the integrity of Scots criminal law.14:59
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
Scotland has a unique legal tradition that is many centuries old and proudly independent. The existence of distinctive Scots law predates the treaty of union...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lab
Does the cabinet secretary think that the public might prefer him not to go on in great detail about the issue but instead address the key issue for the just...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I would have hoped that, on a matter of huge constitutional importance that is fundamental to the integrity of Scots criminal law, the member’s intervention ...
James Kelly (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon’s debate. I thank Lord McCluskey and his colleagues for the work that they have done in producing no...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Does the member recognise that the Lord President’s letter says:“the High Court should be brought into line with the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and ...
James Kelly
Lab
If Mr MacAskill looks back at the submissions to the expert group that Lord Wallace established, he will see that only two submissions supported the route th...
John Lamont (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Con
I, too, welcome the opportunity for members to look in detail at the final report by Lord McCluskey’s review group. We had an informative debate on the inter...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the review group’s report and set it in the context of the wider debate. I find it interesting that, after the Gove...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
The member seems to be suggesting that, south of the border, the UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal on criminal matters. Given that it is accepted...
Alison McInnes
LD
I do not agree. The reason for having certification south of the border is the vast number of cases that might appear in the Supreme Court. The number of suc...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I declare an interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates.I welcome the findings of Lord McCluskey’s further report as part of the on-going debate about ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
I have a wee bit of time in hand for interventions.15:40
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
The debate is about Scots law, not about any other system. It is about respect for the unique features of Scots law.When the UK Supreme Court commenced opera...
Hugh Henry (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Lab
It is hard to conclude that the Scottish Government is, as John Finnie suggested, outward looking on the issue that we are discussing, because everything tha...
Annabelle Ewing (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
Hugh Henry
Lab
Certainly.
Annabelle Ewing
SNP
I thank the member for giving way. It is interesting to hear about his research into the definitions of various words but it would be quite helpful if he cou...
Hugh Henry
Lab
Other members in my group have outlined their specific points on that, but we must take notice of the general context. Earlier this year intemperate and disg...
George Adam (Paisley) (SNP)
SNP
Obviously, I did not think things out too well when I sat down for this debate next to an advocate. However, I hope that I can show some good old-fashioned c...
David McLetchie (Lothian) (Con)
Con
Will the member give way?
George Adam
SNP
Against my better judgment, I will.
David McLetchie
Con
Is the member aware that the High Court got the Donoghue v Stevenson decision wrong in a sense? It was actually the House of Lords that established the princ...
George Adam
SNP
As I said, the cases that I have been discussing are civil, not criminal.The public believes and the cabinet secretary is correct to say that the distinctive...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I remind members that we have a wee bit of spare time. Members taking interventions would be preferable to any shouting out from the seats.15:57
Annabelle Ewing (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I preface my remarks by stating for the record that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland and that I hold a current practising certificate. I remember...
James Kelly
Lab
Annabelle Ewing’s premise seems to be that the Supreme Court’s ability to take cases from Scotland should be limited. It was not clear from the cabinet secre...
Annabelle Ewing
SNP
If I understand James Kelly correctly, he is addressing the issue of deleting the reference to the Lord Advocate and extending it to cover public bodies, whi...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I thank Lord McCluskey’s group for the effort that it has made and the quality of the report that it has produced in such quick time and in unfortunate circu...
Derek Mackay (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
SNP
Does the member not think that he, like many Labour Party members, is becoming victim to thinking that the debate is about the rhetoric rather than the subst...