Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 24 April 2013

24 Apr 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Access to Justice

Mitchell, Margaret Con Central Scotland Watch on SPTV

There has been a cash-terms increase in the Scottish budget. It is for the Scottish Government to set priorities, but the closures that we are discussing represent not only the savings that have been talked about but additional costs, which have not been factored in at all.

Sheriff courts have increasingly come under pressure in recent years because more criminal business has been passed down from the High Court as a result of the Bonomy reforms. The situation has been made worse by the Scottish Government’s proposal to transfer more civil business to the sheriff courts when the Crown Office budget is being cut in real terms, resulting in fewer resources for fiscals and legal staff.

The cabinet secretary states that the closures will affect only 5 per cent of cases. To put that in context, according to the SCS’s consultation figures, that will require in excess of 12,500 cases or JP complaints to be heard elsewhere. More worryingly, that figure does not include the complaints that are heard by the nine JP courts that will close because they share premises with sheriff courts that are set for closure.

As has been stated, the Scottish Government is at the same time proposing to transfer civil business from the Court of Session to sheriff courts. Although the cabinet secretary has repeatedly claimed that the Scottish Court Service has taken that into account, it is difficult to see how that can be the case, given that the SCS’s consultation closed two months before the Government’s court reform plans were even published.

The cabinet secretary says that the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill seeks to

“put victims’ interests at the heart of improvements to the justice system”

and

“make what is often the most difficult episode in someone’s life a bit easier.”

However, in reality, the attempt to make savings by closing courts and diverting criminal and civil business to already overstretched courts comes at the expense of victims and witnesses, who will have to deal with access to justice issues.

Interestingly, I note that the SCS recommendations have not been subject to a formal equality impact assessment. There is absolutely no doubt that court users will face increased travel times and distances. For example, the closure of the court in Kirkcudbright will mean a 45-minute, 28-mile journey to Dumfries, which will add to costs and make delays and disruption to court business more likely. Worse still, any potential closure savings will be lost in increased spending on legal aid, police cover and cover for professionals attending court as witnesses.

Furthermore, as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Law Society, among others, pointed out in their responses to the SCS consultation, courts have a positive economic impact on local areas. Therefore, I welcome the decision to grant a stay of execution to Alloa sheriff court and Coatbridge JP court in my constituency, but the decision to close the JP courts in Motherwell and Cumbernauld will be a bitter blow for struggling town centre businesses in those places.

The closure of courts will also mean the deskilling of local solicitors and the loss of the continuity that is provided by sheriffs and JPs with knowledge of local communities. Those concerns cannot be dismissed by the assertion that technology can fill the gap. Videoconferences and webcams are no substitute for courts, which maintain visibility of justice for communities.

That view was confirmed only this week at the Justice Committee, when witnesses from the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society stated that, notwithstanding some limited exceptions for vulnerable witnesses, the default position should always be that it is better for witnesses to be in court, especially given the importance in some cases of witnesses’ body language and even physical appearance, which are difficult to assess via television link. They also stressed that TV links make it difficult to build up a rapport with witnesses and that technical issues are common.

I suggest that the outrage would be such that the Scottish Government would shy away from agreeing the closure of a fifth of our schools or hospitals, so why are our courts considered fair game, with all the adverse consequences for access to justice and the Scottish justice system? To put it simply, the Scottish Government needs an urgent rethink to protect our local courts.

I move amendment S4M-06306.1, to leave out from “courts” to end and insert:

“a fifth of Scotland’s sheriff courts along with nine related Justice of the Peace courts and an additional four stand-alone Justice of the Peace courts in a very short timescale.”

15:41

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 24 April 2013

In the same item of business