Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice Committee 10 June 2014

10 Jun 2014 · S4 · Justice Committee

Item of business

Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Murray, Elaine Lab Dumfriesshire Watch on SPTV

The amendments in my name in this group are probing amendments. They seek to address the concerns that the committee voiced about the fact that appeals against judgments of the sheriff court might be heard by an appeal court consisting of only one sheriff, and that the judgment of that sheriff on that appeal would be binding right across Scotland. Committee members had concerns about that. The purpose of amendment 29, which may not be worded absolutely correctly, is to require an appeal to be heard by three sheriffs, one of whom has to be a sheriff principal. Where relevant, one must have a specialism appropriate to the matter of the appeal. The president of the sheriff appeal court will decide whether that is required. The current process of appeal to the sheriff principal can be considered to be anomalous, as it replaces one judge’s decision with another judge’s decision. That will be compounded if, as is suggested in the policy memorandum, the vast majority of appeals are to be decided by a single sheriff in the appeal court and the appeal sheriff does not have to be a sheriff principal. There is also a risk in the bill that a judgment could be made by a specialist sheriff but the appeal could be heard by a sheriff who has less expertise in that area. Even if the appeal were to be heard by a sheriff principal, that sheriff principal could have less experience than the original specialist sheriff. Therefore, amendment 29 provides for, where relevant, a sheriff with the necessary specialism to be part of the appeal court. The jurisdiction of the sheriff appeal court will be more significant than the current appellate jurisdiction of the sheriff principal. As the exclusive competence of the court will be increased, litigants will no longer be able to appeal directly to the inner house of the Court of Session, and decisions are binding on sheriffs throughout Scotland. The sheriff appeal court will also take over the jurisdiction of the court of criminal appeal and summary criminal appeal cases. Section 107 also severely limits the opportunity for further appeals to the inner house and, in most cases, the decisions of the sheriff appeal court will be final. The intention of amendment 29 is to introduce a safeguard so that the appeal court would consist of three sheriffs who, among them, would have sufficient experience and specialism to ensure that appeal judgments are consistent. Amendment 30 is consequential to amendment 29. If a sheriff appeal court consists of three sheriffs, there is no possibility of the court being divided equally, so the bill does not need to make provision for that eventuality with regard to further appeal. The amendment would remove that provision. Amendment 34 is also consequential, as schedule 2 makes changes to section 173 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The section is amended so that it applies to the sheriff appeal court and appeal sheriffs, instead of High Court and judges. The bill does not alter the position with regard to criminal appeals. However, amendment 29 sets a quorum of three appeal sheriffs for both civil and criminal cases and, if passed, supersedes the need to amend the 1995 act and that section would simply be repealed. Section 97 of the bill gives the Court of Session the powers to make various provisions by act of sederunt, including the quorum for sittings of the sheriff appeal court. However, that topic goes beyond today’s finishing point, and a further amendment could be lodged next week to make alterations to section 97(2)(p).

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 10 June 2014

In the same item of business