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

Mitchell, Margaret Con Central Scotland Watch on SPTV

I regret that the cabinet secretary did not listen to my opening comments, because I made it quite clear that more sheriffs principal would be appointed and that they would not necessarily have the responsibility for the administration of business that the current sheriffs principal have in the six sheriffdoms. The number of sheriffs principal in the system would not be restricted to merely six. As for specialist sheriffs being included in an appeal, I think that it would be up to the sheriff principal in the appeal court to consider the specialisms of other sheriffs principal. Of course, the Scottish Government is proposing that appeals be generally heard by a single sheriff, albeit that, as the cabinet secretary has suggested, they will be sheriffs of five years’ standing. I note, however, that the bill leaves it open for appeals to be heard by a sheriff principal or larger benches. The financial memorandum assumes that 95 per cent of appeals will be heard by only one judge. The cabinet secretary has said that a lot of these cases will be procedural, but he has also said that he cannot “micromanage” various appeals. Clearly, therefore, we cannot know what that 95 per cent of appeals will consist of. I am particularly concerned that the bill will result in appeals on decisions made by a sheriff being heard by a single judge of the same seniority. The Gill review concluded that it would be inappropriate for the appellate court to consist of members of the same level of the judicial hierarchy as those from whom an appeal has been marked. Again, I make the point that we are not talking about decisions that affect only one sheriffdom; this affects the whole of Scotland. More worryingly, the Government appears to have decided to depart from the Gill review recommendations not in an attempt to improve the justice system but because of financial considerations. The financial memorandum certainly recognises that the make-up of the appeal court has financial implications. Perhaps costs can justifiably be saved here, but savings should not be made at the expense of access to justice or ensuring that a proper appeal is heard by a proper panel of appeal court judges. The Scottish Government response to the Justice Committee’s stage 1 report stated that if appeals had to be heard by a sheriff principal, such an approach would “negate some of the advantages to be derived from the establishment of the Sheriff Appeal Court as, for instance, there may not be an Appeal Sheriff who is a sheriff principal available to hear an appeal.” That response does not reject the advantages of having sheriffs principal sit in the appeal court; instead, it merely points out that the changes to the rules require additional resources. If the committee supports these amendments, my intention is to revisit at stage 3 the question whether further amendments are necessary to permit the appointment of additional sheriffs as recommended in the Gill review. I will press amendment 26.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 10 June 2014

In the same item of business