Supreme Court (Civil Appeals) (PE1504)
Item 3 is consideration of petition PE1504. The petition was considered by the Public Petitions Committee on 18 February, and it asks the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider changing the current legislation on civil appeals from the Court of Session to the Supreme Court. That committee agreed to refer the petition to us for consideration as part of our scrutiny of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. We could consider the petition as part of our scrutiny of part 4 of the bill, which deals with civil appeals.
Could I make a comment, please?
You may comment, yes.
First of all, I declare an interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. The key point in this—
I cannot hear you.
The key point is whether the notice of appeal is required to be signed by two Scottish counsel who must certify that the appeal is reasonable. What is reasonable was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of a constituent of mine in April last year that referred to a previous House of Lords case, which reminded Scottish counsel:
“It is contrary to the public interest that the time of the House should be taken up with appeals which do not raise an arguable question of general public importance”.
In its submission on the question of appeals to the Court of Session, the Faculty of Advocates noted:
“such party litigants often have difficulty obtaining signatures. If this arises, the party litigant requires to seek assistance direct from the Faculty and the Faculty requires to nominate Senior Counsel to review the case (pro bono) and decide whether or not he or she is prepared to certify the case as reasonable”.
It goes on:
“between 2005 and 2010 the Faculty received five such requests from party litigants, one in 2010, four in 2011, two in 2012 and six (so far) in 2013.”
From looking at the petition, it is not clear whether the petitioner made that approach to the faculty and it is not clear what the point of general public importance is. We are proposing to change the situation with the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. We should make some of those points to the petitioner now. I am minded to keep the petition open and refer those points.
It would be kept open. I am glad you put that on the record; you are right to do so. The point is that the petition will stay open and we will consider all those points again when we come to our scrutiny of the bill.
Roderick Campbell suggested that we ask the petitioner whether she has sought the advice of the Faculty of Advocates.
Yes. I have had a quick look at the case, but I do not know what the point of general public importance is.
That is now on the record so, if the petitioner wishes to write to me as convener to answer the points, she can. In the meantime, I confirm that the petition will stay open in any event. It is all in hand so members need not look puzzled.
Previous
Fire and Rescue Service Reform