Justice 1 Committee, 12 Nov 2003
Meeting date: Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Official Report
216KB pdf
High Court of Justiciary
The final item today concerns our visit to the High Court in Glasgow. A report will be produced, so those who could not manage to come on the visit will be able to find out what we learned. We picked up some useful information, particularly in relation to the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which we will be scrutinising in the next few months.
Do members have any comments on the visit?
I found it useful, especially as I am one of the members of the committee who does not have a background in law. There is a lot of information to take on board and seeing what happens in the High Court makes a difference. As on the previous visit, it was good to be able to talk to the judges. I was quite reassured by our discussions, particularly when the judges said that they agonise over decisions. Some people said that everyone knows that, but I am not sure that that is true. Our discussions made the situation seem much more personal and real.
In relation to what the convener was saying about the work that we will have to do on the subject of managing courts, I wondered whether our visit might have given us a false sense of security, because everyone seemed to be up front and was already doing what we were supposed to be asking them to do. At one point, I felt very reassured, and then I thought, "Hang on, perhaps I shouldn't be so reassured. Perhaps we should look at this more carefully". I think that there should be on-going monitoring of any issue, whether it relates to the European Union or equal opportunities. The monitoring of the management of the courts is important.
My initial understanding was that the purpose of the visit was to familiarise ourselves with the High Court. I know that I had to leave early, unfortunately, but I thought that the initial discussion got too bogged down in the Bonomy report. I felt that I was not as prepared for the discussion as I would have liked to have been and that having the discussion was possibly a little unfair to members of our committee who will be involved in the scrutiny of the relevant legislation and who would have benefited from the discussion but who were not there.
Although the visit was somewhat helpful, I think that we should have spent more time dealing with what happens in the court on a day-to-day basis and where the pressures are in the process. That would have given us more of an insight into the reasons for the changes that are recommended in the Bonomy report.
That is a fair point in the sense that we found the visit interesting because we will consider the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, but I am sure that the Justice 2 Committee also found the visit interesting. It was clear that the people at the High Court are spending all their time considering the proposed changes. What struck me about the visit was the impressive level of detail that has been gone into in preparing for the legislation. However, as I commented during the visit, although we have been charged with considering the bill, there is still the small matter of the bill having to go through stages 1, 2 and 3 before any of the proposals can be implemented. I suppose that the people at the High Court are still engrossed in doing the hard work to see what is possible.
The visit was useful to our consideration of the bill, but I take the point about the day-to-day running of the court. The people at the High Court are not focused on how things are running at the moment, because they are assuming that everything will change.
I was struck by the disparity in the information that we were given. When we talked to officials about additional work for judges, they said that they have bid for two additional judges—which I presume would be temporary—in the first two years. Although there was some recognition of the additional work for judges, when we talked to Lord Abernethy later on, it became clear that judges might have a different view on the additional work load. That gives us food for thought. When we come to consider the bill, we should press a bit further on the extent of the additional work load for judges.
We got excellent figures on the number of cases, including the astonishing fact that, if certain categories of business were to be shifted from the High Court to the sheriff court—the categories of business that it is planned to move have already been worked out—six trials would be scheduled for the five courts that the High Court can use. I thought that that was astonishing, because it would mean that the likelihood of a trial proceeding would be greatly enhanced. Members will have the chance to see those figures in the written report, which I am sure we will be able to use in our consideration of the bill.
Our visit to the High Court was worthwhile. We have done very well in doing what we planned to do, which was to make a number of visits that related to different aspects of the criminal justice system. We have got much further than I thought we would be able to get by this stage, before having the legislation in front of us. We have a wee bit of reading to do. I appreciate that visits take up members' constituency time on Mondays and Fridays. I hope that members have found the process worthwhile.
My overall impression of the initial discussion was that the Scottish Court Service and the prosecution service are working together very closely, but I did not get the impression that the defence is in the loop, and that is a matter of concern. Many things were attributed to the defence not delivering on time, and although it was said that a three-way process is necessary, I did not see any evidence of the defence being represented.
That is a valid point to note; it confirms that our decision to have two advisers was the right one. The briefing that we had the other day showed us the contrast in the advice that we will get from Christopher Gane and the advice that we will get from Paul Burns. Paul Burns has a lot of experience in the area of defence, so we will at least have the opportunity to press him on those points.
Members will get the written report in due course. If there are no further issues, I will close the meeting, but I ask members for 60 seconds of their time, to deal with an informal matter.
Meeting closed at 12:13.