This subject profile provides a brief description of the operation of the criminal courts in Scotland.
Criminal prosecutions currently take place in the following trial courts:
the High Court of Justiciary (the High Court)
sheriff courts
justice of the peace courts.
The most serious cases are prosecuted in the High Court and the least serious in justice of the peace courts.
In addition, the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 allows for the establishment of a specialist Sexual Offences Court to deal with serious sexual offences. At the time of writing, relevant provisions of the Act are not yet in force.
Appeals are heard in:
the High Court (sitting as an appeal court)
the Sheriff Appeal Court.
In addition, the UK's Supreme Court (located in London) can become involved in criminal cases, but only in relation to compatibility and devolution issues. These are described below when looking at the UK Supreme Court.
More information on the various courts is set out later in this briefing. In addition, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website provides a wide range of information on the courts in Scotland.
Criminal procedure (i.e. the procedure for the prosecution of crime) is mainly regulated by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and is divided into solemn and summary procedures.
Solemn procedure involves the most serious of criminal cases and may ultimately lead to a trial on indictment, either before a judge in the High Courti or before a sheriff in one of the sheriff courts. Trials under solemn procedure are conducted with a jury.
Summary procedure is used for less serious offences (with the charges set out in a complaint) and may ultimately lead to a trial before a sheriff or, in justice of the peace courts, before a bench of one or more lay justices. Trials under summary procedure are conducted without a jury.
Provisions in the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 created the judicial office of summary sheriff, with some of the powers of a sheriff. In relation to criminal matters, summary sheriffs are able to deal with summary cases and certain procedural aspects of solemn cases.
More information on judges (including sheriffs, summary sheriffs and justices of the peace) is provided on the Judiciary of Scotland website under the heading of Judicial Office Holders.1
The choice of whether to prosecute a case under solemn or summary procedure is generally made by the public prosecution service - the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.ii However, some offences can only be prosecuted under solemn procedure (for example, murder and rape) and some only under summary procedure (for example, various road traffic offences).
The procedure used affects a wide range of issues. In addition to the use of juries, these include the length of time an accused person can be held in custody on remand prior to trial, and the sentences available to a court where a person is convicted.
In practice, the great majority of criminal court cases are dealt with in the summary courts (sheriff summary and justice of the peace). For example, a total of 86,606 criminal cases were concluded in 2025-26, of which:2
1% were in the High Court
8% in the sheriff courts under solemn procedure
68% in the sheriff courts under summary procedure
23% in the justice of the peace courts.
It may also be noted that most court cases do not involve an actual trial. During 2025-26, a total of 7,975 trials were called where at least some evidence was led. Of these:2
9% were in the High Court
14% in the sheriff courts under solemn procedure
68% in the sheriff courts under summary procedure
9% in the justice of the peace courts.
As can be seen from comparing the proportions of cases concluded with the proportion of trials, cases are more likely to involve a trial in the courts dealing with more serious cases.
Until recently, three verdicts were available to a sheriff or justice of the peace (in summary cases), or jury (in solemn cases): guilty, not guilty, and not proven. In legal terms, the implications of a not proven verdict were the same as a not guilty verdict in that the accused was acquitted.
However, the not proven verdict was abolished for all trials commencing on or after 1 January 2026, with changes made by sections 65 and 66 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 requiring verdicts of either guilty or not guilty.
As noted above, criminal juries are only used where a case is tried under solemn procedure. In such cases, the judge or sheriff decides questions of law, with the jury deciding questions of fact. In summary cases, both of these functions are performed by the sheriff or lay justice(s).
A jury in a Scottish criminal case is made up of 15 people. This number may be reduced if one or more jurors are discharged during the trial (e.g. due to illness) but the jury must retain at least 12 to continue hearing the case.
Until recently, a jury returned a verdict of guilty where at least eight of its members supported that verdict. This level of support was required whether the jury had a full complement of 15 or was reduced in numbers. Where a guilty verdict did not attract the support of at least eight jurors the accused was acquitted.
For all trials commencing on or after 1 January 2026, section 65 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 changed the majority required for a guilty verdict, effectively requiring a minimum of two-thirds support amongst the jurors for guilty. The precise number of jurors required to be in favour of a guilty verdict depends on whether the jury retains all 15 jurors or has been reduced in numbers:
at least 10 jurors must support guilty where the jury consists of 14 or 15 jurors
at least 9 jurors must support guilty where the jury consists of 13 jurors
at least 8 jurors must support guilty where the jury consists of 12 jurors.
Where this level of support for guilty is not achieved, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty.
When a person is convicted of a crime in court, either because they plead guilty or are found guilty following a trial, they will be sentenced by a judge for that crime.
A Scottish Sentencing Council was established in 2015 (under provisions of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010) as an independent advisory body. It aims to:
promote consistency in sentencing
assist the development of sentencing policy
promote greater awareness and understanding of sentencing.
This work includes the preparation of sentencing guidelines for the courts.1 Its website includes information on how the courts decide sentences, their sentencing powers and the types of sentences which are available - see sentencing information.2
Annual statistics on criminal proceedings, published by the Scottish Government, include detailed figures for the use of the various sentences available to the courts.3
The most common sentence imposed by the Scottish criminal courts is a fine. In 2023-24, for example, a fine was the main penalty imposed in relation to 38% of convictions. The other main sentences imposed were a community sentence (25%), admonished (18%), and a custodial sentence (16%).4 However, the use of sentences varied greatly between the different courts - reflecting their different caseload. In 2023-24, the main sentences imposed were:
High Court - custodial 92%, community 5%
solemn sheriff courts - custodial 50%, community 42%
summary sheriff courts - fine 32%, community 29%, admonished 21%, custodial 14%
justice of the peace courts - fine 83%, admonished 15%.i
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is responsible for providing the staff, buildings and technology to support Scotland's courts, including the High Court, Sheriff Appeal Court, sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts. It is governed by a corporate board chaired by the Lord President (the most senior judge in Scotland). The Lord President is referred to as the Lord Justice General within a criminal court context (i.e. in relation to their role in the High Court).
Funding for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is mainly provided by the Scottish Government, subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament through the normal budget process. A separate budget line covers judicial salaries.
The running of the criminal courts is, of course, dependent on a wide range of people and organisations. These include defence lawyers, prosecution lawyers, justice social workers, and professional witnesses such as police officers. Scottish Government funding is also provided in these areas, including criminal legal aid to help fund the provision of defence lawyers and the budget for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was set up in 1999 to consider alleged miscarriages of justice and to refer appropriate cases to the High Court for review. Where a convicted person has already appealed against conviction and/or sentence, the Commission is able to look into the matter again. Normally, it will only look into a case after an appeal has already been heard by the High Court or Sheriff Appeal Court. Where the Commission does refer a case for review, it is up to the High Court to decide whether or not to overturn a conviction, change a sentence or give authority for a new prosecution.
Prior to its establishment, the power to refer cases back to the High Court for review was exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with significant restrictions imposed from March 2020, had a major impact on the justice system. Steps taken to reduce the spread of the virus included the temporary halting of all jury trials during the first lockdown, and a reduced capacity to deal with trials as they were resumed subject to physical distancing restrictions.
In May 2023, Audit Scotland published a report on the backlog of criminal court cases caused by the pandemic.1 It noted that the (p 3):
[Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service] estimates that within the normal operating capacity for criminal courts, there would be around 20,000 outstanding scheduled trials at any given point. By January 2022 it was more than double that figure, peaking at 43,606.
Steps taken to reduce the impact of pandemic restrictions on the criminal courts included the setting up of remote jury centres in cinemas, and greater use of virtual attendance at criminal court proceedings more generally.
As pandemic restrictions were eased and then removed, a courts recovery programme (which included additional Scottish Government funding for an increase in court capacity) started to reduce the court backlog. However, progress in tackling the backlog varies significantly depending on the seriousness of cases. In May 2026, Audit Scotland published a follow-up report on the criminal courts backlog noting that:2
the overall criminal courts backlog had reduced considerably to 13,268 outstanding scheduled trials at the end of 2025-26 (down from the peak of 43,606 in January 2022)
outstanding scheduled trials in the two summary courts (justice of the peace and sheriff summary) are below pre-pandemic levels
outstanding scheduled trials in courts dealing with the most serious cases remain high, and continue to grow in the High Court.
In relation to the last point, the report states (p 13):
Sheriff solemn outstanding scheduled trials rose to exceptional levels following the pandemic. There has been a positive downward trend until recently, and the numbers remain high. At the end of 2025-26, the number was approximately double the pre-pandemic number (1,078 compared to 497 at the end of 2019-20).
High Court outstanding scheduled trials have grown continuously since the pandemic and are at an unprecedented level. At the end of 2019-20, the number was 390. This increased to 687 by the end of 2022-23 (a rise of 76 per cent), and to 1,002 by the end of 2025-26 (a rise of 157 per cent from 2019/20).
The report highlights the point that the High Court backlog is not simply a product of the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (p 14):
The rising High Court backlog primarily results from the shift in the type and volume of cases coming into the criminal courts system. There has been a significant rise in serious, complex cases (e.g. historical sexual abuse, counter-terrorism and human trafficking), often involving multiple victims and accused individuals. This shift started before the pandemic. These serious, complex cases are less likely to be resolved early and more likely to involve late guilty pleas and lengthy trials.
Whilst some of the steps taken in response to the pandemic were seen as temporary measures to be ended once they were no longer necessary, others were viewed as part of a process of modernising the way in which business is done. In November 2023, in a Scottish Government consultation on making some of the changes permanent,3 the ministerial foreword commented that:
The COVID pandemic increased the pace of digital adoption and innovation in many spheres, and the justice system was no different. Throughout this period, a number of changes were made to operational practices and procedures, including the use of digital technologies to ensure the continued operation of a viable justice system. These technological solutions allowed us to meet the challenges of a pandemic whilst also providing the basis for how a more effective and efficient justice system could be delivered in the future.
Following this, a range of measures (along with some additional reforms) were made permanent by Part 1 of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Act 2025. These included enabling virtual attendance at criminal courts. The use of virtual court attendance in some contexts has been broadly supported, but concerns have been expressed about others. For example, the Criminal Justice Committee's Stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill highlighted concerns arising from how virtual custody courts had been operating (para 105):
Several witnesses highlighted significant problems which had arisen during the pilots for virtual custody courts. They appear to have been caused by a series of practical issues, including a lack of suitable accommodation and technical difficulties with audiovisual links. (...) We also heard criticism that virtual custody courts limit the scope for in-person contact between solicitors and their clients, affecting the quality of this relationship.
The Committee went on to state (para 117):
we would also wish to highlight the evidence in paragraph 105 which points to clear practical issues which need to be addressed relating to the operation of virtual attendance. We welcome the acknowledgement of these concerns by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, as well as its commitment to evaluate the experience of virtual custody courts and learn lessons before moving forward. It is right that this evaluation should involve all court users, including the legal profession.
Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Act 2025 requires the Scottish Government to carry out a review of the operation of the provisions on virtual attendance.
Not all recent reforms aimed at improving the efficiency of the criminal court system stem from the COVID-19 pandemic (although they were helpful in mitigating the impact of the pandemic). Other important initiatives have included:
Summary Case Management - seeks to encourage early communication and meaningful engagement between prosecution and defence, with proactive judicial case management. And, in so doing, reduce the number of late guilty pleas, unnecessary citation of witnesses, etc. A news release and report on the impact of the national roll-out of this initiative was published in May 2026.4
Digital Evidence Sharing Capability (DESC)- provides a secure digital platform for police officers, prosecutors, defence lawyers, court staff and judges to manage evidence in criminal cases (for example, CCTV, mobile phone footage and body worn video). A pilot was carried out in 2023, with the system then rolled out across Scotland on a phased basis (completed in September 2025). Further information is available on Police Scotland's website.5
The High Court is Scotland's highest criminal court (subject to the role of the UK's Supreme Court in relation to both compatibility and devolution issues). It sits as a trial court (i.e. a court of first instance dealing with the original case against an accused) and as a court of criminal appeal.
The two senior judges in the High Court are known as the Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk. More information on High Court judges is provided on the Judiciary of Scotland website under the heading of Senators of the College of Justice. The same judges sit in both the High Court and the Court of Session (the highest civil court in Scotland). The two courts are sometimes referred to as the Supreme Courts – not to be confused with the UK's Supreme Court.
As a trial court, the High Court's jurisdiction extends over the whole of Scotland (and sometimes beyond) in respect of all crimes unless excluded by statute. It has exclusive jurisdiction to try the most serious crimes such as treason, murder and rape and, in practice, deals with other serious crimes such as armed robbery, drug trafficking and sexual offences involving children (even where it is competent for these to be tried by a sheriff sitting with a jury). In its role as a trial court, it sits regularly at various locations throughout Scotland and can impose sentences of up to life imprisonment. Cases are tried by a judge and jury under solemn procedure.
Prosecutions in the High Court are brought in the public interest in the name of the Lord Advocate (head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service) and are generally prosecuted by advocate deputes. Private prosecutions are possible in Scotland but are extremely rare. Unlike in the lower courts, solicitors are not able to represent the accused in the High Court. Instead, an advocate or solicitor advocate will usually conduct the defence, although accused persons are normally also permitted to conduct their own defence in person.
In its role as a court of appeal, it sits only in Edinburgh and deals with appeals from the High Court (acting as a trial court) and in relation to sheriff court cases prosecuted under solemn procedure. It may also hear appeals, on points of law only, from the Sheriff Appeal Court (discussed below).
As a court of appeal, it sits with more than one judge (none of whom will have been involved in the trial). At least three judges will hear the case where there is an appeal against conviction, and at least two where the appeal is against sentence alone.
Part 7 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 allows for the establishment of a specialist Sexual Offences Court to deal with serious sexual offences. At the time of writing, relevant provisions of the Act are not yet in force.
The Sexual Offences Court will have the power to deal with sexual offences prosecuted under solemn procedure. In effect, part of the current caseload of solemn sheriff courts and the High Court could instead be dealt with by the Sexual Offences Court. Where a prosecution involves a mix of non-sexual offences and relevant sexual offences, it will be able to deal with both.
Existing High Court judges and sheriffs will be eligible for appointment as judges of the Sexual Offences Court. They will need to have completed training on trauma-informed practice in sexual offence cases, and have the necessary skills and experience.
The Sexual Offences Court will be able to impose any sentence which the High Court can impose for the same offence.
Sheriff courts are spread across the country, with the Sheriff Appeal Court located in Edinburgh.
The country is split into six sheriffdoms:
Glasgow and Strathkelvin
Grampian, Highland and Islands
Lothian and Borders
North Strathclyde
South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway
Tayside, Central and Fife.
Each sheriffdom has a sheriff principal, whose duties include securing the efficient disposal of court business in the sheriffdom.
The sheriff courts deal with criminal and civil business. In relation to criminal cases, they are trial courts dealing with both:
solemn cases – presided over by sheriffs (including sheriffs principal)i
summary cases – presided over by sheriffs and summary sheriffs.
Prosecutions in sheriff courts are generally conducted by the local procurator fiscal or one of the procurator fiscal deputes. In particularly difficult cases, an advocate depute may appear for the prosecution.
The sheriff courts can try any crime not reserved to the High Court, including those which can be tried in justice of the peace courts.
In relation to sentencing, a sheriff court sitting as a court of summary jurisdiction is generally limited by the following maximum sentences: (a) a custodial sentence of 12 months; and (b) a fine of £10,000. The general limits may, where a statute has been contravened, be subject to a higher or lower maximum provided for in the statute.
When sitting as a court of solemn jurisdiction, a sheriff court may impose a maximum custodial sentence of five years and can impose an unlimited fine. Where the sheriff considers that these sentencing powers are insufficient, the case can be remitted to the High Court for sentencing.
The creation of the Sheriff Appeal Court was provided for in the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. It deals with both criminal appeals (since September 2015) and civil appeals (since January 2016). In its role as a court of criminal appeal, it hears appeals in summary cases from both sheriff and justice of the peace courts. In relation to bail appeals only, its jurisdiction extends to decisions of sheriffs under solemn procedure.
A decision of the Sheriff Appeal Court may be appealed to the High Court, with the permission of the High Court, on a point of law only.
The Sheriff Appeal Court is presided over by appeal sheriffs – generally two or three in criminal cases depending on the type of appeal. Bail appeals involve a single appeal sheriff. All sheriffs principal are also appeal sheriffs. In addition, sheriffs of at least five years may be appointed as appeal sheriffs. Appeal sheriffs retain their role as sheriffs.
Justice of the peace courts were created by the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, replacing the former district courts (administered by local authorities) on a sheriffdom by sheriffdom basis between 2008 and 2010.
They are courts of summary criminal jurisdiction only, with cases being dealt with by a bench of one or more lay justices. Summary sheriffs may also sit in justice of the peace courts (with the same sentencing powers as a lay justice). The prosecution is conducted by the local procurator fiscal or one of the procurator fiscal deputes.
Justice of the peace courts generally deal with less serious cases, with jurisdiction over many cases dealt with by sheriff courts being excluded (e.g. robbery or theft by housebreaking). As the lowest level of criminal court, justice of the peace courts have the most limited sentencing powers. They can impose custodial sentences of up to 60 days and fines of up to £2,500 (unless a lower or higher statutory maximum is specified for a particular offence).
The UK's Supreme Court (established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) is the highest court in the UK. It took over the functions of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in October 2009.
Whilst it is the final court of appeal for Scottish civil cases, the High Court in Edinburgh is generally the final court of appeal for Scottish criminal cases. However, the Supreme Court can become involved in Scottish criminal cases. This possibility arises from its role as a court of appeal in relation to both compatibility and devolution issues.
The possibility of an appeal based on a compatibility issue exists where a question arises in relation to either of the following:
whether a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way that is incompatible with any Convention right
whether an Act of the Scottish Parliament (or a provision of such an Act) is incompatible with any of the Convention rights .
Convention rights are those rights and freedoms, derived from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), listed in section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Of particular practical importance in considering the rights of appeal set out above is the fact that the Lord Advocate (head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service) is treated as a public authority. Thus, a question of whether a criminal prosecution has been conducted in a way which is compatible with Convention rights, including the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the ECHR, may give rise to an appeal to the UK's Supreme Court.
The possibility of an appeal based on a devolution issue exists where it is argued that a relevant provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or an Act of the Scottish Government, is reserved under the Scotland Act 1998.
More information on the UK Supreme Court is set out on its website - see the Court and legal system.1