News In Focus
5 March 2010
Court upholds summary justice sentencing changes
The Scottish Parliament acted within its powers when it increased the maximum prison term that a sheriff could impose in summary proceedings, in a way that included reserved matters such as road traffic offences, the UK Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
By a three-two majority, the judges refused the appeals of Sean Martin and Ross Miller, who were each sentenced to more than six months' imprisonment in the summary criminal court for driving while disqualified.
The maximum under the Road Traffic Act is six months on summary conviction or one year following conviction on indictment, but under section 45 of the Criminal Proceedings etc Reform (Scotland) Act 2007, sheriffs sitting summarily were given the power to impose 12 months for common law and for statutory offences.
Martin and Miller argued that the Scottish Parliament could not act in this way in a matter that was reserved to Westminster.
Purpose
The majority judges (Lord Hope, Lord Walker and Lord Brown) ruled that the purpose of section 45 was "to contribute to the reform of summary justice by reducing pressure on the higher courts". It was therefore directed to a rule of Scots criminal law, so it did not relate to a reserved matter under the Scotland Act.
Lord Hope explained that if the 2007 Act had increased the sentencing power in respect of common law but not statutory offences, the reform would have been "incomplete and confusing". This problem would have been exacerbated if the reform had attempted to distinguish between statutory offences related to reserved matters and those which did not. The purpose of s.45 was to ensure that the law relating to the sentencing powers of sheriffs was consistent as between offences concerning reserved matters and otherwise.
While the Parliament could not increase the overall maximum penalty, the change under section 45 related only to the procedure which determined whether the sheriff had the power to impose the maximum, and that was a matter of Scots criminal procedure which was devolved.
Dissenting, Lord Rodger and Lord Kerr held that the summary maximum specified in the Road Traffic Act was "special to a reserved matter" and therefore could not be altered at Holyrood. Lord Rodger pointed out that the Parliament could not have reduced the summary maximum, which "would involve significant road traffic policy issues". The "competent end" of increasing the sheriff's sentencing powers did not justify the "means which are beyond competence" of disregarding the prohibitions on the Scotland Act.
Click here to access the judgments.