News In Focus
26 May 2011
Salmond on the attack over Supreme Court influence
First Minister Alex Salmond has stepped up the Scottish Government's campaign against the role of the UK Supreme Court in Scottish criminal appeals following yesterday's decision to uphold the appeal by Nat Fraser against his conviction for killing his estranged wife Arlene.
Before devolution the High Court of Justiciary was the final court of appeal in criminal matters, but the Scotland Act gave a role to the House of Lords, now succeeded by the Supreme Court, in ensuring that prosecutions were conducted in line with the European Convention on Human Rights – article 6 of which enshrines the right to a fair trial.
Mr Salmond however suggested that there were attempts by UK judges to erode the powers of Scotland's legal system. He said: "I have no comment on the specifics of the case, which is live. But what needs to be addressed is the underlying issue – the principle that Scotland has, for hundreds of years, been a distinct criminal jurisdiction, and the High Court of Justiciary should be the final arbiter of criminal cases in Scotland, as was always the case.
"Before devolution, the House of Lords had no jurisdiction whatever in matters of Scots criminal law. The increasing involvement of the UK Supreme Court in second-guessing Scotland's highest criminal court of appeal is totally unsatisfactory, and creates additional delay and complexity which cannot serve the interests of justice.
"As we said in our evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee, the Scottish Government believe that the UK Supreme Court should have no role in matters of Scots criminal law, whether by way of devolution issues or appeal."
However the Advocate General for Scotland in the UK Government, former Deputy First Minister Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has defended the present system. In an interview to be published in the Journal next month, he points to the small number of cases that actually reach the Supreme Court, and comments: "I have never yet found out why appealing to the Supreme Court, where there are two Scottish judges, is somehow wrong, but appealing to Strasbourg [the European Court of Human Rights], where there are none, is OK."
He adds that "the most important point" of the Human Rights Act "was to bring human rights home, to allow human rights issues to be litigated in our own courts and not just for those who could afford the time and money to take it to Strasbourg".