Following last year’s consultation document mistitled “Strengthening Judicial Independence in a Modern Scotland”, (the “consultation paper”) the Scottish Executive issued in March of this year a document entitled “Proposals for a Judiciary (Scotland) Bill” (“the proposals document"). Despite the radical proposals only about 100 days are again given for responses. The proposals document simply states “Please let us have any comments by 14 May 2007”.
The proposals document is in two parts. Part One consists of 12 chapters setting out the plans of the Scottish Executive in relation to, amongst other matters,
Part Two is a draft bill dealing with the bulk of the Scottish Executive plans but, presently, excluding provisions for judicial involvement in the governance of the Scottish Court Service. The Scottish Executive proposes further discussion.
Some of the narrative in the first part of the paper has, disappointingly, an air of dismissiveness when referring to objections and concerns made in response to the consultation paper. A clear example of this is indicated by reference to responses made by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland, two influential and significant bodies in the justice system, who called for a more thorough and independent assessment of proposals by way of an independent inquiry. The Executive response is that such an inquiry would take time. The proposals document states: “this view was not, however, universally held and, on balance, we have decided that an independent inquiry is not necessary”.
Again, in relation to the proposal to introduce a statutory guarantee of judicial independence, despite the fact that it has been a constitutional convention for some 400 years, the Scottish Executive states: “The balance of view overall favoured some provision being made”. This balance of view is difficult to find in the responses to the consultation paper, unless there is a plethora of confidential responses. Meekly, it is suggested that “it would not be right if Scotland were to be the only part of the United Kingdom in which the Executive was not fully bound by such a statutory guarantee”.
The statutory duty to respect judicial independence is contained in s 1 of the draft bill, imposing a duty on the First Minister, the Lord Advocate, the Scottish Ministers and “all with responsibility for matters relating to the judiciary” to uphold judicial independence. The First Minister, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers are levied with a special duty not to influence particular judicial decisions. The whole draft provision is unnecessary, begging the question what sanction might be imposed for non-compliance, for there is none proposed in the draft bill. Could it be that sheriffs and judges could impose up to 240 hours of community service on the First Minister if he breaches s 1?
The role of the Lord President is not yet part of the bill, but the intention is to make him or her “Head of the Judiciary in Scotland” with statutory responsibility for:
While some of these responsibilities are admirable, particularly in relation to maintaining appropriate arrangements for the general deployment of the judiciary, exercising disciplinary powers and maintaining arrangements for welfare and training of the judiciary, the Lord President is to become responsible for securing the efficient disposal of business in the courts of Scotland. The Lord President is worryingly described in the proposals document as “head of the courts”. On a detailed note, it is proposed to give the Lord President power to deploy a sheriff on a compulsory basis. This proposal ignores the principle that every judge and sheriff enjoys judicial independence, which is not some corporate asset.
The proposals document asks for views on this major and fundamental issue of the role of the Lord President, but indicates that it is likely that the Court Service should be overseen by a non-executive board chaired by the Lord President but including other judicial members. The board’s chief executive would report to the board, which would set policy and monitor performance of the Court Service.
To circumvent one issue of judicial independence, the proposals document suggests that it would be the chief executive who would be accountable to ministers in the Scottish Parliament in terms of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 for Court Service performance. This is something of a fiction when it is the Lord President and the board that would be responsible for performance, delegating authority to the chief executive.
The proposals document goes on to suggest that these features “would move us away from the concept of the judiciary as customers of the Scottish Court Service”. It is quite erroneous to have regarded the judiciary as customers, aggravated now by the proposal to move the Lord President and other members of the judiciary to a partnership role, which is an anathema to the doctrine of judicial independence.
The judiciary should be completely divorced from the Scottish Court Service. It is the function of the Executive to run the Scottish Court Service. In short the general proposal on the role of the Lord President flies full in the face of the constitutional convention of judicial independence.
The draft bill includes provision for placing the Judicial Appointments Board on a statutory footing. There are detailed provisions for its constitution, membership and practical aspects, but the Scottish Executive has made no change to the composition of the membership. There will be an equal number of legal and lay members, although the Scottish Executive will retain power to alter the number in either category. The chairman will require to be a lay member of the Board.
The proposals document does not say much about variations in membership, particularly for more legal representation, but it might be prudent for the Scottish Executive and those ultimately responsible for passing the bill to take on board the interesting and detailed observations made by Sheriff D J Cusine in "Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland: a view from outside", 2007 SLT (News) 9. Amongst other things he highlights what other countries have done in relation to legal representation on judicial selection boards. If it was of concern to the Scottish Executive what other countries have done in relation to introducing a statutory guarantee of judicial independence, perhaps it should also be of interest what other countries have done in relation to selection boards.
One innovation in the draft bill is that the Judicial Appointments Board will be given power to appoint temporary judges. However, the Lord President still has the power to appoint a temporary judge from the ranks of serving or retired sheriffs principal and sheriffs. It is questionable therefore how useful this new provision will be where the Lord President wants to appoint temporary judges quickly, thus bypassing the Judicial Appointments Board. Interestingly, unlike the appointment of part time sheriffs, there is no limit to the number of temporary judges that can be appointed.
The proposals for removal from office give particular cause for concern in relation to the concept of judicial independence. In the proposals document the Scottish Executive reports that the Sheriffs’ Association were “strongly opposed to any change to the current arrangements set out in s 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971”, since any change to a tribunal system would undermine security of tenure and consequently independence of the office of sheriff. With another air of dismissiveness, the document concludes that “this concern was not shared by all respondents”, so change there will be in the form of a tribunal.
In the case of fitness for judicial office of a judge, there will be a four person panel, three legal members and the omnipresent lay member selected by the First Minister with the agreement of the Lord President (unless he is the subject of the enquiry). However, significantly, in terms of the draft bill as presently framed, the First Minister, in s 15, can set up a tribunal to investigate and report without the consent of the Lord President. All he requires to do is consult the Lord President. The draft bill even has provision on how the tribunal will operate, requiring any person to attend proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence and producing documents. The whole procedure will make serious inroads into the doctrine of judicial independence.
One does not need to be a lateral thinker to deduce that if any judge appears before such a tribunal, his or her career is effectively over regardless of the conclusion reached by the tribunal. The judge will have been “hung out to dry”. The draft bill significantly omits to say who will remove the judge from office but, astonishingly, does not provide the judge with any form of appeal which is, ironically, a right which is available to every accused person that appears before a judge. The whole elaborate and unnecessary procedure is proposed despite the fact that since 1689 no Court of Session judge has been removed from office.
There are similar provisions in the draft bill for removal of sheriffs and part time sheriffs, only this time the Scottish Ministers have the power to establish a tribunal. The bill does state that removal from office will be by the Scottish Ministers. Again, there is no appeal procedure available to a sheriff or part time sheriff. The procedures for removal will undermine the relationship between bar and bench and illustrate a lack of understanding of the concept of judicial independence.
On a productive note, the proposals document will allow a sheriff principal to re-engage a retired sheriff principal or a sheriff as a temporary measure, restricted, however, to his or her sheriffdom. This provision circumvents the extraordinary situation presently in place of requiring a retired sheriff, having spent many years at the coal face, to appear before the Judicial Appointments Board for interview and recommendation for appointment as a part time sheriff. Another productive feature of the proposals document is provision in the draft bill for the functions of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk to be dealt with during periods of vacancy, incapacity or suspension.
In conclusion, the proposals document largely ignores major criticisms made in response to the consultation document on the interference to the doctrine of judicial independence, particularly in relation to the draft bill provisions for removal from office of judges and sheriffs and the role of the Lord President as “head of the courts”. It is an invasion on the doctrine of judicial independence. The Scottish Executive and those advising them would do well to reconsider their position on the need for an independent inquiry in view of the radical proposals and their attack on judicial independence.
Current Submissions04.07.08 Getting a Get in Scotland - 2This follow-up to the article published in March 2006 explains how current Scots divorce law affects Jewish clients and how solicitors can give appropriate advice 12.06.08 No place for secrecyFuller version of the Opinion article, Journal, June 2008: critique of the system for appointment as Queen’s Counsel in Scotland 11.03.08 One Scotland, many cultures?Despite the protections of the Human Rights Act, the position of travelling people in Scotland appears to have worsened in recent years - why? 26.02.08 Bank charges and the Unfair Terms RegulationsThe significance of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations in the context of the current litigation over bank charges 21.02.08 CGT: Don't lose out on 6 April 2008Couples should consider asset transfers before then to preserve indexation relief 14.12.07 Common sense prevailsThe options open, and the issues that arise, now that the proposed planning gain supplement is not to be introduced 07.12.07 Discounting justiceAuthor contends that sentencing discounts and other developments have created an imbalance in the justice system 10.10.07 Advocacy in mediationAn overview of the mediation process and the opportunities for solicitors and clients 06.09.07 TUPE: stay your handA Court of Session ruling on a law firm redundancy marks a fundamental change in TUPE 24.07.07 EAT breaks ground with TUPE insolvency rulingRuling on when insolvency proceedings begin leaves successor employer liable 06.07.07 Confidentiality clauses - beware!The Information Commissioner's decision in the VisitScotland case requires very careful drafting of confidentiality provisions in public sector contracts if they are to work 06.07.07 The power of marks: Frankie goes after Hollys nameHow failure to address issues of ownership of the band's name stored up trouble for Frankie Goes to Hollywood 14.05.07 Court plans with little appealThe fuller version of the Opinion article in the Journal for May 2007 14.05.07 Winning waysThe fuller version of the article in the Journal for May 2007 08.02.07 Routes to qualification: the Italian pictureAn Italian lawyer with an interest in training in different jurisdictions reports on current developments in the Italian legal system 09.01.07 Contractual handcuffs: enhanced redundancy rightsThe Court of Appeal decision in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd requires employers to exercise caution when referring to redundancy rights in staff handbooks 27.12.06 The Isle of ManAn summary of the current legal and tax regime for individuals and companies based on the island (a longer version of the briefing in the November 2006 issue) 15.11.06 Costume Wars: copyright storm over the troopersA row over "Star Wars" costumes illustrates the need to protect all intellectual property rights in written agreements 13.10.06 Survival of the fittest? A replyReply to article on selection for Diploma and traineeship places by Michael Torrance in the September 2006 Journal 13.10.06 TUPE passes the buckFar from providing clarity, the new regulations will need litigation to decide the effect of the insolvency provisions (longer version of October 2006 briefing article) 17.08.06 For supplement read tax - an updateAuthors update their previous Journal article on the proposed planning gain supplement 17.08.06 Technology and the Scottish courtsAn update on the use of technology in the Scottish courts, based on the author's experience of a recent patent case 26.07.06 A lack of trustForthcoming in August issue, put online because of its urgency, the article outlines the final form of the trust tax changes in this year's Finance Act 17.07.06 Ireland 4, Italy 0The ECJ decision in the Irish-Italian dispute in the Parmalat companies liquidation proceedings provides important guidance on jurisdiction 05.04.06 Legal science or law-lite? A responseThis reply to Professor Gretton argues that changes in Scots law teaching are a necessary response to changes in universities, the wider community and the law itself 03.04.06 Opening a binding global route for personal dataIn a significant move the Information Commissioner has allowed a company to transfer employees' personal data outwith the EU under binding internal rules 02.04.06 Mentally disordered offendersOverview of the options available to the courts when dealing with offenders who have or may have a mental disorder, following recent legislative reforms 30.03.06 Bias and mental health tribunals: a replyReply to criticisms of the new tribunals, arguing that the composition of the tribunals is not inherently unfair and only research can assess their performance 17.01.06 Legal aid in children's hearing referralsThis paper delivered at the legal aid conference, argues that the interests of justice require better remuneration for solicitors appearing in children's hearing cases 09.12.05 Holes in Scotland's corporate killing proposalsGaps in the expert working group's proposals could make them unworkable and bad for business 10.08.05 Prosecuting bigotry offencesTwo appeal decisions have exposed limitations in the statutory offences directed at racial abuse 08.07.05 Commissioner: Public Authorities must do moreInformation Commissioner's first appeal decision highlights areas for improvement 14.04.05 New identity for criminal justice bodyScottish Association for the Study of Offending launches by removing "Delinquency" from title 14.04.05 Information and Consultation RegulationsBriefing on the regulations in force from 6 April 2005, covering businesses with more than the prescribed number of employees 13.04.05 Retailers seek effective court action on crimeScottish Retail Consortium proposes more effective intervention following 3rd Retail Crime Survey 11.04.05 Appropriate dispute resolutionThis paper, given to the Four Jurisdictions Conference in Nice this year, discusses how family law can make a difference for the better by careful choice of the most suitable method of resolution 09.03.05 ASBOs and young peopleWhat to look for when acting for a young person facing an antisocial behaviour order application 21.02.05 Sell or transfer?Longer version of briefing published in February 2005 issue, page 44 08.02.05 Promoting competitiveness or competition?Discussion of EU rules on state aids with particular reference to Highlands and Islands ferries 10.11.04 Guarding the inner sanctumHow to minimise the risk of breaches of internet security 10.11.04 The Clinical Trials Directive - a summaryWhat the EU Clinical Trials Directive means for trials of medicinal products 13.10.04 Sheriff Court Rules Council consultation paperConsultation on proposals for further extension of the use of information technology in civil cases in the sheriff court (response date: 15 November 2004) 13.10.04 Ignorantia juris: it's all Greek to meSecond annual APEX lecture given by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, on the rule of law and its essential components 13.10.04 Virtual firms: transactional learning on the webHow today's Diploma students are introduced to legal transactions in a virtual environment 13.10.04 Drafting consumer contractsGuidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |