Challenge to tougher summary sentencing plans

Law lecturer claims bill about "convenience rather than principle"

News, 16 May 2006

An Aberdeen law teacher has criticised the Scottish Executive's plans for tougher summary sentencing powers for sheriffs, in a written submission to Holyrood's Justice 1 Committee.

In his paper, lecturer James Chalmers of Aberdeen University criticises the proposal in the Criminal Proceedings (Reform) Bill to raise the maximum sentence in summary cases to 12 months. He claims that the increased powers generally come with increased safeguards for the accused, with the result that cases become longer and more expensive.

Mr Chalmers points out that historically Scotland has not attached the same importance of trial by jury as other parts of the UK, as an accused has no right to opt for jury trial, but that the legal system has instead imposed strict limits on how long someone can be sentenced to prison through summary proceedings. In raising the summary limit, he argues, the bill would erode the safeguard of trial by jury.

Mr Chalmers maintains that if jury trial is viewed as an important safeguard, pressure on the higher courts should be relieved by increasing their resources and not by increasing the powers of summary courts, as suggested by the McInnes committee. To take the latter course would suggest that the motivation is administrative convenience rather than principle.

The Scottish Executive considers that sheriffs used to imposing 12 month sentences would be capable of imposing these when sitting without a jury.

Mr Chalmers will give oral evidence to the Justice Committee tomorrow.