A recent decision by a Sheriff to withhold the details of a speeding driver's plea for leniency has raised questions over what can and cannot be withheld from the public.
From the Herald :
A senior lawyer said: "This sets a very dangerous precedent which flies in the face of justice being seen to be done. Traditionally, if a lawyer passes up a document in support of his client it is treated as part of the mitigation and should be given to the press.
"For a sheriff to simply state he did not want to hand something over is wrong. The Scottish Court Service has said as much in the past."
Time for the Scottish Courts Service to clarify the matter on what should and should not be secret ?
The Herald reports :
Speeder asks sheriff to limit ban on basis of ‘secret job'
ALAN MACDERMID
A speeding driver yesterday asked a sheriff to limit his disqualification on the grounds of his job - but the public was not allowed to know what it is.
Sheriff Robert McCreadie caused controversy in legal circles when he kept secret the details passed to him in a letter by speeder Derek Hopgood.
Not only did his occupation remain hush-hush - so also did the voluntary work which he does.
Hopgood, 46, was clocked speeding at 109mph on the notorious A9 dual carriageway between Stirling and Perth.
He told Perth Sheriff Court court that he would lose his job if he was banned from driving for a lengthy period.
Hopgood handed over two letters - relating to his job and voluntary post - for consideration. The sheriff then refused to read out the content of the letters and declined to let members of the press see them despite considering them as part of Hopgood's mitigation.
The sheriff's clerk then confirmed that the sheriff had said he was treating the letters as "confidential" and would not hand them over. No further explanation was given.
A senior lawyer said: "This sets a very dangerous precedent which flies in the face of justice being seen to be done. Traditionally, if a lawyer passes up a document in support of his client it is treated as part of the mitigation and should be given to the press.
"For a sheriff to simply state he did not want to hand something over is wrong. The Scottish Court Service has said as much in the past.
"This opens the door to any solicitor simply to write down their plea in mitigation and hand it over so their client's details remain private."
Hopgood, of Logie Drive, Larbert, Stirlingshire, admitted driving at 109mph on the A9 on February 24 this year. He had been convicted for speeding two months earlier as well.
Solicitor Rosemary Scott said: "He has provided a letter from his employers. If he is disqualified for three, six or nine months they would not be able to keep him on. The nature of his employment is such that he is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. On occasions he may have to be away overnight, all week.
"Long distances are involved so public transport would be out of the question. He travels in the region of 50,000 miles per annum.
"There are other people who rely on him and he regrets the fact he put the support he provides to these people in a very difficult position."
Ms Scott asked the court to restrict the ban on Hopgood on the basis of the secret information provided in the letters he put forward.
Sheriff McCreadie told him: "Responsibility is yours entirely. This speed is disgraceful. It is almost 40 miles per hour beyond the speed limit. Notwithstanding all of the information and factors prayed in aid it is a disqualification situation."
He banned Hopgood for four months and fined him £500.
Afterwards the sheriff's clerk removed the letters from the summary complaint and confirmed the sheriff would not allow them to be handed over.
Isobel Brydie, of Scotland's Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers, said: "If your licence is all that important to you, you shouldn't be doing 109mph. The onus us on you to stay within the limit."
No comments:
Post a Comment