Law & Order : Court reforms falling apart as criminal cases delayed beyond 12 month time limit

Senior members of the legal profession have expressed concerns that many cases in the courts are being delayed beyond the 12 month statutory time limit for those in custody, despite recent reforms from the Scottish Government which were supposed to have stopped such delays.

The Herald reports :

Time delays in serious trials throw doubt on court reforms

LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter May 18 2009

Hundreds of high court cases are being significantly delayed despite recent reforms to the system which were supposed to have solved the problem.

Senior advocates say it is now impossible to get trials to start within the statutory time limit and that victims and innocent suspects are being forced to wait too long to get justice.

Figures obtained by The Herald under the Freedom of Information Act show that more than half of the 800 indictment cases in the past year were delayed beyond the 12-month time limit for someone in custody.

QCs Donald Findlay, Paul McBride and Frances McMenamin all expressed their concern.

In early 2007, ministers boasted that the High Court reforms following a review by Lord Bonomy had resulted in a 90% drop in trial delays, with just 46 adjournments in the year after new rules were introduced in April 2005. In the year before the reforms there were 475 adjournments.

However, the figures obtained by The Herald indicate that delays are significant and senior advocates believe the system requires urgent review.

Overall, since the reforms were introduced in April 2005, there have been 1147 extensions of time recorded by the Scottish Court Service. A breakdown shows that 1115 extensions were requested by the Crown, four by the defence, 25 on joint motion and three recorded as "other".

A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "The Bonomy reforms have had a dramatic impact in ensuring that High Court trials go ahead on the date for which they are planned."

Lord Bonomy's 2002 review of the high court system highlighted the repeated postponements and "churning" of cases as a huge problem.

As a result of his recommendations, the 110-day rule, frequently referred to as the "jewel in the crown" of Scots law, was extended. The time limit within which accused in custody must be brought to trial became 140 days instead of 110.

Law & Order : Justice Secretary backs down over bid to axe Scots 15 person juries

Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has backed down on his plans for ditching the unique 15 person jury system, after encountering fierce resistance from the legal establishment. (Proves who’s really in charge of Scots Law then, doesn’t it – Ed )

The Scotsman reports :

Scotland's unique 15-strong juries will not be abolished

Published Date: 11 May 2009
By JOHN FORSYTH AND HAMISH MACDONELL

PLANS to axe the historic 15-person jury in Scottish criminal trials have been ditched by ministers, The Scotsman can reveal.

Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, said that after extensive consultation, he had decided the only system of its kind in the world should be retained – and that Scotland had got it "uniquely right".

Mr MacAskill admitted he had been sceptical about the 15-person panel, amid criticism that such big juries could be unwieldy and it can be hard to find 15 suitable jurors for every trial.

But he told The Scotsman: "The matter of jury numbers was part of the review I launched last year and I was sceptical at that time about the fact Scotland was unique in the world in having 15 members. But as the information has come in, I'm persuaded that this may in fact be one of those examples where Scotland has got it uniquely right."

He added: "When you take into account that we don't have the expense in time and money of retrials because a simple 8-7 majority is sufficient, we have a pretty efficient system already."

The Scottish Government consultation on juries looked at such issues as the make-up of juries, age limits, remuneration and selection. Mr MacAskill has already indicated he would look favourably on raising the age limit from 65 to 70. That could add 200,000 names to the pool of prospective jurors.

The number of jury trials in Scotland has increased steadily in recent years, from 2,750 in 2005/6 to 3,234 in 2007/8. About 50,000 citizens each year are asked to sit on a jury.

In the consultation process, some advantages of 15-person juries were noted as being that people still have confidence in the system, larger juries lead to fairer verdicts, they are less likely to be influenced by prejudice, they allow for majority verdicts and are composed of a greater cross section of the public.

Against this were arguments that 15-person juries often lead to unwieldy discussions and that the juror pool is being stretched by the requirement of having so many jurors for each trial.

Scotland's best-known advocate, Donald Findlay QC, said: "I am pleased and I am surprised. It is unusual for me to complement a Scot Nat minister for doing the right thing rather than being driven by cost-cutting, which is what this would have been."

John Scott, who tabled a consultation submission against a reduction in the size of jurors on behalf of Scotland's solicitor advocates, said: "The system works as it is. In the vast majority of cases the juries get it right and there is a dynamic with 15 that we couldn't guarantee to be there if we tinker with it."

Defence lawyers were one of the groups to generally favour larger juries. A straw poll of advocates and solicitor advocates at the start of the consultation process found not a single voice in favour of reducing the size.

Ian Duguid QC, Chairman of the Faculty of Advocates Criminal Bar Association, summed up the general sceptical view: "There doesn't seem any reason to change it if it is not broken."

UNIQUE SYSTEM THAT RULES ON GUILT OR INNOCENCE

THE Scottish system is thought to have the largest number of jurors in the world.

Many jurisdictions have 12 jurors but Scotland has 15.

Curiously, there seems to be no clear explanation for the size of a Scottish jury. Professor Lindsay Farmer of Glasgow University said recently: "There isn't any evidence that there was some particularly Scottish reasoning in alighting on 15 as the jury number any more than there was in England for choosing 12 as jury trials evolved in the Middle Ages across Europe.

"Most of the justifications for the difference between the two jurisdictions … were developed as rationalisations during the period of Scottish legal nationalism in the mid- 19th century. But in reality they just happened." Neither is there thought to be any ancient numerological magic underpinning the constitution of a jury, nor modern actuarial analysis of the best number for an optimum collective decision.

At present a Scottish jury can convict or acquit on a simple majority. An accused can be sentenced to life on the basis of an 8-7 vote.

Scots accent causes difficulty with court papers as lawyers complain over mistakes

Court papers full of spelling mistakes & omissions due to poor quality transcripts .. who hasn't experienced this yet.

Well some of Scotland's 'leading lawyers' are now complaining the mistakes are too numerous and are throwing cases into chaos because of the high levels of mistakes caused by English stenographers who are seemingly baffled by the Scots language.

Of course, the method of recording cases itself should also be improved, and offered as a service to all cases before the Scottish Courts, as one recent petition before the Scottish Parliament demonstrates ...

The Scotsman reports :

Court papers full of errors due to difficulties with Scottish accent

By Kizzy Taylor

COURT cases could be thrown into chaos because workers employed to take notes can't understand the Scots accent, it was claimed yesterday.

Leading lawyers have complained that official court papers are littered with mistakes because English stenographers are baffled by names and language used north of the Border.

They said Scottish names such as Barlinnie have been wrongly transcribed as "Barrel Annie" and that words such as "libelled" and "fanciful" have been replaced with "liable" and "fanciable".

It was claimed the mistakes and omissions could affect the outcome of appeals and lawyers have complained to Scotland's Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini.

Donald Findlay QC said: "The transcriptions are bloody awful. There are clearly problems (understanding] the accent. There are bits that are either missing or plainly wrong.

"They know nothing of the local topography, which leads to some amazing phonetic translations of places. I would have thought it's not beyond the wit of man to check place names on the internet."

Gordon Jackson QC, the former Labour MSP for Glasgow Govan, said: "I have heard judges make disparaging remarks about the quality of work."

Gerry Considine, vice-chairman of the Glasgow Bar Association, added: "There's a lot of disquiet about the mistakes being made. It appears they can't make out the accents."

Legal workers said problems began when the Scottish Court service awarded the work to Devon-based Mendip Media Group in 2006.

Mendip admitted there had been problems but blamed the mistakes on the "atrocious" quality of the recordings being taken in court, but said transcribers based in Scotland had been hired to avoid problems understanding the dialect.

A Scottish Courts Service spokeswoman said: "We are upgrading our recording equipment to improve the quality of recordings, but there are still some quality issues regarding tape transcriptions and these are being addressed with Mendip."