« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
IMPROVING PRACTICE
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW STRATEGY
Review Team
2.1 I was assisted in my research and in the preparation of my report by a small team. Norman Dowie, Deputy Principal Clerk of Justiciary, led the team. Moira Ramage, Principal Procurator Fiscal Depute at Paisley, worked with the team throughout the Review, and brought to our deliberations a width of insight into the practical problems of the Court that only an experienced prosecutor with an acute practical awareness of the shortcomings of the system could. Elaine Samuel, Lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Edinburgh, carried out valuable research which is reproduced in Appendices B & C. Tom Fyffe, former Deputy Principal Clerk of Justiciary and now Head of Services at Scottish Court Service, spent a large part of his working time throughout the period of the Review engaged in research into a variety of subjects and kept me abreast of initiatives within the Service and issues being considered or addressed there. Wilma Dickson, Head of Criminal Procedure Division at the Scottish Executive Justice Department, regularly assisted throughout by advising where points under consideration by me were relevant to, or were relevantly affected by, other matters being dealt with or considered at the Justice Department. During the evidence gathering and analysis phase the team had the additional support of Assistant Researcher, Christine Richardson.
2.2 Every member of the team made suggestions which played a part in our discussions and appear in this report. I found our frequent discussions, either as a full team or as a smaller group, stimulating and fruitful. Each member of the team was also a source of restraint and reassurance.
2.3 Research into the historical evolution of the High Court and into the impact of section 57(2) and Schedule 6 of the Scotland Act 1998 upon the work of the Court was carried out by Peter Ferguson, Advocate, to whom I am extremely grateful for his thorough analysis of both.
2.4 The most frustrating task fell to Irene Cranston, Typing Pool Manager, and the typing staff at Parliament House, in particular Linda Mackay, who patiently produced endless revised versions of each part of the report as it developed. I can't thank them enough.
Reference Group
2.5 A Committee, known as the Reference Group, provided additional support. It consisted of the undernoted, who all represent organisations with a close involvement in the criminal justice process. The members were:-
Margaret Allison, Social Work Liaison Officer, Edinburgh High Court, and now a Victim Information Advice Officer, Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service;
John Anderson, Principal Clerk of Session and Justiciary;
Micheline Brannan, Head of Criminal Justice Group, Scottish Executive, Justice Department;
Gerry Brown, Solicitor, Member of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland and Convener of their Criminal Law Committee;
Mick Conboy, Deputy Head, Commission for Racial Equality;
Marilyn Cousin, Social Work Liaison Officer, Edinburgh High Court;
Malcolm Dickson, Assistant Chief Constable, Lothian and Borders Police, representing the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS);
Bill Gilchrist, Deputy Crown Agent, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service;
Peter L Gray, Q.C., Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association of the Faculty of Advocates;
Douglas Haggarty, Head of Legal Service (Technical) Scottish Legal Aid Board;
Neil Paterson, Head of Operations, Victim Support, Scotland;
Anthony Quinn, Solicitor Advocate, Secretary of the Society of Solicitor Advocates;
Alan Turnbull, Q.C., Home Advocate Depute.
2.6 We met regularly throughout the Review. Their intended function was as a sounding board for emerging ideas. However, their role was not confined to that. Positive suggestions made at meetings of the Reference Group can be found within the report.
Consultees
2.7 At the outset I sought written comments. On 14 th December 2001 I published a notice in the main newspapers in Scotland, seeking comments from anyone with an interest in the criminal justice system and in particular those who had had experience of it, whether as members of the public, from working in it or as accused persons. I also sent the same notice to every organisation that I could identify as likely to have a particular interest in my remit. I received written comments from a wide variety of people, including private individuals, academics, and others interested in the subject of the Review. I undertook to treat the submissions made in confidence.
2.8 When it came to consulting, I did not cast the net so widely. Unlike the Thomson Committee 6 I did not take evidence from prisoners. I did, however, meet representatives of the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and some of their clients. I arranged meetings with solicitors practising in each of the cities and towns where the High Court sits regularly. I met representatives of the Faculty of Advocates on a number of occasions. I met with other professionals involved in the criminal justice system, including forensic scientists, pathologists, members of the Procurator Fiscal Society, newspaper court reporters and staff of Justiciary Office. I had discussions with representatives of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and with senior officials in various branches of the Scottish Court Service. Over the past 9 months I have worked with a number of clerks of court, all of whom have made positive suggestions to me. I also met a number of people who represent victims and vulnerable people before, during and after court proceedings.
2.9 While my terms of reference were wide enough to cover an investigation of the practices of the Crown following the reporting of a case by a local office to Crown Office for indictment, I confined my own investigation of Crown practices to those related to the management of cases once indicted. The practices of the Crown were the subject of a separate review carried out by the Crown Office Quality and Practice Review Unit 7. I have taken account of their proposals. The Head of the Unit, Janet Cameron, shared her findings with me as our respective reviews progressed. I spoke to current and past Crown Office staff responsible for managing sittings of the Court. The Deputy Crown Agent, Bill Gilchrist, was a very willing source of background information on Crown practice and policy. I also met advocate deputes on two occasions.
2.10 I studied the conduct of business of various sittings of the Court between December 2001 and September 2002, and received reports on some from my Review Team and from judges.
2.11 I visited a number of Crown Courts in England, observed proceedings and spoke with judges, counsel, solicitors and court staff 8.
2.12 As ideas began to emerge from these various consultations, I reported them to judges, sheriffs principal and sheriffs for their comments. I had a number of discussions with colleagues. I met with representatives of the Sheriffs' Association. I also received written comments from colleagues, and from individual sheriffs and sheriffs principal.
The Result
2.13 I believe that, by entering into dialogue with such a wide range of those with practical experience of the system rather than relying on formal written comment or formal oral evidence, I received the frankest account possible of the difficulties currently affecting the work of the Court. I thank all who made submissions, orally or in writing, and all who assisted and supported the work of the Review.
« Previous | Contents | Next »