« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ADOPTION POLICY REVIEW GROUP: CHOICES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTERING AND ADOPTION
APPENDIX III: COURT TIMETABLES FOR ADOPTION AND FREEING: TWO POSSIBLE SCHEMES AND DRAFT PRACTICE NOTE
( see Chapter 6.)
1. Proposals submitted by BAAF in 1996 in response to the Sheriff Court Rules Council's Consultation Paper on sheriff court procedures in adoption. This paper is reproduced with the permission of BAAF, the copyright holders. It should be remembered that it was written as part of the consultation process on implementation of the 1995 Act, and therefore pre-dates the AS 1997.
Proposals for Timetabling
We propose the following Timescales for Adoption and Freeing Petitions, in order to provide a real measure of certainty for all those involved, children, adopting and birth families and their advisors. Predictability, knowing how long the overall process should take, is very important, especially for the children.
Timetabling starts as soon as the Petition is lodged. The Petitioner is immediately given a date for the preliminary (or options style) Hearing, which date must be within 2 months of the date of lodging. The Petitioner intimates the Hearing to the birth parent and anyone else who appears to have an interest.
At the same time, just after lodging, the Curator is appointed and his or her report must be lodged within 28 days of appointment, notice also being given of the Hearing date.
At the Hearing, the Sheriff may dispose of the Petition if, e.g., it is clearly uncontested. Otherwise, in disputed cases, a date for the Proof will be set, and that date must be within 3 months of the Hearing. The Rules should also provide that once the Proof has started, it will continue on a daily basis until completed, i.e. all issues have been dealt with.
Once the Proof has concluded, the Sheriff must prepare and issue his judgement within 28 days. In order to allow for situations where a judgement is not available in time, it may be appropriate to provide that at the end of a Proof the Sheriff shall fix a date within 28 days when parties appear for formal notification of the decision, so that the Sheriff will formally have to continue matters (for not more than another 28 days) and explain if there is a delay.
It is appropriate under the general heading of timescales to raise another issue which could help speed up cases. There is uncertainty in some courts about procedures prior to a Proof for agreeing issues or focusing on disputed ones. There should be disputed rules encouraging the agreement of all non disputed matters by way of Joint Minute, and allowing the Sheriff to order a Note of Issues to be provided by those opposing the Petition, in order to focus on exactly what is disputed. We do not seek a complicated set of written pleadings but simply a means to draw out the real issues before the Proof starts.
A Note of Issues, if asked for, should be produced not later than 28 or 21 days prior to the Proof date.
Throughout this process, the Sheriff should have a general dispensing power to extend this timetable, but this should only be used sparingly and should itself be within set timetables. That is, the Sheriff may, at the preliminary Hearing, be persuaded to continue the matter to another Hearing and not fix a proof, but such a continued Hearing should be set down within another 28 days.
If such timescales are kept to, it should be possible in almost all cases to provide a reasonable idea of the time required to the children and families involved. The problem of waiting for a award of legal aid should be helped if parties are given a set Proof date, as emergency provisions can then be used if necessary. Sheriff Clerks should also know more exactly what demands will be made by these processes on the courts' other business.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
I. Petition Lodged: 1. Petitioner given date of Hearing and authority to intimate.
2. Curator appointed; to report within 28 days.
Maximum of 2 months allowed from lodging until:
II. Hearing: 1. Petition disposed of where appropriate.
2. Proof date fixed where appropriate, advisability of Joint Minutes urged and Notes of Issues ordered if necessary.
3. On cause shown, continue Hearing for not more than 28 days.
Maximum of 3 months allowed from Hearing until; and
any Notes of Issues to be lodged at least 28 days before:
III. Proof Proceeds on a day-to-day basis until concluded.
Maximum of 28 allowed from conclusion of the Proof until:
IV. Judgement issued.
2. Article on timetables by Sheriff Alastair Stewart, Q.C., published in Greens's Family Law Bulletin, July 1999, Issue 40, pg.2, and reproduced with the permission of the author and W.Green, the copyright holders
Proposed Timetable for Adoptions and Freeing Orders
Sheriff Alastair Stewart, Q.C.
Section 25A of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 provides that in any proceedings, whether involving a freeing order or an adoption, where a question arises of dispensing with the agreement of a parent, "the court shall, with a view to determining the question without delay [emphasis added] - (a) draw up a timetable specifying periods within which certain steps must be taken in relation to those proceedings".
Two facts emerge clearly from the existing legislation. First, the objective of timetabling is to reduce delay in reaching a decision as to whether or not agreement should be dispensed with. Secondly, the act of preparing a timetable itself is something that must not be delayed - it must be done "forthwith", see rule 2.4 of the Child Care and Maintenance Rules 1997.
1. The Starting Point
I suggest that the starting point must be the reception by the courts of the reports of the reporting officer and curator ad litem. It is usually not until these reports are received that a reasonable clear picture emerges as to the attitude of the parent whose agreement is sought to be dispensed with.
2. The Preliminary Hearing
Rules 2.11(1) (in the case of an application for freeing) and 2.28(1) (in the case of a petition for adoption where the child has not already been freed for adoption) provide that the sheriff must fix a diet of hearing on receipt of the reports of the reporting officer and the curator ad litem. I therefore suggest that the hearing should be the first item in the timetable. It must, of course, be emphasised that the "hearing" referred to in these rules will in most disputed cases be only a preliminary hearing at which future procedure will be discussed.
The sheriff will be better able to decide on a suitable timescale for fixing the hearing after he has read the reports. I therefore favour the timetable providing that within 24 hours of the sheriff clerk's receiving the reports of the reporting officer and curator ad litem he must place the petition, these reports and all other papers in the process before the sheriff in order that the sheriff may fix a date for a hearing.
No more than four weeks should elapse between the date of the interlocutor fixing the hearing and the hearing actually taking place. This should give ample time for intimation to all parties (as required by rules 2.11(2) and 2.28(3) and (4)).
3. The Procedural Hearing
The sheriff could hear what the opposing parent and the petitioner have to say at the hearing just referred to, but, in practice, if there is opposition to the application, there will require to be a proof. It is here that any attempt at rigid timetabling is likely to break down.
An application for either a freeing order or adoption falls fairly and squarely within the definition of a summary application. Thus, so far as the matter is not determined by the 1997 Rules, the sheriff may lay down whatever procedure he thinks appropriate. Thus he could order parties to lodge pleadings and make up a record, but only in the most exceptional case should he do so.
What he should, however, do is devise some way in which the parties may identify the issues in dispute and those matters about which there is agreement, thus limiting the scope of any proof. I suggest that this should be done before the date of a proof is fixed. Fixing an adoption proof into a busy court schedule is always difficult. It will be much easier if there is some idea of how long the proof is likely to last. What I am suggesting is a procedural hearing - a sort of options hearing.
I suggest that a maximum of eight weeks should be allowed between the initial hearing of the case and the procedural hearing. During this time the opposing parent (and, if appropriate, the petitioner) should be able to obtain legal aid and his or her solicitor should be able to examine all the relevant documents in the case. I suggest that the sheriff should normally order parties to lodge affidavits or at least precognitions of all potential witnesses in order that the scope of the evidence may be determined.
At the procedural hearing the parties' representatives together with the sheriff would consider all the documents in the case including any affidavits or precognitions ordered. The sheriff should be able to order a joint minute to be produced. He should be able to note the disputed issues. The parties should be able to determine how long the proof is likely to last with a reasonable degree of accuracy. At the end of the procedural hearing the sheriff would fix the date for the proof, which would be no more than six weeks after that date.
I am aware that what I have suggested would throw a great burden on a busy court programme. The fixing of a proof within six weeks is unheard of in most of the bigger courts. However, there is no reason why it should not be done. Summary criminal trials have to be fixed within 40 days if the accused is remanded in custody. In practice, certainly in the courts in which I have sat, such trials are usually fixed within 30 days. A hearing which is to determine the future of a child is surely as important as a summary criminal trial.
The Proof
Many adoption proofs drag on over several weeks or even months with a few days' evidence being heard followed by a long gap before the sheriff is available to hear further evidence. This is quite wrong. If a sheriff can hear a criminal jury trial from day to day, as he is bound to do, similar arrangements should be made for adoption or freeing hearings.
In almost every case the hearing on evidence should follow on immediately after the completion of the proof. In the exceptional case it may have to be postponed until after shorthand notes of the evidence have been extended. In that case, the hearing should be no more than four weeks after the end of the proof.
The Decision
Unless there are exceptional circumstances, a sheriff should be able to produce his decision in a freeing or adoption case within 28 days. There is provision in the summary cause rules for a sheriff to produce a written judgement within 28 days, so there is a precedent for my suggestion.
A sheriff should be allowed to apply to his sheriff principal for an extension of the 28-day period if there is a good reason for his not being able to comply with the time limit.
The total time under this timetable between the lodging of the petition and the sheriff producing his judgement should be about 26 weeks plus the number of days occupied by the proof and the hearing on evidence. To some it may seem like a long time but it must be remembered that the court is dealing with a child's whole future, and it is essential, so far as humanly possible, to get it right. In such cases there is very seldom a second opportunity.
3. Draft Practice Note for the Sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders for Freeing, Adoption and PRO cases providing Guidance for Sheriffs and Practitioners, reproduced with the permission of Sheriff Principal I. D. Macphail.
SHERIFFDOM OF LOTHIAN AND BORDERS
PRACTICE NOTE NO 1, 2003
FREEING FOR ADOPTION, ADOPTION ORDERS AND PARENTAL
RESPONSIBILITIES ORDERS
GUIDANCE FOR SHERIFFS AND PRACTITIONERS
A PRELIMINARY
1. Introduction
Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this Practice Note is to secure the efficient management of contested proceedings in applications for orders declaring children free for adoption, applications for adoption orders and applications for parental responsibilities orders. It is intended to provide Sheriffs and practitioners with practical guidance about the operation of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 ('the 1978 Act'), the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 ('the 1995 Act') and the Act of Sederunt (Child Care and Maintenance Rules) 1997 ('the Rules') relative to such proceedings. It will be revised in the light of experience and any new primary or secondary legislation.
Commencement
1.2 This Practice Note applies to all such applications lodged after 1 November 2003.
Minimum of delay
1.3 It is the duty of the court to secure that applications for freeing orders are dealt with 'as expeditiously as possible with the minimum of delay' ( Lothian Regional Council v A 1992 SLT 858 at 861). Such applications require the co-operation of all concerned and firm case management by the Sheriff ( Strathclyde Regional Council v MF 1996 SCLR 142 at 143). The same considerations apply to applications for adoption and for parental responsibilities orders. This Practice Note indicates how Sheriffs and practitioners may best fulfil those responsibilities.
Identity of Sheriff
1.4 In the interest of continuity and consistency in management, every stage of each case must, whenever possible, call before the same Sheriff on dates and at times assigned by him or her. This paragraph does not apply to the Borders courts.
Representatives
1.5 At every calling of each case any representative of any party must be familiar with the case and must have sufficient authority to deal with any issues that are likely to arise.
Subject sheet
1.6 The Sheriff and the parties may find it helpful to use a subject sheet in order to check the matters that should be ascertained at different stages of the case. A specimen of such a sheet, which may be adapted according to circumstances, is printed as an Appendix to this Practice Note.
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DECLARING A CHILD FREE FOR ADOPTION
2. Timetable
2.1 Section 25A of the 1978 Act provides that in proceedings in which the question arises as to whether the court is satisfied that the agreement of a parent or guardian should be dispensed with, the court must do the following 'with a view to determining the question without delay'. First, it must draw up a timetable specifying periods within which certain steps must be taken. Secondly, it must give such directions as it considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring, so far as reasonably practicable, that the timetable is adhered to.
2.2 Rule 2.4 of the Rules requires the court to draw up the timetable 'forthwith' in three situations: (1) where the petition craves the agreement of a parent or guardian to be dispensed with; or (2) where it appears from a report by an adoption agency, local authority or reporting officer that a question as to dispensing with such agreement arises; or (3) such agreement previously given is withdrawn.
2.3 In virtually every freeing case situation (1) will apply, since the application will have been lodged by the local authority in a case where a parent is withholding agreement. In such a case, in order to comply with rule 2.4 the timetable should be drawn up at the same time as the interlocutor appointing the curator ad litem and the reporting officer. That interlocutor must be pronounced after the petition is lodged (rule 2.7(1)). It will usually be too early, however, to draw up a detailed timetable at this stage because the areas of dispute, the availability of legal aid, documents and witnesses, and other matters with a bearing on the progress of the case will not yet be known. The timetable at this stage should therefore only specify the date of the first hearing (see paragraph 3.1 below). It is recommended that normally that date should be some six weeks after the date of interlocutor appointing the curator ad litem and the reporting officer. The reasons for selecting a period of six weeks is that the curator ad litem and the reporting officer must generally report within four weeks of the date of the interlocutor appointing them (rule 2.8(1), (2)), and thus the parties should have at least two weeks to consider their reports before the first hearing.
2.4 The Sheriff may select periods other than four weeks and six weeks since he or she has a discretion to select a period other than four weeks for the lodging of the reports. If selecting any other period it is necessary to keep in view the court's duty to determine 'without delay' the question whether consent should be dispensed with.
2.5 Although it may not be possible to draw up a detailed timetable at the outset of the proceedings, the drawing up of a further firm and realistic timetable or timetables and the need for adherence to them will be of central importance to the efficient management of the later stages of the case, as will appear from later paragraphs.
3. First hearing
3.1 Rule 2.11(1) requires the Sheriff to fix 'a diet of hearing' on receipt of the reports of the reporting officer and the curator ad litem. This is the hearing referred to above as 'the first hearing'. If it has not been fixed as part of the initial timetable, it should be fixed now for a date some two weeks ahead, as suggested in paragraph 2.3.
3.1.1 The object of the first hearing is to make preliminary inquiries with a view to ascertaining the likely scope of the dispute and to encouraging early preparation for the proof.
Before the first hearing
3.2 Before the first hearing the Sheriff should be prepared to engage in active management of the case.
3.2.1 He or she should have read the report lodged by the local authority which accompanies the petition, and checked that it contains the information required by rule 2.5(2)(b).
3.2.2 The Sheriff should also have read the reports of the curator ad litem and the reporting officer and checked that they similarly comply with rule 2.8(1) and (2).
3.2.3 The Sheriff should also have read any other documents lodged by the petitioners.
3.2.4 The Sheriff should have checked that intimation of the hearing has been made as required by rule 2.11(2).
At the first hearing
3.3 At the first hearing the attention of the Sheriff and all parties should be devoted to securing that the issues at the proof will be as sharply focused as is possible at that stage.
3.3.1 The Sheriff should ask the respondent or his or her solicitor to indicate in general terms the grounds of his or her opposition to the petition.
3.3.2 The Sheriff should ask the respondent or his or her solicitor whether the respondent has applied, or proposes to apply, for legal aid. If so, the respondent should be able to give the Sheriff at least as much information as is or will be in the legal aid memorandum.
3.3.3 The Sheriff should ask the respondent or his or her solicitor whether it is intended to instruct counsel or any expert witness and, if so, whether legal aid for that purpose has been or is to be applied for.
3.3.4 The Sheriff should ask the respondent or his or her solicitor whether they will be seeking to recover other documents and, if so, which documents. The Sheriff should ask the petitioners' solicitor if the petitioners will make these available to the respondent informally without the need for a commission and diligence, and if so, should fix a date by which those documents should be lodged with the court.
3.3.5 It is now for the Sheriff to determine further procedure. In many cases it will be advantageous to appoint a second hearing and thereafter a pre-proof hearing, as recommended in the following paragraphs. In other cases, however, the Sheriff may in the exercise of his or her discretion dispense with either or both of those hearings. For example, in a very simple case the Sheriff may instead continue the first hearing for a short period in order that any outstanding matters may be addressed and then, if satisfied that the issues in dispute have been clearly identified and the preparations for proof will be simple and straightforward, obtain the parties' estimates of the duration of the proof and assign a diet of proof (as in paragraphs 4.3.4-4.3.6 below).
3.3.6 If the Sheriff decides that a second hearing is appropriate, he or she should advise the parties that he or she is now going to fix a second hearing; and that before the second hearing they must have lodged the joint minute and minute of disputed issues referred to below, and must be prepared to give the Sheriff the information referred to below.
3.3.7 The date fixed for the second hearing should normally be no more than six weeks after the date of the first hearing.
4. Second hearing
4.1 The object of the second hearing is to make further preparations for the proof, to identify clearly the issues in dispute and to avoid having a lengthy and poorly focused proof. 'The principal duty of representatives in adoption proceedings is to identify the issues in dispute, and to lead evidence in relation to those issues.' (Macphail, Sheriff Court Practice (2 nd edn) paragraph 28.111). The following guidance is intended to assist the parties' representatives to carry out that duty.
Before the second hearing
THE JOINT MINUTE
4.2.1 Before the hearing the parties should enter into a joint minute. It is the responsibility of the petitioners' solicitor to draft the joint minute and send it to the respondent's solicitor for revisal. The petitioners' solicitor may use as a basis of the joint minute the material facts in the local authority's report which are considered not to be controversial. The parties' solicitors are expected to co-operate in the framing of the joint minute. It should be signed and lodged at least two working days before the hearing.
THE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED ISSUES
4.2.2 Before the hearing the respondent's solicitor should prepare a statement of disputed issues. It should specify the matters in the local authority's report which the respondent disputes, and should refer to the numbered paragraphs of the report in which these matters are stated. It should also specify any other issues which are not mentioned in the report but which the respondent intends to raised at the proof. Like the joint minute, it should be signed and lodged at least two working days before the hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL ISSUES, EVIDENCE AND PROOF DATES
4.2.3 Before the hearing the parties' solicitors should consider the matters mentioned in paragraphs 4.3.1-4.3.5 below in order that they may provide the Sheriff with sufficient information to enable him or her to conduct the hearing as provided for in these paragraphs.
At the second hearing
CONSIDERATION OF JOINT MINUTE AND STATEMENT
4.3.1 At the hearing the Sheriff should consider with the parties the contents of the joint minute and the statement of disputed issues. If necessary, the Sheriff should ask whether further facts can be agreed by joint minute. He or she may also seek clarification of any matter in the statement of disputed issues.
LEGAL ISSUES
4.3.2 The Sheriff should ask the parties if there are any questions of admissibility of evidence or any other legal issues, including any questions under the European Convention on Human Rights, that are likely to arise at the proof. If so, the Sheriff should consider whether they could with advantage be determined at this hearing rather than at the proof and, if so, should determine them at this hearing.
EVIDENCE
4.3.3 It should be noted that evidence may be presented in the form of affidavits or other written documents (Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988, section 2; McVinnie v McVinnie 1995 SLT (Sh Ct) 81; Glaser v Glaser 1997 SLT 456). The Sheriff is bound to consider reports placed before him or her even if the authors are not called to speak to them, and the strict rules of evidence do not apply ( T, Petitioner 1997 SLT 724 AT 730L). Such considerations may render the attendance of certain witnesses unnecessary, although for other reasons it may be preferable to call the author of a document. The Sheriff should therefore invite the parties to apply their minds to the question whether any evidence might be appropriately presented in the form of an affidavit or other document, and encourage them to decide that question at this hearing.
4.3.3.1 Where the author of a report is to be called as a witness, the Sheriff should order that the report is to be held to be equivalent to the witness's examination-in-chief, unless for special reasons he or she otherwise directs.
4.3.3.2 The Sheriff should ask the parties what further productions, if any, they intend to lodge. Any difficulties over the obtaining or lodging of documents should be raised and if possible resolved.
ESTIMATE OF DURATION OF PROOF
4.3.4 'It is essential . . . that the Sheriff should be given at the outset a carefully considered forecast of the time which the proof is expected to take.' ( Lothian Regional Council v A at 861L). It is therefore very important that the parties should pay close attention to this matter. The Sheriff should ask each party to specify in detail how long he expects to take in the presentation of his own evidence and in the cross-examination of the other side's witnesses. On the basis of that information the Sheriff should assess how many days should be set aside for the proof (including closing submissions). At the proof, parties may expect to be held to the estimates given at this hearing, unless in exceptional circumstances.
ASSIGNING THE DIET OF PROOF
4.3.5 Having assessed how many days are needed for the proof, the Sheriff should assign the diet. He or she should do so at the hearing, if necessary after consulting the Sheriff Clerk. The parties should have come to the hearing with a list of dates when their witnesses, including any expert witnesses, and counsel, if any, will be available. It is not generally a valid ground for postponing a proof that a party wishes to instruct particular counsel. The Sheriff should not, unless in highly exceptional circumstances, pronounce an interlocutor allowing a proof on dates to be afterwards fixed. If the dates cannot be fixed at the hearing, it will usually be preferable to continue the hearing for a few days and fix the dates at the continued hearing. The dates assigned should be consecutive working days.
4.3.6 The reason for those arrangements is that the Sheriff 'should be released from other duties so that he can give priority to the case without interruption and until it has been completed by the issuing of his interlocutor. Special arrangements of that kind are necessary if the sheriff is to maintain the continuity of thought throughout the proceedings which is so necessary to a proper disposal of the case.' ( Lothian Regional Council v A at 862A-B).
ASSIGNING THE PRE-PROOF HEARING
4.3.7 The Sheriff should also assign a pre-proof hearing on a date some two weeks before the proof.
4.3.8 In addition to assigning the pre-proof hearing the Sheriff should assign a date two weeks prior to the pre-proof hearing by which the parties must have lodged their productions and exchanged list of the witnesses who are to give oral evidence.
5.Pre-proof hearing
5.1 The purpose of the pre-proof hearing is to ascertain whether the parties are still in dispute and, if so, whether they are fully prepared for proof. The timetable must, however, be respected and a proof will be discharged only in highly exceptional circumstances.
6.The proof
6.1 If the guidance above is followed, the proof should not be unduly long. In any event, 'there is a heavy responsibility on the parties' representatives to exercise all reasonable economy and restraint in their presentation of the evidence and in their submissions to the court.' ( Lothian Regional Council v A at 862B).
6.2 Parties may expect to be held to their estimates of time taken for examination and cross-examination which they gave at the second hearing.
6.3 The Sheriff may intervene to discourage prolixity, repetition, the leading of evidence of unnecessary witnesses and the leading of evidence on matters which are unlikely to assist the court to reach a decision.
6.4 Before the hearing on evidence, the Sheriff may require the parties to submit draft findings in fact, or skeleton arguments, or both.
ADOPTION ORDERS
7.1 Part A of this Practice Note applies to contested applications for adoption orders.
7.2 Part B of this Practice Note applies to contested applications for adoption orders, mutatis mutandis.
7.3 In paragraph 2.3, for the reference to rule 2.7(1) there shall be substituted a reference to rule 2.25(1), and for the reference to rule 2.8(1), (2) a reference to rule 2.26(1), (2).
7.4 In paragraph 3.1, for the first two sentences there shall be substituted:
'Rule 2.28(1) requires the Sheriff to fix 'a diet of hearing' on receipt of the reports of the reporting officer and curator ad litem in respect of a child who is not free for adoption. Rule 2.28(2) provides that the Sheriff may fix 'a diet of hearing' on receipt of the report of the curator ad litem in respect of a child who is free for adoption. The hearing referred to above as 'the first hearing' is any diet of hearing fixed in terms of either of these rules.'
7.5 For paragraph 3.2.1 there shall be substituted:
'3.2.1 He or she should have read all the reports lodged with the petition and will have checked that a report by the local authority or adoption agency contains the information required by rule 2.21(3).'
7.6 In paragraph 3.2.2, for the reference to rule 2.8(1) and (2) there shall be substituted a reference to rule 2.26(1) and (2).
7.7 In paragraph 3.2.4, for the reference to rule 2.11(2) there shall be substituted a reference to rule 2.28(3).
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ORDERS
8.1 Part A of this Practice Note applies to contested applications for parental responsibilities orders.
8.2 Part B of this Practice Note applies to contested applications for parental responsibilities orders, mutatis mutandis.
8.3 In paragraph 2.3, for the reference to rule 2.7(1) there shall be substituted a reference to rule 2.39(1), and for the reference to rule 2.8(1), (2) a reference to rule 2.40(1), (2).
8.4 In paragraph 3.1, for the reference to rule 2.11(1) there shall be substituted a reference to rule 2.42(1).
8.5 For paragraph 3.2.1 there shall be substituted:
'3.2.1 He or she should have read any report received in terms of section 73(14) of the 1995 Act.'
8.6 In paragraph 3.2.2, for the reference to rule 2.8(1) and (2) there shall be substituted a reference to rule 2.40(1) and (2).
8.7 In paragraph 3.2.4, for the reference to rule 2.11(2) there shall be substituted a reference to rule 2.42(2).
APPENDIX
SPECIMEN SUBJECT SHEET
(Paragraph 1.4)
[ To be added]
Sheriff Principal of Lothian and Borders
00 September 2003
« Previous | Contents | Next »