« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Summary Justice Review Committee: REPORT TO MINISTERS
Chapter 15: ELECTRONIC COMPLAINTS
15.1 Section 138 of the 1995 Act requires the complaint to be signed by the procurator fiscal. Other documents required in the course of summary prosecutions also require personal signatures, such as citations and warrants. Hitherto the requirement for a personal signature has not been perceived to have disadvantages provided that the documents concerned are signed as required. We see no reason however why courts should not take full advantage of modern electronic storage and transmission. Nor do we see why, provided the technical issues are satisfactorily dealt with, the formality of a person's signature, which is a form of authentication, should not be replaced by electronic authentication. We are aware that work is being undertaken on the electronic authentication of documents in a wide range of applications involving official documents and where security is a primary consideration. We note that in this context that the Electronic Communications Act 2002 would require Scottish Ministers to satisfy themselves that an electronic system is no less satisfactory than the system it replaces. We recommend that these developments are applied where possible to documents used in summary courts.
15.2 To make best use of electronic facilities we recommend that the principal copy of the complaint, minutes and the like should be the electronic version (which, in the case of the complaint, would have been authenticated by the Crown in whatever manner may be determined prior to the complaint leaving the procurator fiscal's office on the ISCJIS system). Any hard copy of the complaint whether or not it included amendments to the charge(s) made during the course of a prosecution (of which there would be an electronic record) should be regarded as a copy, not as the principal complaint. Where cases are transferred from one court to another, the court to which the transfer is made should be regarded as holding the principals on its electronic database. Any copies of complaints, minutes etc. which are printed out should to be regarded as copies for the Crown, the accused or for use by the court. These copies should not require authentication or further authentication in the form of a signature by the procurator fiscal. If authentication of documents already stored electronically is required once a case has called in court it should be by an authorised officer of SCS, such as the clerk of court. That authentication, if required, would certify that it is a true copy of the electronic version.
15.3 Where cases are transferred from one court to another it should not be necessary to complete the physical transfer of hard copy documents before the receiving court can start dealing with the case. Physical transfer would no doubt take place in due course but we do not believe that the delays which could be involved in such a transfer need to be a feature of the system. So that the system can be seen to work fairly it may be necessary to provide that the accused or his or her solicitor may inspect online at the court the complaint and minutes relating to that case as of right. In time it ought to be possible to provide online access to such documents for solicitors and counsel at their office or chambers.
We recommend that the principal copy of the complaint, minutes and the like should be the electronic version, on the assumption that technical and security issues can be satisfactorily resolved.
We recommend that copies of complaints, minutes, etc. which are printed out should be regarded as copies for use by the court, the accused or the Crown.
We recommend that an accused or his or her solicitor should be able to inspect the electronic originals of such documents as of right.
« Previous | Contents | Next »